THE “97%” Climate Consensus Lie Nailed

97_percent_busted.jpg

ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made global warming climate change”…

Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.

  • How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
  • 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
  • 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
  • If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate experts alarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?

Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

•••

These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…

petition-warming-screenshot.jpg

31,487 Sigs (9,029 PHD’s) Global Warming Petition Project

The “97%” Hoax Related :

consensus-peer-review-climate.gif

Advertisements

Triumph of the Sceptics!

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of 
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

•••

Sceptic Majority

Follow up column from yesterdays post – CSIRO: Most Australians Are Now Global Warming Sceptics | Climatism …

CSIRO survey shows more Aussies are cool on warming

  • HERALD SUN
  • NOVEMBER 05, 2015 12:00AM

IT’S a miracle. Most Australians are now global warming sceptics, despite years of being misled by the media.

A CSIRO survey of more than 5000 people has confirmed it, even though warmist reporters tried to spin it.

For the first time since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth claimed man was heating the world to disaster, Australians who believe this scare are outnumbered by those who don’t. True, a worrying 45.9 per cent of Australians do still think man is mostly to blame for what warming we’ve seen over the past several decades.

But those believers are now outnumbered by people who think this warming is natural (38.6 per cent) or not occurring at all (7.9 per cent) — which means sceptics total 46.5 per cent. The rest don’t know.

In fact, even 19 per cent of Greens voters are sceptics. Yes, the shift is that huge. What a tribute to the good sense of Australians.

For nearly a decade, reporters claimed the vast majority of you believed man really was heating the world dangerously. And the media campaigned furiously to make sure you did. You were bombarded with propaganda. Your doubts were mocked. You were told that the world’s temperature was soaring, when there’s actually been no significant warming of the atmosphere for some 18 years.

You were told we were getting more and worse cyclones, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report in fact admits neither seems true and, if anything, we’re getting fewer.

You were told by Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 that warming could dry out the dams of Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide within a couple of years because “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”. Except it did, repeatedly, to the point of flooding.

You were told by the ABC’s chief science presenter, Robyn Williams, the seas could rise up to 100 metres this century, thanks to a dramatic melting of the Antarctic — which NASA last week conceded was instead increasing in ice mass.

You were told by the UN that the world’s food crops would fail, when they’ve instead set new records.

You were told to beware of giant hailstones (Professor Ross Garnaut), dengue fever (Professor Tony McMichael), tsunamis (World Vision boss Tim Costello), killer heatwaves (Professor Peter Doherty), seas as high as “an eight-storey building” (Flannery), a “permanent drought” (Greens leader Bob Brown) and a dead Great Barrier Reef by 2050 (Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg).

Your politicians, with rare exceptions, failed you. They should have challenged this disgraceful alarmism. Instead, they exploited it and even forced you to pay billions for fake schemes and taxes to “stop” a warming that actually halted or dramatically slowed nearly two decades ago.

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

Yet this miracle has occurred. You’ve kept your heads when so many journalists tried so hard to make you panic.

In fact, they’re still at it, even with this report, which the warmist CSIRO quietly slipped out among the distractions of Melbourne Cup day.

None of the media reports pointed out the central finding: that believers in man-made global warming are now in a minority in Australia.

Instead, they tried to bury it with spin. Typically, the ABC was worst, actually giving the impression that global warming faith was as strong as ever. “Research by the CSIRO has found more than three quarters of Australians agree climate change is happening,” it burbled, “with divisions emerging along political lines”. Excuse me, but this debate has never been about whether “climate change is real”.

Of course, it’s real. The climate always changes. The real debate is what caused what warming we’ve seen — and whether more warming is bad and worth trying to stop.

The Sydney Morning Herald and Age were little better, spinning the CSIRO’s results into a story of how Coalition voters were numbskulls — the holdouts refusing to “accept” the truth: “Barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly caused by humans,” its tut-tutting report began.

It even added the hope, expressed by an alarmist scientist, that new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could save the Liberals from this error: “Many Coalition voters will take their cue from the PM and shift their views.”

Don’t count on it, champ. He tried to shift the views of Coalition supporters the last time he was Liberal leader and it cost him his job.

Face facts: the public smells the warmist bull and is finally crying: “Enough!” The time for truth is now.

•••

See also :

Global Warming “Pause” related :

Sceptic related :

CSIRO related :


CSIRO: Most Australians Are Now Global Warming Sceptics

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

A new survey from Australia’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, shows that most Global warming believers are now in the minority!

The findings demonstrate that the majority of the population are not stupid, and see straight through and reject the endless ‘climate change’ alarmism and propaganda that is drilled into them day and night from the global-warming-crisis-industry and complicit mainstream media.

Hats off to the sceptical majority for maintaining their independence of thought, and not being tempted into the comfort of groupthink.

