Australian Politics Forum

Quote:

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Written by Andrew, Popular Technology.net on 21 December 2014.

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere.

The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

that's you Spartacus you NUMB SKULL

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html

Its propaganda, the climate cult is not averse to using propaganda, they will lie out of their arse if they have to, all for the cause, and not the earthly one either, for the political one. ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 1:48pm:

Quote:

that's you Spartacus you NUMB SKULL

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html

The Mechanic wins a Peter Heater from the vagina knitting lady.

This argument is actually very interesting because it is a window into how the idiologically motivated climate change denier thinks. You see when they're confronted with 97% of climate experts telling them that climate change is almost certainly happening someone like Mechanic has a choice. He can either admit that he is full of BS and the truth is that he couldn't care less what happens to the world and humanity when he dies OR he can pretend he accepts a logically flawed argument that the obvious and transparent consensus between the experts is not a consensus at all. Now in that case (mechanic reasons) you can accuse him of faulty logic (which is not so bad since we all occasionally fall into logical error) but you can't accuse him of being the reprehensible traitorous c@#t that he is. So that's why he posts this cr@p.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 1:48pm:

has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere.

Wow, 97 peer reviewed articles refuting one position?

Oh wait, grand total of 3. I'll read them when I get some time, but your article is incredibly misleading if you took even 2 seconds to glance at it you would realise this.

Of course you could analyse the Cook paper. 41 papers out of 11,944 explicitly said that Man was the cause of most of the warming since 1950. That is 0.3%.

The paper is at the Institute of Physics.

lee wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

Of course you could analyse the Cook paper. 41 papers out of 11,944 explicitly said that Man was the cause of most of the warming since 1950. That is 0.3%.

The paper is at the Institute of Physics.

these numb skulls can't think for themselves..

they are welfare dependant losers who need to believe in something..

anything...

so

they join the church of Climate Change ....

part of being in the church of climate change is reciting the LIE ( as often as you can ) that 97% of all scientists on the planet earth believe in Global Warming..

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :D

So deforestation + burning ancient forests (fossil fuels) + 1 squillion animals farting = 1 healthy planet with no global warming. I expect you believe in God as well.

Inyss wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

So deforestation + burning ancient forests (fossil fuels) + 1 squillion animals farting = 1 healthy planet with no global warming. I expect you believe in God as well.

i'll forgive you are you seem kinda new and don't know my philosophy's

my pet hates.. deforestation...

fossil fuels .. will run out..

global warming.. what global warming? its a bugger*** lie >:(

world population... needs to decease.. STOP IMMIGRATION!!! >:(

Perhaps I should let you know my philosophies Mechanic, maybe we are not so different in many aspects.
1. Rid the world of the main culprits of over-population. ie organised religion.
2. Yes, yes, yes. Decrease the world population by at least 30%. Start by putting contraceptives in the water supply in over-populated countries. This may not need to happen if number 1. is implemented.
3. In our own country, Oz, supply incentives for the first 2 children only and nothing, nil, zilch, zero, for any following children.
4. Why are we still wiping our a***s with old growth forest. Where are all the timber farms which should have been planted aeons ago. Where are all the farms producing the wonder crop, commercial hemp. And no I've never done dope, grass, hooter.
5. And no, I'm not a greenie and have definitely never voted Green. I'm also not a Leftard or from the Right flank, I hate the sodding lot.
RANT OVER

And I believe in climate change because the reef, which is at my front door is changing and I don't like it one little bit.
THE END

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:27pm:

what?

the Truth???

you don't like that do you... there's only a handful of numbskulls that are still quoting the bullshit of the 97% lie...

you just happen to be one of those numbskulls...

sucks to be you... ;D

the "scientist" also said that it was going to be a dry winter...

I disagreed and said that it was going to be a cold wet winter..

guess who was right... ;)

I think I would believe some of these organisations rather than some denier nutters such as yourself Mechanic.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Oh no, he quotes John Cook, an author of 97%. The same bloke who stole scientist Lubos Motl's identity and posted on line as him.

And NASA and NOOA are government "scientific" bodies. And they just changed climate data again on the back of Karl et al 2015. A paper that had statistical significance of 0.10. So much for government credibility.

Credibility Zero.

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Written by Andrew, Popular Technology.net on 21 December 2014.

cartoonThe 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

lee wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 11:08am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:51am:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

awww poor Spartacus.. its the only thing he's been quoting for the last 10 years...

and now he's the last one to find out that it's all a fraud and that he's been making a total tool out of himself.. :'( :'( :'(

;D

From the article by 'Andrew':

Quote:

The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

He cites Hulme, but who else?

Quote:

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

Only three of the 'articles' are journal articles.

The first journal article, by economist (not climate scientist) Richard Tol, failed to pass peer-review when submitted to Environmental Research Letters. Ironically, in criticising the analysis done by Cook et al, Tol's own analysis was exposed as shoddy and his criticisms unwarranted:

Google his blog post: Richard Tol Draft Comment on 97% consensus paper
(I can't post hyperlinks)

It's also worth noting that Tol agrees that an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists does exist—he simply disagrees on the exact percentage. Therefore even if this economist's criticisms were valid, deniers would still be hopelessly wrong.

Can't find anything on the second article by Tol, including the full text, so it's impossible to comment on it. There is not even an abstract.

The third journal article by Legates et al makes the claim that only 0.3% of climate science papers, not 97%, endorse the claim of man-made climate change. They get this number by doing the following:

1. Discounted all papers which do not not offer an explicit, unquantified endorsement of the standard definition of man-made climate change.

2. Discounted all papers that met Cook et al's criteria for explicit, unquantified endorsement but don't meet their own criteria.

3. Included all of the papers that expressed 'no position' in the total number of articles.

Therefore, Legates et al could only achieve their ridiculous 0.3% figure by ignoring the majority of climate science articles that endorse the claim on man-made climate change, and have counted 'no position' papers as dissenters.

As for the other 94 articles: who cares?

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> General Board >> 97% of scientists Horsesheet http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438660106 Message started by The Mechanic on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 1:48pm