Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Debunking the 97% 'Consensus' on Global Warming

Thomas Lifson writes:

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."
"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."

The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.

Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:

The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.


  1. The same morons who were railing against a looming ice age back in the 70s hitched their wagon to the global warming crusade in the 90s. Given that we've seen no appreciable warming since 1998, they seamlessly switched to "climate change," as if the climate's normal behavior is to remain perfectly static year after year. Hogwash.

    This whole environmental scare tactic should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ. This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power and control.

    Their goal is to cripple the market economy and replace it with a corporatist-fascist oligopoly. I'd say they're succeeding. What better way to do so than to have the entire world on a fiat paper currency system, with the masses laden with debt that can't possibly be repaid?

    1. 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record. 1998 is a cherry picked year. You prove that you don't know anything by claiming there has been no warming since 1998. There has been warming since 1999.

      You're parroting a lot of discredited nonsense and then the cherry on top is some weird conspiracy theory.

      You contradict yourself when you complain about fiat currency and then claim the debt can't be repaid. It's one of those "throw a bunch of bad stuff into a sentence even though they don't relate."

      who is the debt owed to? what would happen if the debt is not repaid?

    2. It's easy to check from many sources that there has been very little warming and the warming has been below the predictions of all the so-called "expert" models.

    3. Those scientists in the 70's were right to worry about a looming ice age as it was then that they discovered incontrovertible evidence that for the last 1 million years a 100,000 year repeating ice age cycle has been underway. 90,000 years of each cycle is spent at a devastating 9 degr C average cooler temp than our comfy current climes. The 10,000 year long interglacials, like the one that we are close to the end of now, are little breaks from the cold.
      And the ice core data that revealed this history does not lie. No climatologist will deny that these cycles have prevailed and will continue... well not really. You see, all the global warming fear mongers who are familiar with the facts of the ice age cycles will only talk about them when forced to. These cycles are in our kids text books as absolute facts. I agree with these facts being in the text books because this is the stuff of science. What the fear mongers would most definitely not like to see is the wider public start discussing what they are teaching our kids in school about climate science. Kids just don't have the analytical horse power to make the connection: Hmmm, ice age cycles that have been going on like clockwork. Hmmm, now we have human generated CO2 that causes warming. Hmmm, what if that CO2 could actually prevent us falling into the next ice age? Hmmm, wouldn't that count as geoengineering in the name of saving us all from the otherwise impending ice age? Well the kids should not feel bad because they just need a few million more neural links made/ pruned to become liable for lapses in their analytical abilities. Its the adults sitting in that auditorium, you know, the graduate students and post docs, who just watched in awe as Al Gore did his best to scare the bejesus out of us all with his graphs. They failed the test, utterly. I've grilled a lot of well educated liberals by now and not a one has failed to look like a deer in the headlights when presented with this conundrum. They all freeze up and look most uncomfortable, as if NPR hadn't prepared them for basic questions like these. A very real upshot is that those who come after us had better hope like the Dickens that our car exhaust can prevent that 9 degree C temperature drop they will otherwise have to endure (most would not). I for one, as a North American, would be none too pleased to have a mile thick ice sheet bulldozing me toward our southern border. That's the kind of BS our swarthy ancestors had to put up with every
      time that short interglacial came to its guaranteed end.

  2. " What better way to do so than to have the entire world on a fiat paper currency system, with the masses laden with debt that can't possibly be repaid?"

    Oh, I dunno...

    ...Have them on a digital currency system, where very micro transaction can be tracked and taxed, and dissidents can have their accounts frozen at a whim?

  3. It's gratifying to see one of the oligarchs' idiot scares fail so badly, but as noted, the fascist agenda marches on unimpeded just the same...

  4. "It must be true, because we all agree that it is true." Mmmmkay