The “97% of Scientists” Claim is a Lie

_{Barry Arrington

December 31, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Comments

Here's a nice article on the so called 97% scientific consensus that the liberal left wing media likes to put out whenever the issue is brought up. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2015/03/11/settled-science-scam/ Now is there actual heating that is manmade? Yes of course there is, but it isn't from CO2, it's from things called cities and blacktop pavement. The effects are generally local, but they are there. I suppose it may have some wider effects if the metropolis' are very large and the downwind side of Dallas is usually a degree or two higher. I'm just using anecdotal experience, but it was on the local news once. There are studies that have been done, but it isn't necessary to cite any of them as it is a well known fact that cities are warmer than rural areas generally. If it wasn't for the political left wing solutions to "fix" AGW I may have listened more to their arguments for it, but alas there is so much ripping off of the American middle class that I am going to have to see some actual sea level rise before being convinced. I've been to Fl. and the people who have lived there all their lives haven't been able to detect any. Same for the Pacific and Newport Beach's Balboa Island in CA. which is 3 ft below mean high tide and is surrounded by a seawall and is covered with multi million dollar homes. I used to live there when I was teenager as my Dad managed to get some rich woman to marry him. It was nice and still is and according to my brother the ocean hasn't risen there either. I lived there in the mid 60's which is also my age as well. Also where is the big mat of floating plastic garbage in the Pacific? They have an article about why there isn't more and where is it? Over at LiveScience.com http://www.livescience.com/46598-ocean-plastic-is-missing.html You know it isn't a coincidence that the same group of people that warned of Nuclear Winter, we were all going to run out of gas by now and the Population Bomb and the founders of the EPA are also the same crowd losing sleep and taking valium worrying about Global Warming and how WE HAVE TO STOP IT. Us, as in mankind is going to stop the weather from changing. Their solution is to turn us into a 2nd World country to soothe their guilty consciences by ruining our economy while India and China keep polluting the heck out of their own countries. I believe it was one of the Indian ministers who said if we want them to stop building coal plants then we would have to pay them, what was it he said, 12 trillion dollars or some other outrageous amount? Kind of hard to go along with this nonsense that even if it were true isn't going to be solved by any government. Now there is a statement I can get behind and support.jimmontg_{January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Andre: Do you know who wrote the paper that CO2 might be a greenhouse gas that is warming the world? That would be Arrhenius in 1896. However, at that time, it was thought the oceans were sufficient to absorb excess CO2 in the amounts then being emitted. ETA: More specifically, he showed that historical changes in surface temperature due to CO2 concentrations were amplified by water vapor.Zachriel_{January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Andre, Ok, I looked him up. I see that he was an important oceanographer who studied global warming and also knew Al Gore. Still not sure what this has to do with the proposition that human-caused global warming is impossible. That's really a physical question and has nothing to do with Al Gore's wealth.daveS_{January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

DaveS Read up on Roger Revelle...Andre_{January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Andre, I believe it was Arrhenius. Is that supposed to tell me something?daveS_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

DaveS Do you know who wrote the paper that CO2 might be a greenhouse gas that is warming the world? I think you need to start there and see where it leads and why Al Gore is the first carbon billionaire. Good luck with your research.Andre_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Happy New Year, Vy! :)daveS_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Right. The problem is, neither Wile nor Hartnett would know what to do with this, because only about the last 1% of these graphs exist in their “worldview”.
So now we have a bait-and-switch and a strawman AND a red-herring AND another genetic fallacy! Bravo!
I don’t see much chance of a productive discussion
No kiddin'. It's like you merged with some Zachriel creature to produce a really terrible mutant because your last few comments are really pathetic.Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Vy,
Lovely display of willful ignorance.
Right. The problem is, neither Wile nor Hartnett would know what to do with this, because only about the last 1% of these graphs exist in their "worldview". I don't see much chance of a productive discussion, so you can have the last word.daveS_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

And oh, here's the rest of that your nicely selected quote:
However, the longest-running warming experiment in the Arctic demonstrates just the opposite. In fact, not only does the enhanced plant growth offset the loss of carbon in the soil, it ends up taking in extra carbon, which would fight the effects of any global warming that might have occurred.
Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

