97% Consensus: The Great Climate Lie

Yet another article exposing the lie that "97% of scientists support AGW"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427055/climate-change-no-consensus

The Great Climate Lie

by Josh Gelernter November 14, 2015 12:00 AM

A closer look at the climate-change consensus.

Let the haranguing resume: There is no basis in fact for saying that 97 percent of scientists believe that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. Those were the words tweeted by President Obama: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” “Read more,” he added, with a link to a Reuters piece that announced the 97 percent finding by the University of Queensland’s John Cook, et al. But Cook’s result is deeply flawed.

For starters, though, Reuters and the president are wrong about what Cook’s study claims. It does not claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. What it claims is that 97.1 percent of the relevant scientific literature agrees with the much more conservative claim that humans are contributing to global warming in an unspecified amount.

But even in making that considerably more anodyne assertion, the “consensus” is on shaky footing. According to the abstract for Cook’s paper, 66.4 percent of the abstracts Cook and his team looked at neither supported nor opposed the position that man causes global warming. Which gives you not a 97.1 percent consensus, but 97.1 percent of the remainder, which is 32.6 percent. That is, 32.6 percent of peer-reviewed global-warming literature agrees that global warming is man-made. That’s not overwhelming. And even that number is highly suspect; many scientists have objected to their papers having been categorized as supporting Cook’s position. A number of avowed man-made-warming skeptics were evidently surprised to find their papers included in Cook’s 97 percent monolith.

According to a paper written by University of Delaware professor David Legates, et al., for the journal Science & Education, just 0.3 percent — not 97 — of the papers Cook examined explicitly endorsed his position.

Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex published a rebuttal of Cook’s paper in the journal Energy Policy. According to Tol, the 97 percent claim, “frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. . . . [Cook’s] sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook’s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so the key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”

So: The sample selected for study was flawed. The analysis of that sample was flawed. The conclusion drawn from that analysis was flawed. And the reporting of that conclusion was flawed. To quote Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia, as quoted by Popular Technology, “the ‘97 percent consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed.”​

Cook's paper has been torn apart so many times that its a bit amazing that the warmists still make the claim. The only reasonable conclusion is that warmists don't actually read papers just the headlines and the abstract, and that AGW is really just a religion, and they believe in the "Big Lie" approach to PR.

Warmists, anything to say? I mean, anything meaningful and scientific - objectively scientific - to say?

 

P

Just more denier cult bullcrap. Written by stooges for the fossil fuel industry and as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.

Why can't you face the facts?





(source)

 

Did not read the SCIENCE debunking Cook, did you? Didn't think so. Warmists can not tolerate any dissent, that's why they turn to politics and the courts to impose their religion on everyone.

 

You poor brainwashed dupe, it is your science-free rightwingnut 'National Review' article that got debunked.

The almost unanimous affirmation of the reality of human caused global warming/climate changes by the world's climate scientists is a fact that is supported not just with many studies and surveys of the scientific community that have been done, but more significantly, by several different careful examinations of the published scientific papers in this area of science. All of these different studies find the same overwhelming scientific confirmation of AGW/CC. Even in the more general world scientific community, there are no scientific organizations of national or international standing who maintain a formal opinion dissenting from the conclusions of the climate scientists.

All you denier cult nitwits have is crackpot conspiracy theories to explain away the almost unanimous testimony of the scientific community. Plus some really insane pseudo-science written by non-scientists working for the fossil fuel industry that only deceives ignorant and foolish rightwingnuts...like you.

 

Ah, name calling. The sure sign that a warmist has no argument and is desperately trying to avoid admitting failure.

 

come now, that's just a post out of anger, isn't it? you have no evidence of anything. Facts are just too far from your reality. Fine you live with your religion, don't come looking for money, that's all. bye

- - - Updated - - -

too funny friend. A cartoonist is who you pray to. funny stuff. Get your facts correct, ok. Those aren't facts.

