Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Is Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists

[Stu]

Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Is Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists

...

An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.

Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of "settled science": 97 per cent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention.

That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom [only] 3,146 responded.

Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Quoted the applicable part, you can read the entire article here.

[Audie]

Alleged “Consensus on Climate

Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

I wonder what prrcent of deniers are fundamentalists / creationists. They are very practiced at
intellectual dishonedty.

[Philip]

Has warming occurred? Of course. Is it man-caused. Maybe, somewhat, maybe not. Is it ongoing? We can't be sure, one way or another. Is it merely a cycle of the earth that we don't yet well understand? Good chance. Are there any certainties as to the cause, or when it might go back to a colder period? No. Anyone tells you they KNOW the answers to these things are merely speculating. Is GW is the grave danger that we've heard about so much - maybe, maybe somewhat, maybe not at all. Is there not political correctness and politics driving much of the debate? Of course! Are climate computer models flawed. Sure, there's no way they don't have problems. Is the data comprehensive? Of course not. Does arbitrarily plugging cherrypicked data into some geek's algorhythm program produce scary results - sure. But is that realistic. Likely not. So, at best, there are many uncertainties. So, does that mean we state an international climate tax, have some centralized body making decisions wielding political influence, controlling vast sums, energy policies - all that, WITHOUT having many, many important questions answered? Absolutely not! If GW is the waiting disaster some assert, could we change the outcome? That is unknown. We can't even give good weather forecasts three days out. Is there NOTHING to worry about? That's no certainty either. Should we not clean up our water and air through sensible policies? Of course! Should we not keep researching and planning contingencies? Sure. Can we forever wait if GW is a huge threat? Certainly not.

What one must admit, is there is a TON about climate change that we don't and can't currently KNOW. So, the foaming at the mouth crowd - I ignore them, as I know they don't KNOW whether what they are radically obsessed with is actually factual-based. But if they KNEW for certain, I'd be highly concerned as well/would see drastic measures needed. But for sober research and scientific monitoring - absolutely we should be doing these. So, I say, when it comes to climate change, we don't listen to the no-matter-what naysayers, nor the screaming lefties. Let's look at facts and not politics of the matter. And when we're speaking of a 4.5 billion year old planet, let's not get too jacked up over a few hundred years, here or there. Earth's been very hot, warm, cool, extremely cold - and it will be again. Wash, rinse, repeat!

[Audie]

People who talk about "certainities" and what they "know" may be philosophers, or theologians, or they may be ordinary fools, but they sure are not scientists.

[RickD]

People who talk about "certainities" and what they "know" may be philosophers, or theologians, or they may be ordinary fools, but they sure are not scientists.

Audie,

You are adorable!

[Audie]

People who talk about "certainities" and what they "know" may be philosophers, or theologians, or they may be ordinary fools, but they sure are not scientists.

Audie,

You are adorable!

I yam what I yam.

[Philip]

People who talk about "certainities" and what they "know" may be philosophers, or theologians, or they may be ordinary fools, but they sure are not scientists.

OR they might well be scientists who try to fob off mere data and speculation as "things known with a high degree of certainty" or as being of "accepted scientific consensus" - both of which may well be not proof or anything at all. As we all know of the many things science once thought to be true and later abandoned as more data became available. Remember the infamous "Steady State" that Einstein once held so dear? Big Bang cosmology, red shift data, etc. - OOPS, the philosophers and theologians had it right FIRST - as it appears, from mountains of data, that there WAS a beginning to the universe.

[Stu]

Audie wrote:
Probably the same dirty rats who try to shove that "evolution" bs down everyone's throat.

Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

I wonder what prrcent of deniers are fundamentalists / creationists. They are very practiced at
intellectual dishonedty.

How so?

As opposed to the intellectual honesty of evolutionists / atheists. Please tell me another joke

[bbyrd009]

People who talk about "certainities" and what they "know" may be philosophers, or theologians, or they may be ordinary fools, but they sure are not scientists.

OR they might well be scientists who try to fob off mere data and speculation as "things known with a high degree of certainty" or as being of "accepted scientific consensus" - both of which may well be not proof or anything at all. As we all know of the many things science once thought to be true and later abandoned as more data became available. Remember the infamous "Steady State" that Einstein once held so dear? Big Bang cosmology, red shift data, etc. - OOPS, the philosophers and theologians had it right FIRST - as it appears, from mountains of data, that there WAS a beginning to the universe.

i'm reminded here of Doctors, touting certain cigarettes over others.

and seems like, just like medicine, nothing wrong with science per se, until it gets co-opted for $.

[bippy123]

People who talk about "certainities" and what they "know" may be philosophers, or theologians, or they may be ordinary fools, but they sure are not scientists.

Audie,

You are adorable!

Lol Rick you never fail to put a smile on my face hehe

[Audie]

Absolutely! But it's a good think for us that we have ACB, and his "evidence" disproving evolution.

Well, you know there is just no evidence of any changes in climate, physical geography,
or life forms, other than a bit of natural variation.

Except for the occasional vast catastrophe.

Maybe that is what the deniers of all such things are waiting for.

Anyone denying that the climate is changing, is not being honest. But then, those that claim that climate change is necessarily bad, or going to destroy us all, isn't being honest either.

I wonder what prrcent of deniers are fundamentalists / creationists. They are very practiced at
intellectual dishonedty.

How so?

As opposed to the intellectual honesty of evolutionists / atheists. Please tell me another joke

Good to see you've learned snarkasm and deflection. Perhaps you wont need to demonstrate it again, now that it's been acknowledged.

Unpacking your comment a bit, do you disagree that the deniers are especially apt to be fundies?