Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
Because nobody schemes, scams, deceives and invents like environmentalists.
Well maybe progressives.
Send environmentalists to the pristine place they want to be. Antarctica.
When you’re part of the Religion of Leftism and it’s ultra-orthodox Global Warming sect, lying is commonplace and perfectly justifiable. Don’t you see, you’re saving the world from the ignorant and often evil folks who disagree with you. So anything goes in your crusade!!!
Revnant Dream, No polar bears in Antarctica, the enviro-nutz love polar bears, so Coats Island, Arctic is better and easier to observe with drones.
Support “Hug a Polar Bear” TV.Live broadcast of eco-loon meets wild bear.
As for the 97%, what do you expect from PR firms, truth or propaganda?
The mark of a Canadian intellectual; Ban DiHydrogen Monoxide, Polar Bear population has dropped since 1960,Plant food is pollution, all their friends agree.
Or the consensus of the easily conned.
Photoshopped polar bears can and do appear anywhere.
It’s a Greenie thingy.
This ‘study’ was a joke from the get-go. The people analyzing the papers consulted eachother as they did so. So much for independence.
They don’t even know that our first clue they were full of baloney was the idiotic notion that scientists work by consensus. But collectivists can’t help but think that way.
Taqiyya is as much a part of the Green Theocracy as it is of Islam. The power and reach behind this special example is enormous as it (CAGW) is essentially the expensive cover for the institutional left in suppressing what is left of liberty. The goal is to enslave all human endeavor under global theocratic governance.
Face palm,head slap. Agree with LAS.I’m just waiting for when they tell us the sun is starting to rise in the west,and set in the south.
Not quite sure which are the stupidist,eco-cultists or leftards. Oh wait.
This is as surprising as when Anderson Cooper “came out”.
Yet governments still cling to the theory of AGW, undoubtedly due to the taxes they can steal from us in it’s name.Our own beloved BC Liberals promised to NOT “increase the carbon tax” if they were elected,and so far they haven’t.
Please pray for a sunny Summer so we can make a few bucks renting our beaches to tourists from Alberta.
I’m going to E-mail this link to the Environment Minister, just to get the “thank you for your comments” E-mail back.
This is the second time you posted on this same topic …. what’s different today?
A commenter at Watts Up With That had a pithy reaction to this:
“This was supposedly peer-reviewed. What exactly is a ‘peer’ nowadays? Another person who doesn’t understand statistics either?”
The words “consensus” and “science” are incompatible. Anyone who speaks of consensus in science hasn’t a clue how science works. The only consensus one finds in science is agreement on what restaurant for a group of scientists at a conference to go to where they will argue about science.
99% of scientists can agree about something and still be wrong. If climate “science” works via consensus, then it can’t be called science. Similarly, psychiatry is not a science as it works on consensus. The same applies to medicine and I’ve gotten into more than one argument with physicians who assume that because a majority of doctors agree on something it must be so. Medical science is as much of an oxymoron as climate “science”. Perhaps medical “science” with its prominence in the minds of many people may be in part responsible for the notion that science operates on consensus. Mike McCormick is correct in his observation that collectivists can’t fathom the concept that someone working alone can accomplish anything but most great breakthroughs in science have been as a result of individuals who didn’t play well with others. With the increasing emphasis for people to be well behaved members of the herd, expect a decline in scientific progress.
Amazing…
Loki
You’ve made a thoughtful comment. Certain procedures are however most likely to produce positive results. That’s a kind of consensus that should be trained into practitioners. We don’t want doctors ‘winging it.’
There have certainly been out of the box discoveries that have helped people, like modern treatment for ulcers.
Career building (or crashing)requires competence but also social skills. I think that this has something to do with consensus among successful researchers.
This may not make for good science, but it’s nice to pay the bills.