 

I'm more interested in what motivates the exaggerations, the constant vomiting of propaganda. Unlike others, I don't deny that the Earth may in fact warm and cool over millennia. It happens. How much humans have added or altered the Earth - unknown and probably never will be known. But what I DO know is that the money in "GREEN" is huge world wide. All one needs to do is see how huge alternative energy has gotten - hundreds of billions possibly trillions of dollars world wide. Everyone from feminist vegetarians, to hippy wannabe OWS socialists, to University Deans, documentarians, Hollywood types, far left politicos, the left wing media.... they're all carrying Al Gore's (remember Al Gore?) water. The scare tactics, howls of "SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!" and oracle like prognostications and promulgation's that thousands of species will die, the Earth will flood, frozen methane in the ice will pollute the world, world wide starvation will ensue, murders, looting, stealing, rape will run rampant, culture and society will implode....

All a narrative that tracks very well with popular culture television shows about world disasters and survival. It's all big money, well.... at least the bloviating exaggerations are a very good narrative to repeatedly vomit in every area of our media, to repeat to scare people for more "funding" (key word for more taxes) to create yet more government to oversee the "problem" when in reality the problem is not quantifiable and the people overseeing simply add more vomit to the party. It's probably one of the best scams and scare tactics ever propagated. Kudos.

 

Although I should be used to it, the depth of your ignorance sand your insanity always surprises me a little, JustCrazy.

It says right on the graphic I posted - "james powell.org".....if you follow the link that is labeled "(source)", it takes you to James Powell's website. You are, of course, too stupid to notice the name on the graphic or follow the link, so you are idiotically trying to denigrate (in your own little mind only) the validity of the graphs by falsely assuming that they are from Skeptical Science and John Cook...who, BTW, is a very competent published scientist, no matter what silly lies your cult tells to try to minimize the fact that he consistently debunks your denier cult lies with sound science. So, YOU FAIL in both ways....

The material I posted is a very accurate reflection of the "facts", in spite of your addled denier cult myths about the (actually very real) scientific consensus.

And James Powell is not a "cartoonist", numbnuts.

James Lawrence Powell - bio

I was born in Berea, Kentucky and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology.

I hold a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College. I taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 year.

I served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed me to the National Science Board, where I served for 12 years. Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for me.

I have written eleven books, the most recent of which is Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth, published by Columbia University Press. In 2015 I was elected a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

I am Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

 

Sentence 1, 2, 3: I hate people who spew propaganda. Sentence 4: Propaganda, spewed.

 

Prove to me what was false in my statement. Prove to me what was exaggerated in my statement, or is it that you don't know what the definition of "propaganda"?

Just another small observation: Sentence 1 only mentioned the dislike of propaganda (you exaggerated with "hate" - hypocrite much?). Sentence 4 is fact. The amount is not known nor is it likely to be known. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical and undeniable evidence that leaves 0% doubt to both deniers and supporters of GW. When you do not get 100% consensus and you never will, you'll know your failure. Have a nice day!

 

well then let's see the list of the scientist who make up the numbers. Can you post them, anyone can post up a pretty graph, but having actual data, let's see it. ahh, I know you'll tell me some story on why you won't be able to, but most graphs are made from a list like in an excel spreadsheet. That would mean that names would be there. So let's see the actual excel spreadsheet that is the raw data for the graph. Even a pivot table, will do.

 

I assume everyone agrees that we have a pollution problem so if we address this and actually do something about it, global warming or changing wouldn't be an issue.

 

That seems rather clueless and ingenuous.

Mankind does produce many kinds of 'pollution', many of which poison our water and air, and these are problems that need to dealt with....as we have been doing with things like the Clean Air Act, passed in 1973.

However, contrary to your foolish assertion, dealing with those kinds of air and water pollution problems would not mean that "global warming and climate changes would not be an issue." Doing that does nothing to deal with the 43% increase in CO2 levels caused by mankind's activities, which is driving the abrupt rapid warming of our atmosphere and oceans, and the melting of the mountain glaciers and the polar ice, and the consequent climate changes and sea level rise. Dealing with the climate change crisis is going to require a whole new level of human cooperation and effort to cut CO2 emissions and draw down the currently super-elevated and very dangerous CO2 levels.

 

Exaggeration like all of the dire and failed alarmist predictions?

 

Sort of --- but this time there's a significant reason for the overt exaggerations: $$$$$$$$$$

 

Since you are so smart, what would do to reduce the problem with global warming?