That’s not happening here.
Lovely display of willful ignorance.
Wile simply can’t address the complete set of climate evidence...
And the so called "evidence" is riddled with frauds and forgeries. Way to go!
...because of his YEC views. I don’t see how there is much basis for discussion with him, when his beliefs are so far divorced from reality.
Wow! This is coming from a guy who believes probablymaybecouldness created life and the materialistic myth that he's nothing but a bag of chemicals controlled by the laws of physics. Projection much?
Can you tell me when this effect is going to kick in and save us?
Save us from what?
If CO2 concentrations continue to rise, when should we get concerned?
When these microbes, among other things, begin to budge, then you can claim that CO2 levels are rising to significant levels that would lend support to alarmist claims.Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Vy,
You do realize what a genetic fallacy is right?
Yes, of course. That's not happening here. Wile simply can't address the complete set of climate evidence because of his YEC views. I don't see how there is much basis for discussion with him, when his beliefs are so far divorced from reality.
Me: I will just note that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, despite this mechanism. Vy: And that is significant because?
The Wile blog post argues this:
In other words, the warmer the Arctic gets, the more carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Now remember what the United Nations confidently told us. They said that the enhanced plant growth could not possibly offset the devastating amount of carbon released when the permafrost melts.
Can you tell me when this effect is going to kick in and save us? If CO2 concentrations continue to rise, when should we get concerned?daveS_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

computerist: That’s right, and the mathematician would not know whether the plumber did a good job or not the same way one particular climate change expert would not know whether another particular climate change expert did a good job or not. Flows downhill. Check. Warming troposphere and surface, cooling stratosphere. Check. computerist: This further invalidates the 97% consensus argument as this confirms that one particular expert normally does not have the ability to rate/ascertain another particular experts results, since of course there is a vast array of climate change expert types. No. That doesn't make sense. While there are different specialties, they overlap. That's one reason we know that climate science is a valid field of study. The overlap provides crosschecks. For instance, atmospheric scientists predict greenhouse warming based on first principles; temperature measurements show a warming trend at the surface, and a cooling trend in the stratosphere; glaciologists document glaciers in retreat; oceanographers find that seas are acidifying; etc. More particularly, researchers have found the those specialists that are closest to climate science are most likely to support the consensus view. The farther away from climate science, the less likely to support the consensus view.Zachriel_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Zachriel,
That’s right. If you are an expert in the field then you may make your own determination. But even experts are ignorant about most things. It’s why general practitioners make referrals to specialists. It’s why a paleontologist will confer with a geologist. It’s why a mathematician will hire a plumber.
That's right, and the mathematician would not know whether the plumber did a good job or not the same way one particular climate change expert would not know whether another particular climate change expert did a good job or not. This further invalidates the 97% consensus argument as this confirms that one particular expert normally does not have the ability to rate/ascertain another particular experts results, since of course there is a vast array of climate change expert types. The notion of "agreed upon" fails in this circumstance.computerist_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
We can’t explain past climate change without reference to changes in greenhouse gases, and we can’t explain the current trend without reference to changes in greenhouse gases.
That isn't an argument. Try againVirgil Cain_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!!- not quite what the warming alarmists predicted.Virgil Cain_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

computerist: So ignorant people will more likely appeal to consensus/ arguments from authority, which is true. That's right. If you are an expert in the field then you may make your own determination. But even experts are ignorant about most things. It's why general practitioners make referrals to specialists. It's why a paleontologist will confer with a geologist. It's why a mathematician will hire a plumber. computerist: We can determine the signs and/or symptoms of cancer while having the benefit of statistics from past individuals (certain signs and/or symptoms give a probability or risk factor that one may have cancer in order to undergo further testing). Those statistics typically provided by expert researchers. computerist: In the case of climate change we don’t have too many planet earths around as comparative statistical analysis or reference points That's right. But we do have the history of Earth's climate, and a good understanding of the physics involved. computerist: and the fact that the climate has been changing anyways doesn’t lend support to climate change (anthropogenic) That's false. We can't explain past climate change without reference to changes in greenhouse gases, and we can't explain the current trend without reference to changes in greenhouse gases. computerist: From my experience, 3 close relatives and friends have passed away due to cancer (3 different forms), they lived on average 6-9 months after diagnosis, all followed the consensus, all on chemotherapy. Sorry to hear that. Chemotherapy is not a panacea. It depends on the type of cancer, and how early it is detected. Sometimes there is no treatment capable of extending quality life.Zachriel_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