•••

Andrew Bolt picks apart the CSIRO study in his Herald Sun Blog :

The Sydney Morning Herald misses the most astonishing finding of the CSIRO study to complain that Malcolm Turnbull leads a party of sceptics:

Barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly caused by humans, with more than half of Liberal voters believing changes to global temperatures are natural, according to a CSIRO survey.

And it holds out false hope:

Andy Pitman, Director of ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, predicted that many Coalition voters will take their cue from the new PM and shift their views.

They didn’t last time, Mr Pitman. No, this is a reminder to Malcolm Turnbull not to push his luck too hard as leader of a party far more sceptical than he is:

But this Herald report misses the most startling finding: only a minority of Australians now think man is mostly to blame for global warming. More think global warming is largely natural or not happening:

image

Incredibly, even 19 per cent of Greens voters are now sceptics, too:

image

Despite the media’s best efforts, there has been a huge shift in opinion. The global warming scare is dying.

Mind you, another drought – inevitable in this continent – could keep the scare going for a while yet.

•••

Related :

CSIRO Related :


The journal Nature embraces ‘the pause’ and ocean cycles as the cause, Trenberth still betting his heat will show up

Watts Up With That?

From the “settled science” department. It seems even Dr. Kevin Trenberth is now admitting to the cyclic influences of the AMO and PDO on global climate. Neither “carbon” nor “carbon dioxide” is mentioned in this article that cites Trenberth as saying: “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,”

This is significant, as it represents a coming to terms with “the pause” not only by Nature, but by Trenberth too.

nature_the_pause

Excerpts from the article by Jeff Tollefson:

The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in…

View original post 770 more words


A cooling consensus

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

Screen Shot 2013-08-22 at , August 22, 6.06.23 PM

Climate change

A cooling consensus

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: “Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections”.

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries. Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that “we cannot afford to wait”. More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus.

Of course, if the consensus climate models turn out to be falsified just a few years later, average temperature having remained at levels not even admitted to be have been physically possible, the authority of consensus will have been exposed as rather weak. The authority of expert consensus obviously strengthens as the quality of expertise improves, which is why it’s quite sensible, as matter of science-based policy-making, to wait for a callow science to improve before taking grand measures on the basis of its predictions.   

Anyway, Mr Cohn cites a few scientists who are unruffled by the surprisingly slow warming.

It might seem like a decade-long warming plateau would cause a crisis for climate science. It hasn’t. Gerald Meehl, a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has seen hiatus periods before. They “occur pretty commonly in the observed records,” and there are climate models showing “a hiatus as long as 15 years.” As a result, Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” Those much-cited computer models are composed of numerous simulations that individually account for naturally occurring variability. But, Meehl says, “the averages cancel it out.”

Isn’t this transparently ad hoc. The point of averaging is to prune off exceedingly unlikely possibilities. It does not vindicate a model to note that it gives no weight—that it “cancels out”—its only accurate constitutive simulations.

If “hiatus periods are commonly observed” is the right way to think about the current warming plateau, then the rest of Mr Cohn’s article, examining various explanations of the puzzle of the hiatus would be unnecessary. But, as all the pieces discussing the warming plateau make perfectly clear, climate scientists are actually pretty baffled about the failure of their predictions. Is it the oceans? Clouds? Volcanoes? The sun? An artifact of temperature data?

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that

In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity.

But his attempt to minimise the political relevance of this is unconvincing. He writes:

The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.

But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. As this paper has maintained:

If … temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.

We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.

•••

Related:

Modelling Climate Alarmism


Rodney Hide: NZ PM’s Scientific Adviser Talks Non-Science

  • “Consensus is the cachet of politics, not science.”
  • “It’s not what people think or say that matters in science but what objective reality does.”
  • “Consensus doesn’t decide science. The facts do.”
  • “The theory of man-induced catastrophic global warming rules out next-to-nothing and tells us next-to-nothing.”
  • “The global warming scare is more akin to a modern-day religion than science. “
  • “Science doesn’t argue from authority, elected position, or status. It’s the objective world that decides science; not governments.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

science-v-politics-cartoonFrom New Zealand’s National Business Review:

The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has done us all a favour and provided a textbook illustration of the difference between science and non-science.

His recent report, New Zealand’s Changing Climate and Oceans, boldly predicts an average temperature increase of 2.1 degrees Celsius by 2090. That prediction is the key give-away. It’s not science; it’s prophecy.

Science makes bold and surprising predictions but about the here and now, not a hundred years hence. The difference is that scientific predictions are testable whereas prophecies aren’t.
We won’t know for a hundred years whether Sir Peter’s prediction stacks up and the historical experience with prophecies is that there are always excuses when their time is up.

But that’s not all. The Gluckman Report tiresomely declares there’s scientific consensus for the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming. But so what? Consensus is the…

View original post 437 more words