Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
97% of Scientists Do Not Agree with Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Where did this 97% figure originate? It appears to have started with a short 2009
paper by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
In this paper, the announced the results of the two question poll. This poll was
sent to 10,257 “Earth scientists.” Read the rest of this summary at the source:
About scientific consensus: Oreskes, Harvard and the Destruction of Scientific Revolutions (Local)
Analysis of Cook’s (of SkepticalScience.com) 97% claim:
Of 12280 papers, Cook took out the “Don’t Knows”(66% of the samples), and in, essence counted all of the remainder that did not reject the hypotheses that humans are causing global warming as endorsing the “consensus”.
Had he included the “Don’t Knows”, it would be: “32% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Had he included ONLY explicit endorsement, it would be: “8% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
In Cooks own words (emphasis added):
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming
(AGW) in the peer-
For details see: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-
(Including the lower level of explicit endorsements, Cook’s real number is 8% (999/12280). If you want to stretch the truth to include implications, then you still only get 32% (3933/12280).)
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied some 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.
... The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on
global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-
As Tol explains, the Cook et al paper used an unrepresentative sample, can’t be replicated,
and leaves out many useful papers. The study was done by biased observers who disagreed
with each other a third of the time, and disagree with the authors of those papers
Debunk of several consensus claims: http://junkscience.com/2016/07/what-
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs & Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Science & Education volume 24, pages 299–318 (2015)Cite this article
The Earlier 97% claim:
They surveyed 10,257 Earth Scientists, 3146 responded.
Then they selected 77 responses from published climate scientists to get the 97.4%
claim. Of course most published climate scientists make a living from alarmism -
The details are here:
Dennis Ambler: Climate "Consensus" Opiate, The 97% Solution
Watts Up With That: What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?
Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming
Wendy mcelroy: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3684
Benny Peiser’s analysis :
Debunking several 97% claims
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-
The original 97% claim is here:
article by Peter T. Doran
a survey by Margaret R. K. Zimmerman
The paper with the data: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Example of Scientific Organizarions Endorsing the
Global Warming Scam Against Membership Belief
According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.
In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.
Earlier AMS poll:
Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|