The record is very clear. You linked to articles that misrepresented the paper.
Something sure is clear - your continuous projection. Keep it up ;)Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Zachriel,
The evidence always trumps an appeal to authority, however, most people are a poor judge of evidence outside their own areas of expertise. While the 3% may be right, the 97% of specialists who say you have cancer would compel most people to seriously consider a course of action based on that consensus.
So ignorant people will more likely appeal to consensus/ arguments from authority, which is true. We can determine the signs and/or symptoms of cancer while having the benefit of statistics from past individuals (certain signs and/or symptoms give a probability or risk factor that one may have cancer in order to undergo further testing). In the case of climate change we don't have too many planet earths around as comparative statistical analysis or reference points, and the fact that the climate has been changing anyways doesn't lend support to climate change (anthropogenic) and its proposed disastrous consequences. The idea of "climate change" itself is circular, the climate has always been changing by definition. I would argue this makes it far more unclear than simply saying one either has cancer or doesn't based on a before -> after state.
That is, unless you plan to conduct your own trials.
From my experience, 3 close relatives and friends have passed away due to cancer (3 different forms), they lived on average 6-9 months after diagnosis, all followed the consensus, all on chemotherapy. Success!computerist_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

The local temps changed by 40 degrees in just a couple days- 40 degrees colder. Does that mean there was a huge decrease in local CO2? :razz:Virgil Cain_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Vy: You quoted the paper 3 times and provided A citation to A paper that used circularly reasoned demonstrably false assertions. The record is very clear. You linked to articles that misrepresented the paper. computerist: The 97% to 3% is an experts stat not an experts vs. non-experts stat. I would look at what the 3% has to say on the matter, and judge it for myself. The evidence always trumps an appeal to authority, however, most people are a poor judge of evidence outside their own areas of expertise. While the 3% may be right, the 97% of specialists who say you have cancer would compel most people to seriously consider a course of action based on that consensus. computerist: And given your cancer analogy, if equally 97% said that chemotherapy was the best course of action for treatment, I would reason as above, would look at its success rate (which is very low) and its side effects and likely take alternative course of action. The success rate is determined by experts in the field. That is, unless you plan to conduct your own trials. By the way, chemotherapy can extend quality life in many cases. As for balancing the chances of success, the side-effects of treatment, your expected lifespan, and so on, these are non-scientific judgments that are personal, though informed by science. If the consensus says a course of treatment will provide you a 60% chance of living one more year, you may find that not worth the suffering and expense of undergoing the treatment. The scientific findings, as tentative as they may be, is something provided to you, not something you determine for yourself. On the other hand, desperate people often turn to the 3% in the hopes of a cure when the consensus is dire. You know, the vast conspiracy to keep the miracle cure from the American public.Zachriel_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Zachriel,
If 97% of medical professionals say you likely have cancer, then you should seriously consider possible courses of action. While a consensus of experts in a field may not be necessarily correct about matters in their own field, they are more likely to be correct than non-experts. Policy-makers need to account for the best available science.
The 97% to 3% is an experts stat not an experts vs. non-experts stat. I would look at what the 3% has to say on the matter, and judge it for myself. I would question why a 3% even exists, why those that account for the 3% remain in the field? since climate change science and subsequent disastrous consequences are so obvious. That the 3% exists maybe that the 97% cannot refute the other 3%. I would question why the 97% even exists since climate change science has proved to be filled with shady science and failed predictions starting with the primary climate change salesman Al Gore. And given your cancer analogy, if equally 97% said that chemotherapy was the best course of action for treatment, I would reason as above, would look at its success rate (which is very low) and its side effects and likely take alternative course of action.computerist_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: The numbers are, roughly, like this: a.) Those who believe in man-made global warming: 36% b.) Those who think nature is the cause: 24% c.) Those who think it's a combination of nature and man-made activities: 32% Don't know about the other 8%. So, roughly, 56% who think nature is a part of what's happening; 36% who think it's man-made. Not much of a "scientific consensus." Now, let's understand the purpose of the study: to find out what those biased scientists in the petroleum arena are up to, and why they dissent. IOW, part of a plan to 'defeat' the nay-sayers. Well, isn't this a biased position to begin with? One respondent which they quote talked about the survey being obviously designed by "left-wing" people. Given this statement is hyperbole, it should be clear that the authors of this study themselves had an agenda. Some interesting quotes from the study:
Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed.
It's hard to fool engineers. Lots of IDers are engineers.
The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue. By looking into the content of the frames, the discourse coalitions they enable, and the identity and boundary work they entail, our results provide more nuanced insights into the subtleties of institutional defense.
First, what is being denied, therefore, is NOT that the earth is warming, but the "cause" of this warming. The alarmists, just as with IDers, misconstrue the 'deniers' position: the deny the attribution of 'anthropogenic' to the warming. So, IOW, we get "strawman" arguments from the alarmists. Singer, a so-called 'denier,' wrote a book: "Unstoppable Global Warming." Nature will do what it wants. Only human arrogance thinks it's more powerful than the forces of nature. Ironically, those who criticize people of religion as having made 'man' the center of the universe---you know, the geocentrists---are very likely the same ones who now say that 'man' is overpowering the forces of nature. It's a joke. Second, it's obvious that this survey is to devise a 'game plan' to defeat "institutional defense." No regard for proper science here. Lastly,
While ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents share the storyline privileged by the IPCC and regard scientific knowledge to be conclusive enough to support mandatory action, not even the second pro-regulation group (‘regulation activists’) joins their support for the international Protocol. In addition, ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents do not engage in mobilization and boundary work and do little to legitimate their position. This may seem surprising, but becomes more comprehensible when taking into consideration their strong belief that the fundamental debate on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is settled and that the ‘consensus among scientists’ has informed enforceable regulation.
IOW, they've stopped thinking. What great scientists they are. Let's hear it for "consensus" thinking!! Rah!!PaV_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Again, you cited two secondary sources. We provided quotes and citations from the primary source to show that your secondary sources were distorting the paper.
You quoted the paper 3 times and provided A citation to A paper that used circularly reasoned demonstrably false assertions.
That’s immaterial to the misrepresentation of the paper.
Again, you're the only one misrepresenting.
As for circular reasoning, that is also incorrect.
Your words: "This is not a complete solution as it assumes a match between the growth and migration-time profiles of Jupiter and Saturn ..." You've been proven false over and over again. They clearly assume Jupiter forms naturalistically and migrates to show that planets form naturalistically. Circular reasoning AND demonstrably false.
Planetary science is more than just planet formation.
Duh?Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Vy: The only one distorting anything here is you. Again, you cited two secondary sources. We provided quotes and citations from the primary source to show that your secondary sources were distorting the paper. Vy: Based on demonstrably false circularly reasoned assertions from years ago. That's immaterial to the misrepresentation of the paper. As for circular reasoning, that is also incorrect. They use mechanics, which are strongly supported, to test whether mechanics can explain the formation of the planets. While the models are not perfect, they clearly show the basic process. Vy: Planetary science is a dud, deal with it. Planetary science is more than just planet formation.Zachriel_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

