THE 97% CONSENSUS FRAUD
Climate Alarmists often try to end debate with the phrase “97% of climate scientists agree!”
But how many “climate scientists” actually agreed? And what did they agree to?
GST Board member Joe D’Aleo describes what’s actually behind the “97% agree!” claim.
The 97% claim is a convenient fiction to imply a consensus.
Michael Crichton, PhD, MD, author, producer, screenwriter and lecturer described claims of a consensus:
“Historically the claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrel; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled”. “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”
The scientific method does not involve a poll or vote by scientists to assess a consensus view, but validation of a theory by rigorous and unbiased application of the scientific method, no longer taught in schools where students are taught what to think not how to think.
The 97% Consensus Fabrication
The first attempt was an online survey that was published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman from the University of Illinois. The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists, to which 3,146 scientists responded. There were two primary questions in the survey.
Q. 1: “When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
History has recorded a prolonged global cold era know as “The Little Ice Age” that lasted from about 1400 to 1850 AD. Since that time the global average temperature has risen. No meteorologist, climatologist or anyone involved in the study of the earth’s temperature would answer “No”..
Q. 2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
What constitutes “human activity”? The burning of fossil fuels to make energy is one. The changing of land surfaces to make cities, farmland and deforestation is “human activity” that can change temperature as well. Changing mean temperature can be accomplished by changing the environment around a climate recording station. This is also “human activity”. As rural climate recording stations are gradually surrounded by urban sprawl and eventually larger buildings and infrastructure, the temperature of the site will warm due to the “Urban Heat Island (UHI)” effect.
The results from the survey do not address the variety of just what constitutes “human activity”. A “yes” response to question two implies the responder is referring to fossil fuels but that is not necessarily the case. It is however, what the survey likely wanted to convey.
The question also does not address what the word “significant” means to each individual respondent. What constitutes “significant” can be very different from person to person.
The 97% figure comes from reducing the number of responses included from 3,146 to 79.
The 79 scientists included had recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change.
Of these, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to question one (96.2%), and 75 of 77 answered “yes” (97.4%) to two.
That is the basis of the “97% of climate scientists agree!” slogan.
Cook et al. in 2013 attempted a more rigorous approach to confirm the 97% number and failed.
They attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) as to their level of endorsement of man-caused global warning. They found 7,930 (66%) held no position on man-caused global warning. Out of the remaining 4,014 papers that expressed a position, only 64 papers (0.5% of the total) explicitly endorsed humans as the primary (50%+) cause.
What Do Scientists Really Think?
The UN, politicians, industry and the mainstream and on-line media would want you to believe that all scientists have now seen the light, that there is a consensus. That is not the case.
Most honest scientists know that, but many are forced into silence or, if they vocalize their dissent, may find their careers endangered or even destroyed. Still many when they can do so anonymously, or are past the stage of their career where they can speak the truth, do speak up.
Many polls and declarations that actually demonstrate a large percentage of real scientists believe in climate change BUT most actually believe that natural factors are the primary driver.
The Oregon Petition was signed by 31,487 scientists including 9,029 with PHDs in their fields that states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that the 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.”
This was attacked as being irrelevant because many signatories were not true “climate scientists.”
A 2011 Scientific American opinion poll on the state of climate science provided eye-opening results cast by their “scientifically literate” readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda” and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since “we are powerless to stop it,” and the same percentage think science should stay out of politics. When asked, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?,” 76.7% said “nothing.”
Scientific American removed the poll when pressured by environmental groups.
A 2013 Forbes article reported only 36 percent of earth scientists 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 believed that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show earth scientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.
Even a global UN 2015 my world survey received 9.7 million votes and found in prioritizing what should be focused on, action on climate change finished last.
The universities, professional societies and even congress have taken serious and alarming steps to eliminate (punish) doubters and public opinion. They even attack any of their own, who speak out. That includes formerly outspoken environmentalists like Dr. Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace and Michael Shellenberger,formerly Time Magazine ‘Hero of the Environment’.
His apology for the false scare was published by Forbes but then forced to be removed.
Conclusion
The 97% consensus claim is simply a convenient fiction to bypass the scientific method and supress any inconvenient facts that arise in order to drive policies.
The Scientific Method and Peer Review Process failed due to political and economic pressures designed to ensure a (politically correct or economically beneficial to some) Green House Gas (GHB) theory can never fail to be validated.
Posted by Granite State Taxpayers Board member Joseph D’Aleo.
GST Board member Joseph D’Aleo has previously commented for GST on the climate change agenda.
D’Aleo has researched multivariate statistical modeling for long range forecasting, the impact of sun and ocean cycles on seasonal climate and changing regimes in climate and extreme weather.