97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
As I mentioned in Al Gore Appears–Note to Warmers: No More Do-Overs!:
If at first they don’t succeed then they will deny and lie again! And that goes for the second time, the third, the fourth …. You get it – as never-ending as Florida recounts; it goes on and on until responsible people step in and put a stop to it.
From the ardent Internet believer in global warming “theory” who can’t provide any real scientific evidence, to the East Anglia researchers who insist that Climategate is merely a misunderstanding, to IPCC defenders who claim their reports are only in error by a few insignificant typos, to Al Gore still battling the imminent destruction of planet Earth by the evil “global warming pollutants,” there can never be too many chances to ignore defeat and start all over again – from the beginning.
OK … now … certainly if you’ve tried to follow the warmers arguments at all, you remember the claim of a “scientific consensus.” It was showcased in Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth. Supposedly, all credible scientists were absolutely certain that the things he said in his movie were true; just as surely as gravity exists and the earth is round.
It’s part of the basic propaganda formula. Claiming that everyone who’s anyone believes … is sometimes called the bandwagon technique. In this case, the “everyone” refers to scientists, and that adds an appeal to authority, another propaganda ploy. (related article on these techniques and others) Al Gore was very direct. “This isn’t me claiming these things,” he insisted. (I’m not going to watch the movie again to make sure I have this word for word, but it’s accurate.) “These are scientists.” And he went on to quote figures from a published article on how many articles had been published that referred to global warming.
Then Al Gore’s claims were reviewed. Lists of factual errors and speculations in his film were created, some longer than others. A British judge found misinformation and made it the law of the land to reveal and discuss them when showing the film to school children. It turned out that the paper on which the consensus claim was based misrepresented what scientists had said in their papers, and why they had even bothered to mention global warming. (Follow the money. The federal government was writing grant offerings in a wide variety of fields requiring its mention.) And even if the paper had been accurate, it had little very little to do with Al Gore’s specific claims.
Over 30,000 scientists signed a petition urging the United States to reject the Kyoto agreement, stating:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Additional petitions, such as the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change included scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders who had reviewed the evidence and affirmed that climate change is natural and normal and that carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant,” among other things.
Various surveys were conducted among scientists and practitioners in earth and atmospheric sciences showing much weaker support than warming propagandists had claimed. And then came Climategate, exposing the fraudulent science that had some scientists and so many non-scientists believing that something more had been going on than actually was. Belief in catastrophic man-made global warming dropped like a rock in all quarters.
Did I say global warming propagandists always want to start over again no matter how many times they lose the debate? Yes I did, and here we go.
Before quickly commenting on the cause, take a look at the effect. USA Today titles a June 22 article Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real. Excerpts:
The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.
The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.”
…..
As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.
The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provided a hit-list of scientists whom the authors claim should not be believed on the subject of global warming. Holy politically motivated blacklist!!!! This is exactly the complaint made by credible scientists about the bias in scientific publications on climate; one of the elements of the scam highlighted by Climategate emails. Warming propagandists make systematic efforts to shut other scientists out to keep their fraudulent work from being exposed.
The authors hand picked the 1,372 scientists in their review, a small portion of the 10s of thousands of scientists who have weighed in on the subject, and made up their own criteria for determining agreement with the IPCC and for determining who’s credible and who’s not. If the public pays much attention to this paper – I personally guarantee you’ll be hearing more about the bias, misrepresentations, and misleading illogic that this paper has to offer.
Meanwhile, the IPCC is in critical condition. Warmers are trying to save it, and start up the eternal do-overs to bring it some credibility in the eyes of the non-scientific public – or at least give cover to continuing political efforts on Cap-n-Trade and government takeovers through PR tricks like reorganization and instruction manuals for good conduct. Why isn’t there a law demanding that these people let the dead horse rest in peace?
Possibly related posts...
This entry was posted
on Sunday, July 18th, 2010 at 6:02 pm and is filed under Analysis, Conservatism, Crime, Current Events, Economics, Environment, International Politics, Partisan Politics, Politics, Science & Nature, Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 4,372 views |
Trackback | 
Print This Post
|
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
Very interesting Poptech. Somebody had to do it. Now I wonder if these results will be published in PNAS.
The PNAS paper has been completely discredited,
Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/08/google-scholar-illiteracy-in-pnas.html
“A recent paper published in the PNAS, “Expert credibility in climate change” is being used as propaganda to claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the IPCC and the need for government action on climate change. An analysis of this paper does not support these conclusions.
PNAS reviewers and author’s William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 16,000 from the Guardian, 52,000 from Newsweek and 115,000 from the New York Times. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar.”
Warmers are anti-science. Appeal to authority teaches nothing. Science is about why and how. Climate “science” is not real science. Its professors are not qualified or worthy to teach at American universities.