YOU cited @30 an article that distorts Tsiganis to suggest that no reconstruction is possible. Then YOU cited @44 an article that also distorts Tsiganis.
The only one distorting anything here is you.
In fact, Tsiganis finds that a reconstruction is possible, and that the conundrum of how the asteroid belt formed has been largely resolved.
Based on demonstrably false circularly reasoned assertions from years ago. Planetary science is a dud, deal with it.Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Vy: You quoted the claims of Tsiganis, the paper you cited was illogical. YOU cited @30 an article that distorts Tsiganis to suggest that no reconstruction is possible. Then YOU cited @44 an article that also distorts Tsiganis. In fact, Tsiganis finds that a reconstruction is possible, and that the conundrum of how the asteroid belt formed has been largely resolved.Zachriel_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

While you twice referred to secondary sources, we cited and quoted the actual paper by Tsiganis.
You quoted the claims of Tsiganis, the paper you cited was illogical.
The claim is that Tsiganis found that a reconstruction is not possible. That was false.
That's the claim in your imagination. OTOH, the fact is that planetary science is a dud. That is what I said. Citing some paper that gives a hypothetical imaginary solution to the problem based on circularly reasoned assertions that are demonstrably false doesn't change that.Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

but it doesn’t answer my question.
Not surprising.
I will just note that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, despite this mechanism.
And that is significant because? These microbes, which would be affected by significant CO2 rise, aren't bothered by the alleged rising CO2 levels asserted by alarmists.Vy_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

asauber: Depends on the data you choose to use. Plus you avoided my question about actual measurements. We directly addressed actual measurements. You can find raw surface data here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ Vy: In your spaghetti dreams. While you twice referred to secondary sources, we cited and quoted the actual paper by Tsiganis. Vy: Ever heard of circular reasoning? The claim is that Tsiganis found that a reconstruction is not possible. That was false.Zachriel_{January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply