A statistically representative climate change debate

“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”

###

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
 
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.
 
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[20]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[21]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[22]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[25]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[26]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[27]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[28][29]
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[30]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[31]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[32]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[33]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[34]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[35]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[36]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[37]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[38]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[39]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[40]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[41]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[42]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[43]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[44][45]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[46]
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[47]
Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University[48]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[49][50]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[51]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[52][53][54]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[55]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[56]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[57]
George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[58]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[59]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[60]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[61]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[62]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[63][64]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[65]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[66]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[67]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[68]
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[69]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[70]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [71]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[72]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[73]
 
fhl said:
the science orgs are a bunch of political hacks who falsely claim to speak for everyone....
More...
I saw a documentary of sorts just a few days ago. As I recall 1/3 of professional scientists admit to falsifying data one or more times in their career. And of course those are just the ones who admitted it.

Even Einstein is known to have "fudged" trying to proof E=MC2.
 
you have to ask yourself, how many scientists are lucky enough to paid for honest results.

the pressure on the drug scientists
the govt funding in the billions for pro agw
the food and chemical guys
the food and genetic guys

the research guys who must be forced to fudge to keep their research efforts a live.

the climate guys who just to stop service the temperature stations which go against the result they need.

the real question is where do we find the honest ones who still get to eat.
 
How many scientists get to do science and have no pressure on their results.
I would like to see the percentages.

Eat, pay your mortgage or what.
 
Jem, it's common sense. CO2 is a GHG. 40% rise due to us. Think about it for a second ..........or an hour. However long it takes a common sense thing like this to make sense to you.


It really is 97% .......................and all the world's sci orgs. You are ridiculous.
 
futurecurrents said:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities... The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
More...
ROFL!!!! .The AMA is part of your 97% of "climate scientists?"

77% of physicians say the AMA does not represent their views, not that doctors are "climate scientists" anyway, unless you count as a "climate scientist" anyone who agrees with your delusions.

The only 97% is the percentage of days you have sex with your inflatable Obama boyfriend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top