 

Since you're so clueless....I'll tell you....as a start....
* tax carbon emissions and use the money to help the public make the transition to renewable clean energy sources, as they are doing right now in British Columbia;
* mandate by law that all of the oil and coal and natural gas that is still underground stay there;
* work very hard on developing the techniques and infrastructure to draw down the currently highly elevated (+43% and still rising fast) CO2 levels that are changing our climate patterns in ways that will be very destructive to our ecology, biosphere, agriculture and seafood supplies, world peace, our civilization, our prosperity, and our descendents future.

 

How about this make solar panels cheap enough so people can move to clean energy sources? How about reducing the cost to move people to at least buy smaller vehicles and then on to some other source of clean energy transportation. Increasing taxes is not an incentive or will the government ever use that money to people make the transition.

If they already have not developed the techniques and infrastructure to draw down the currently elevated CO2 levels, chances are they are not going to. They are never going to mandate that all of the oil and coal in the ground stay untouched, its not realistic of human expectations.

 

So in other words, screw the poor and developing nations but boy, have you ever bought into the ecofreak alarmism.

 

That is exactly what is happening.

Solar Energy Sees Eye-Popping Price Drops
Solar electricity's price tag has plummeted 70 percent since 2009, says a new report, as SolarCity rolls out a low-cost, super-efficient panel.
National Geographic
By Christina Nunez
OCTOBER 02, 2015

Also already happening, blind and clueless one.

Federal Tax Credits for Electric Vehicles Purchased in or after 2010
Federal Tax Credit Up To $7,500!
Electric vehicles (EVs) purchased in or after 2010 may be eligible for a federal income tax credit of up to $7,500. The credit amount will vary based on the capacity of the battery used to fuel the vehicle.

This credit replaces an earlier credit for EVs purchased in 2009.

Small neighborhood electric vehicles do not qualify for this credit, but they may qualify for another credit.

Increasing the cost of fossil fuels with a tax that reflects the 'externalities' cost of using fossil fuels, which is usually shifted from the fossil fuel industry onto the taxpayer, is, in the real world that you never visit, actually a very large incentive to switch over to cheaper renewable energy sources. The cost of driving an electric vehicle per mile travelled is currently much less for EVs than gasmobiles, and with an appropriate carbon tax added to the price per gallon, there will be a HUGE incentive to switch to an EV. When the cost of fuel oil and gas goes up, it is an incentive to get a solar or wind home energy system, and a home storage battery.

As far as how the government will use the money, that is included in the law, in all of the proposals. It is already working in a number of places.

You obviously have no idea whatsoever how carbon taxes work, you poor dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers.

They are revenue neutral. The money collected from the fossil fuel industry all goes back to the general public to offset the cost of transitioning to clean renewable energy sources.

British Columbia instituted carbon taxes in 2008, so we can see how they are working in practice, not just theoretically. And they are working great!

Where Carbon Is Taxed
Carbon Tax Center
This page reports on carbon taxes that have been enacted or proposed around the world, including in:
* British Columbia
* Ireland
* Australia
* Chile
* Sweden
* Other Nations (including Finland, Great Britain, New Zealand and Quebec, Canada)

British Columbia
We begin with British Columbia, Canadas third largest province (2011 population of 4.4 million). Its carbon tax qualifies as the most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere, by far. The tax is also extremely straightforward and transparent in both administration and revenue treatment.

British Columbia inaugurated its carbon tax on July 1, 2008 at a rate of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton ("tonne") of carbon dioxide. The tax incremented by $5/tonne annually, reaching its current level of $30 per tonne of CO2 in July 2012. At the U.S.-Canadian dollar exchange rate (1.00/0.83) in May 2015, and converting from tonnes to short tons, the provincial tax now equates to between $22 and $23 (U.S.) per short ton of CO2.

Emission Reductions
Based on official data from British Columbias provincial government, greenhouse gas emissions from "stationary combustion" (electricity generation, heating, industry, etc.) and transport combined appear to have fallen around 5 percent in the taxs initial four years (2008 to 2012). (See table immediately below.) That equates to a per capita drop of 9 percent, considering the provinces 4.5 percent population growth over that span. During the same period, emissions from the rest of Canada reportedly increased slightly.[img=http://www.carbontax.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BC-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-_-2007-2012-_-screenshot.png]From official BC data, GHG emissions from combustion and transport combined fell 5.1% from 2008 to 2012.

However, another authority, University of Ottawa economics and law professor Stewart Elgie, is propounding a steeper decline rate since the British Columbia tax went into effect:

"The results weve seen have been remarkable. B.C.s fuel use went down by 16 percent in the first five years after the carbon tax shift. It went up by 3 percent in the rest of Canada. So B.C.s fuel efficiency improved by 19 percent compared to the rest of Canada. B.C. has shown that putting a price on carbon really can change behavior. Our research is not detailed enough to say that all of that 16 percent was due to the carbon price, but we have done enough analysis around it to say that it looks like most of that 16 percent change was driven by the carbon tax."

That passage comes from an interview with Prof. Elgie in Yales Environment 360 on-line journal, How British Columbia Gained by Putting a Price on Carbon (April 2015). Prof. Elgie has written widely on BCs carbon tax; his interview is a tour de force on the politics of designing, selling and implementing a carbon tax without disadvantaging vulnerable sectors and alienating the citizenry.

Revenue Neutrality
Revenue from British Columbias tax funds more than a billion dollars worth of cuts in individual and business taxes annually, while a tax credit protects low-income households who might not benefit from the tax. All carbon tax revenues are being returned to taxpayers through personal income and business income tax cuts, as well as a low-income tax credit, fulfilling the 2008 promise of revenue-neutrality by Carole Taylor, who as BC finance minister shepherded the tax to implementation. A 2015 study by University of Ottawa graduate students concludes that BCs carbon tax is "highly progressive"

Mary Polak, BCs minister of environment, commented in 2014, "We were told it would destroy the economy and wed never get elected again, but weve won two elections since [our carbon tax] was enacted five years ago. Its the revenue neutrality that really makes it work. We collected C$1.2 billion last year and a little bit more was returned."

The Feb. 2008 BC Budget and Fiscal Plan spelled out the rationale, impacts and mechanics of the tax, including the revenue return provisions. The first 40 pages in particular make essential reading for any carbon tax advocate seeking to master not only the details of carbon taxing but communication tools for making a carbon tax palatable to the public. We also recommend Alan Durnings March 13, 2008 Grist post, which usefully parsed the four principles embodied in BCs carbon tax: revenue neutrality, phased implementation, protection for families, and broad coverage.

In May 2009, British Columbia voters re-elected Liberal Party Premier Gordon Campbell, under whose aegis the provinces carbon tax was proposed, devised and instituted, to a third four-year term. Our post, "BC Voters Stand By Carbon Tax", reported on the elections significance for carbon tax campaigners. See also Macleans magazines detailed take, "Did Gordon Campbell Win Because of His Carbon Tax?"

In the same vein, the Vancouver Sun reported in November 2009 on the cost to the opposition New Democratic Party of its strident opposition to the BC carbon tax during the May provincial election:
Many party activists believe the NDPs fierce attack on the B.C. Liberals carbon tax during the last election overwhelmed the partys own environmental platform.

"I think the NDP lost the point in terms of its green credibility,"" said David Black, a communications theory professor at Royal Roads University in Victoria.

The Economist published a useful July 2011 update on BCs carbon tax. Excerpts follow:

"Despite the levy, its economy is doing well. What is more, the tax is popular: it is backed by 54%, says a survey in the province by Environics, a pollster.

Since 2008 fuel consumption per head in the province has dropped by 4.5%, more than elsewhere in Canada. British Columbians use less fuel than any other Canadians. And British Columbians pay lower income taxes too.

The new tax has not weakened the provinces economy, which has been boosted by high world prices for its commodity exports. Unemployment is slightly below the national average, and growth slightly higher. Because the tax started low and its rises were set out in advance, businesses had plenty of time to make plans to cut their carbon use."

The Economist summed it up:

"At C$25 per tonne, British Columbias tax already exceeds the price of carbon in Europes emissions-trading scheme. But it is still too low to prompt radical changes in behaviour: it adds just five cents to the price of a litre of petrol. Getting the most energy-intensive industries to make big cuts might take a tax four times as high. Even so, British Columbia has shown the rest of Canada, a country with high carbon emissions per head, that a carbon tax can achieve multiple benefits at minimal cost."