The Difference between ‘True Science’ and ‘Cargo-Cult Science’
And also:
Yet Another Climategate Review : Global Warming Fears Not Based on Science
The Climategate Whitewash
Desperate days for warmists
…. A second technique the warmists have used lately to keep their spirits up has been to repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the “Climategate” scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been “vindicated”. But, as has been pointed out by critics like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, this is hardly surprising, since the inquiries were careful not to interview any experts, such as himself, who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging.
The perfunctory report of the Science Appraisal Panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, examined only 11 papers produced by the CRU, none of them remotely connected to what the fuss was all about. Last week Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, revealed on his blog (Bishop Hill – bishophill.squarespace.com) that the choice of these papers was approved for the inquiry by Sir Brian Hoskins, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, and by Phil Jones, the CRU’s former director – an appraisal of whose work was meant to be the purpose of the inquiry. ….
@Vincent said, “fossil fuel lobby”…
The problem with this argument is that it misses the point. I’m all for getting off of the oil bandwagon. That’s a national security issue, in my opinion. But don’t try to manipulate me into favoring green energy with The Big Lie of climate change. I like green energy, but I don’t like being lied to or manipulated.
Lots of other people feel the same way. Man-made climate change is a crock. Frankly I’d much rather the US spend a trillion dollars that we don’t have on solar panel infrastructure and windmills rather than prosecuting no-value wars in the middle east and Afghanistan.
Stop trying to sell climate change to people who don’t want to buy it. Get another shovel, and give me a tax break to put a new solar panel on my roof.
The scientists were cleared by three independent panels.
Though the damage was done by the massive campaign by the fossil fuel lobby, creating doubt in the publics mind. Now a politican won’t even dare say climate change. That should please both of you Squiggy and Roger. You should celebrate; the energy/climate bill is a no go.
Hope neither one of you lives in a region being hit by record heat, drought, once in a hundred year flooding, oil spill. coal mine accidents. Oh, save your pesos (don’t save in US) for the time petro goes through the roof after the world economny rebounds and demand outsrips supply again. We must just have to invade another country to get our share.
A list of 750 peer-reviewed scientific publications skeptical of man-made global warming theory.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
(Al Gore should be hanged.)
Baby Girl Survives 3 Days With Bullet Inside Her
A baby girl survived three days with a bullet in her chest as she lay alone beside the dead bodies of her parents and toddler brother in Argentina, the Daily Mail reported.
Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their 7-month-old daughter and son, 2, before killing themselves. The pair allegedly agreed to a suicide pact over fears about global warming, according to the Daily Mail.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/01/baby-girl-survives-days-bullet-inside/
Rog,
funny how the Oxford debate wasn’t on regular news reports.
MJ?
Sorry for peeing on your Mother Earth religion. Okay fine, I agree with you. Alternative energy.
I’ve looked very hard into going “off-the-grid”. It’ll cost about seventy-five-thousand dollars for the solar panels and the inverter, and another twenty or so for the storage batteries (you know, for nighttime?). I would dearly love to do this, so there is only one question – Where do I get my check?
P.S. Your statement about a “Gulf beach-place” says a lot. You say that like you mean “vacation home”. You a trust-fund baby? If so, how about YOU cutting me a check for my environmentalist dreams?
TO MJ
\”Meanwhile, the IPCC is in critical condition. Warmers are trying to save it, and start up the eternal do-overs to bring it some credibility in the eyes of the non-scientific public – or at least give cover to continuing political efforts on Cap-n-Trade and government takeovers through PR tricks like reorganization and instruction manuals for good conduct. Why isn’t there a law demanding that these people let the dead horse rest in peace?\” The IPCC was dead on arrival as a \”scientific\” body.From day one they had already decided that CO2 was the culprit,and thus needed to find/create the data to support that claim. It was exactly backwards to what they should be doing. It is a governmental prior i and that is why they are a mess today.
Roger, I do not hope that a sludge pond of toxic coal ash breaks and floods your home. Perhaps, by chance you have a beach place on the Gulf that is covered with oil. Or maybe you have close loved ones in the Middle East protecting our vital interests so we can import 67% of our oil.
Perhaps then when the PAIN hits you personally, you may wake up and support true conservation and alternative energy.
The planet is already passed the stage of warming, we’re looking in the rear view mirror.
Futhermore, as we wait to promote other energy sources, Peak Oil is staring us in the face.
I feel very sorry for you.
Squiggy
You’re quite right. That’s why most the “debate” is being carried out the way it is; articles and interviews and counter articles and interviews but never the participants on opposite sides shall meet – separate journals – separate meetings ….
There was that short, funny debate between Bill Nye and Joe Bastardi on Fox,
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/02/23/global-warming-advocates-two-iq-points-short-of-a-pin-head-perhaps/
and Lord Mockton won an official debate at the Oxford union.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/
no matter how many times they lose the debate?
Warmists debate? Dream on. They will never debate anyone, ever.
Even the ones who comment on your articles never debate – they just put a bunch of links out and call that an “argument”. And they most definitely never answer back on anything you point out. If it’s not listed on their talking points, with a weblink attached, it is invisible to them.
The American government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/18/doe-funding-for-cru-placed-on-hold/