Climate deniers expose the climate liars 4


By Tom Quiner

The books have been cooked by the global warming climate change mob.

Quiner’s Diner wrote about the ‘myth of climate change consensus’ just last week. The Wall Street Journal followed up today with another piece disputing the claim that 97% of “the world’s scientists” agree on the “crippling consequences” of climate change, as John Kerry recently said.

According to Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, the claim is cravenly false.

As attributed in the Journal, “Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.”

The two writers looked at every source for this claim and debunk each of them.

Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, did a study on the subject for her thesis claiming 97% of responding scientists agreed with global warming claims. But Mssrs. Bast and Spence exposed the flaw:

“The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.”

And the survey doesn’t even address if the human impact is significant enough to have made a difference.

Even more, Ms. Zimmerman failed to survey:

√solar scientists,

√space scientists,

√cosmologists,

√physicists,

√meteorologists

√and astronomers.

Doesn’t that strike you odd? These are the scientists most in tune with the natural causes of climate change.

Then there’s the United Nation’s infamous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It claims to represent the voice of 2500 scientists.

Dr. Spencer and Mr. Bast blast the UN’s study:

“Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Forty-one out of 2500, not exactly 97%, huh?

On the other hand, far and away more scientists, 31,000, signed the Petition Project which affirms their belief that…

“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.”

Don’t rush to blind acceptance of climate change claims when the folks pushing it aren’t shooting straight.

 

4 comments

  1. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

    Our team of citizen science volunteers at Skeptical Science has published a new survey in the journal Environmental Research Letters of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, as the Guardian reports today. This is the most comprehensive survey of its kind, and the inspiration of this blog’s name: Climate Consensus – the 97%.

  2. Nice summary, and it takes me to a point that I’m not sure you agree with. A significant climate change may well be occurring (but maybe not), and it may well be “global warming” (but maybe not), and it seems somewhat logical that man’s activities could be affecting the rate of climate change, whether from emissions or raping of the land, or fouling of the waters, or . . . . — or possibly not. But until the skeptics are allowed at the debate table, and the issues are broadly aired outside of politics, I think there is little possibility that anything truly and broadly positive will come from either actions or inactions of governments around the world. And there appears to be little possibility that skeptics will be allowed at the debate table.

    • Well-stated. To borrow a phrase from Krauthammer, I’m a climate change agnostic and tend to be most-influenced by a group called The Copenhagen Consensus, who discount doomsday scenarios presented by the global warming crowd, even though they believe the earth is, in fact, warming due to man. They go further to say that the prescriptions suggested are terribly cost-effective, and will have little impact on the climate over the next half century.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s