In July 2012, on the occasion of the fourth (and final) annual increase in the BC carbon tax, the Toronto-based Financial Post newspaper chimed in with '4 key reasons why BCs carbon tax is working'. (The Post drew its text from the June, 2012 report by Sustainable Prosperity, "British Columbias Carbon Tax Shift: The First Four Years".)

* DROP IN FUEL CONSUMPTION: The carbon tax has contributed substantial environmental benefits to British Columbia (BC). Since the tax took effect in 2008, British Columbians use of petroleum fuels (subject to the tax) has dropped by 15.1% and by 16.4% compared to the rest of Canada. BCs greenhouse gas emissions have shown a similarly substantial decline (although that analysis is based on one years less data).

* GROWTH UNAFFECTED: BCs GDP growth has outpaced the rest of Canadas (by a small amount) since the carbon tax came into effect suggesting that it has not adversely affected the provinces economy, as some had predicted. This finding fits with evidence from seven other countries that have had similar carbon tax shifts in place for over a decade, resulting in neutral or slightly positive effects on GDP.

* REVENUE NEUTRAL: The BC government has kept its promise to make the tax shift revenue neutral, meaning no net increase in taxes. In fact, to date it has returned far more in tax cuts (by over $300 million) than it has received in carbon tax revenue resulting in a net benefit for taxpayers. BCs personal and corporate income tax rates are now the lowest in Canada, due to the carbon tax shift.

* GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DECLINING: From 2008 to 2010, BCs per capita GHG emissions declined by 9.9% a substantial reduction. During this period, BCs reductions outpaced those in the rest of Canada by more than 5%.

A similar tack was taken in a July, 2012 NY Times op-ed, The Most Sensible Tax of All, by Yoram Bauman, an environmental economist and fellow at the Sightline Institute in Seattle, and Shi-Ling Hsu, law professor at Florida State University and former law professor at the University of British Columbia, and author of The Case for a Carbon Tax(Island Press, 2011).

A more recent summation is a July, 2014 op-ed in the Toronto Globe & Mail, The shocking truth about B.C.s carbon tax: it works. Also useful is a July, 2014 op-ed in the Guardian, A carbon tax thats good for business?, that cogently compares B.C.s successful revenue-neutral carbon tax with Australias short-lived revenue-raising one.

Stupid nonsense! Scientists have developed techniques for capturing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and they are busy developing even better ways.

Your idiotic comment amounts to saying: "well, if they couldn't do in my grandfather's day, then they will never do it."

LOLOLOL....moron.

In spite of your reflexive rightwingnut denial...YES WE ARE GOING TO DO EXACTLY THAT!

Keep fossil fuels in the ground to stop climate change
The Guardian
March 10, 2015

 

that's already failed. time for a new strategy, we're all waiting on what that is.

- - - Updated - - -

first you have to get people thinking there is an issue. See the lack of evidence has the public like me, not caring or giving a rats behind. So, until there is an actual renewable, what ever the hell that means, this AGW is nothing more than a hoax.

- - - Updated - - -

Federal Tax Credits for Electric Vehicles Purchased in or after 2010
Federal Tax Credit Up To $7,500!

This^^^^^^ this is the hoax.

 

Nope! You are just an ignorant, anti-science denier of reality.

 

It's whack a mole time again. These zombie denier memes keep resurrecting.

 

New tax revenue from taxing fuel would go to reducing other tax burden you have.

For example, taxes on gas might be increased while FICA and/or income tax is reduced to make it revenue neutral (that is, the government gets no more money than it did before the change).

The result would be that you could save on taxes by being more conservative on fuel in some way. You could do ride sharing, get a smaller or more efficient car, use transit, or you could do what you're doing now - whatever works for you.


I agree with what you are saying about keeping all gas/oil/coal in the ground, but we can make a huge difference without being that absolute about it.

 

That is seriously bad logic.

The problem of warming exists whether or not there is a solution.

And, as it happens there are a things we can be doing.

Even Dr. Judith Curry (a climatologist who has doubts about the magnitude of human contribution) believes we need to be taking action today - even when some grand solution is not available.