Here is the previous post… UPDATED last on November, 2018:
Older Post >>>>
Even a skeptic of Marc Morano’s recent article admits he is right about the 97% claim:
- CLAIM: “Basically, [Marc Morano’s] critique is that the study sample size was too small to make a conclusive determination about the level of expert consensus. That’s a valid point…”
- RESPONSE: So Nuccitelli admits my point about “77 anonymous” scientists making up the alleged 97 percent consensus is “a valid point.”
DORAN / ZIMMERMAN
In a recent conversation, a specific study was mentioned as a challenge to me:
- Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change ~ Peter Doran, Maggie Zimmerman
Continuing, he noted:
I merely pointed out the major flaw in the study via WUWT, noting the full questions from the study… and actions taken for question #2 dependent on how #1 is answered:
Now we see why only 77 of those specialist dealing with climate responded. WUWT continues…
I merely mention then that is a false statement. For more on this and other studies, see, THE FRIEND’S OF SCIENCE PDF. Keep in mind NASA still uses this study that would be laughed out of a 101 level statistical class as part of their 97% defense.
In a discussion with a person online about “consensus,” he list some retorts proving his point. I do not have time to refute everything he posts. So I will only deal with his first link:
- So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
- Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
- The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
By the way, from that FORBES article I really liked this part:
Two things. LOT’S of money is involved in “proving” global warming. Which is unlike the skeptics monetary situation. Also, take note that the jump in logic is connecting Man’s CO2 to rising temperatures. By doing so, politicians get the power to get more power (legislate over peoples actions as well as businesses), and it allows these same politicians to tax people to fund their coffers, and then to pay for more studies. And round-and-round we go. Dr. Richard Lindzen observes that these people are really saying that “…regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”
Here is a great quick refutation of multiple studies (with the link to a more in-depth PDF). Enjoy: