97 percent consensus? Errrr, not exactly

0.3 percent is more like it.

Excerpts from an article by by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer:

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011.

Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked.

In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

See entire article:

Thanks to Bill Sellers for this link

10 thoughts on “97 percent consensus? Errrr, not exactly”

  1. John Cook is responsible for that deceitful propaganda site SkepticalScience.

    SlepticalScience’s credibility is so low that they have to resort to outright lying and deception.

    In defence of the “greenhouse effect” SkepticalScience writes :-

    “We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).”

    The lie is that an “hour” on the Moon (a lunar” day” divided by 24 as on Earth) – is equal to 29.5 Earth hours.

    Thus the quote “the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).” REALLY MEANS that in 6 lunar hours the temperature changes by the amount quoted.

    But 6 lunar hours is equivalent to over A WEEK on Earth – A WEEK !

    There are thousands of examples of locations on Earth where the air temperature on Earth changes by at least the same rate every day as the rate of cooling by radiation alone on the Moon.

    And the ground surfaces on Earth – excluding water – would change by even larger amounts every day as well.

    And yet despite this and many other proven lies SkepticalScience won an award from an Australian Government institution for best “science education” website – can you believe ?

    Just shows that if you want fame and notoriety in a western society these days you need to come out swinging for the government of the day’s preferred agenda and you’ll ride the gravy train.

    Be honest and you can kiss any support goodbye !

    • I should have said anyone who compares a surface temperature on an airless Moon with atmospheric temperature on Earth is plainly deceitful !

      But if Earth had no air or water I”d suggest it would be significantly hotter on average than the Moon.

      True our 12 hours of daylight might not be long enough to reach the hot temperatures of the lunar surface but our 12 hour night would also not be long enough for more than about 24 degrees cooling either.

      As the solar radiation is far more powerful than the infra-red emitted by the Moon I believe wholeheartedly that without an atmosphere the Earth’s surfaces would heat up much more than with it and cool far more slowly.

      Earth’s surfaces mightn’t reach ~120 degrees C but we know it does reach over 70 degrees C according to NASA.

      Without an atmosphere and water Earth’s surfaces would almost certainly be hotter on average than the Moon’s because the temperature outside the polar regions cannot cool significantly in the short 12 hour night versus the 354 hour long night.

      Why don’t any of the sites reporting this stuff tell us the simple truth about how long a lunar “hour” really is.

      We have 24 hours on Earth because it is about right for the Earth’s period.

      To use the same term for the Moon is deceit – no other way to describe !

      When the Sun sets at “Lunar Base 1” on the Moon on 17 March 2016 it will not rise again till ~31 March 2016.

      So SkepticalScience are liars by deceit when they try to scare people that the Earth could ever experience the wild fluctuations in temperature on the Moon – NASA data proves they are lying !!!

      Man made global warming may or may not have any validity – I doubt there is any significant influence – but it is very enlightening that every alarmist lies about their supporting arguments as is shown by critically evaluating the SkepticalScience argument about the Moon !

      If they lied so blatantly about this what can you believe on their website ??

      • @Rosco
        The Earth, even without air and water, would still be cooler than the Moon, because they are always about the same distance from the Sun, and Earth’s albedo would still be higher. We’d be left with a planetary surface made mostly of seafloor sand, which is usually similar to beach or desert sand in brightness. The Moon’s albedo is 0.12, and desert sand is usually around 0.4. Even if the continental surfaces absorbed all the light there was, they only take up about 1/4 of the surface, so the Earth’s albedo would always be above 0.3 (3/4 of 0.4). 0.3>0.12, so Earth with no air or water would still be colder than the Moon.

    • what?????
      some govvy airheads gave the lying POS an award
      oh…it didnt happen to be aunty abc did it?

  2. Even at face value, Cook et al. is flawed. The abstract itself says that of 11,944 papers reviewed, only 32.6% endorse AGW. The “97%” meme comes from asking the authors of that 32.6% whether they agree with the consensus that mankind is causing climate change. It does NOT endorse by way of CO2 emissions!

    Of course you’re going to get high correlation, but the way the study is designed is fatally flawed. It would be akin to asking ice cream eaters whether or not they endorse vanilla as the world’s most favorite flavor, and then asking those who say yes, whether or not they agree with the consensus that vanillin is essential to making vanilla ice cream. (Pretty difficult not to have vanilla ice cream without vanilla extract, right?)

    Cook et al. needs to have the nails of truth put in its coffin for promulgating a lie to politicians, the UN, and the MSM.

  3. Actually, I think there is about a 97% consensus that humans are causing global warming — among social scientists, political scientists, psychologists, and other academics who know less about the physical sciences than the average man on the street — who at least may occasionally be exposed to something factual, rather than purely the Leftist propaganda they hear ror read 100% of the time on college campuses and in the mass media.

    Leftists tend to be extremely careful to avoid hearing any point of view or hard facts that would collapse their tidy little reality tunnels. Liberal friends of mine will not go into a restaurant or other place of business that has — horrors! — Fox News playing on a TV, unless the sound is turned off, for fear they might hear something they do not agree with, or see video of one of their heroes lying. (“You can keep your doctor and your health insurance…. period!”)

  4. Since when is consensus science, any way? Whatever happened to the scientific method? Practically every “consensual” “scientific” theory that has been sold as absolute, has, sooner or later, been tossed onto the garbage heap of history. Unfortunately, the proponents have hung onto them, tooth and nail, for reasons of grants, and human ego. Many theories didn’t die until until the originators left the earthly realm. Science has become intrinsically political, and cannot, therefore, be trusted.

Comments are closed.