Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart

breitbart ^ | 9-8-14 | James Delingpole

[TurboZamboni]

"Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."

Remember that statement, a while back, from some bloke on Twitter? What we now know with more than 97 per cent certainty that this guy - or whoever is in charge of running his Twitter account - is either wilfully dishonest or woefully ill-informed.

The "97 per cent" claim is an utter nonsense. This report released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation explains exactly why.

First, that word "dangerous". This is a concept that was never mentioned in the study responsible for that 97 per cent claim. The paper was written by an Australian warmist activist called John Cook (and others). It drew its conclusions having allegedly reviewed 12,000 papers on climate change and found - so it claimed - that the vast majority of them supported the "consensus" on global warming.

But here the watch-the-pea-under-the-thimble game begins. The "consensus" which the Cook et al paper supports is so banal and trivial as to scarcely be worth stating, viz:

• that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas;

• that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.

[Diogenesis]

Shia Obola does not even have birth certificate
or a resume -— except in arabic.

[hal ogen]

These anti-science “scientists” who push gloBULL warming should be beaten with their worthless, read-by-noone dissertations until they beg for forgiveness. They are so integrity-impaired and moral-deficient.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Ninety-seven percent. That’s a hell of a lot of “scientists” who rely on government grants for a living.

[palmer]

Hard to imagine a topic less consequential and less interesting than the bumping of CO2 concentrations back closer to what they were (and ought to be) before we entered the current period of CO2 starvation (bad for many plants) and almost continuous ice ages.

[centurion316]

Given the stated criteria, I am surprised that they found anyone who disagreed. Carbon dioxide is indisputedly a greenhouse gas. Humans have certainly had some effect on climate, although probably very small. These facts are not in dispute.

This is a good illustration of how science has been completely subverted to support political objectives and political goals. Science as a process and as a profession has been destroyed by this nonsense. Those who profess to be scientists no longer have any credibility.

[TurboZamboni]

This green energy gimmickry has succeeded in making already rich people more wealthy. These individuals are only interested in getting richer without getting a guilty conscience. It can probably best be explained as “crony socialism”

[freedumb2003]

From the comments....

WChat the heck is the Quigley formula?

I thought I knew all the good conspiracy theories...

[Michael.SF.]

The "97 per cent" quote has it's origins, as well, in a University of Chicago survey. Here is a summary of that survey:

Of the 10,250 people asked by a college student in a biased and poorly framed survey, 3,146 responded. Of those, only 157 were real climate scientists and only 77 of them were actually published. Out of the 77 remaining, 75 of them, or 97 percent, answered the questions the way we hoped and they believe that man causes global warming.”

[TurboZamboni]

It involves windage and elevation

[Pontiac]

Science as a process and as a profession has been destroyed by this nonsense.

Science as a process and as a profession has been destroyed by Government Money.

The all mighty dollar has had a corrosive effect on science.

Like Pavlov’s dog, scientist have learned what rings the dinner bell.

Scientist are intelligent people, they soon figure out what kind of research wins government grants (pay checks) and what the desired results are if future grants are desired.

[TurboZamboni]

Taxpayers Paid $5.6 Million for Climate Change Games

Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/taxpayers-paid-5-6-million-for-climate-change-games/

There is no limit to the ‘free’ gubmint money that can be wasted on this hysteria.

[TChad]

From Lord Monckton on http://wattsupwiththat.com:

"Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%."

Not one of the "climate change deniers" in the audience answered "no" to any of the questions below:

1. Does climate change?

2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?

3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?

4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?

5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?

6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/

[FamiliarFace]

***Scientist are intelligent people, they soon figure out what kind of research wins government grants (pay checks) and what the desired results are if future grants are desired.***

I used to do research, but it left a bad taste in my mouth, because of the way it’s funded. So I stopped. However, the way this “global warming problem” has been studied doesn’t even come close to scientific rigor. Honest scientists will tell you this is just bunk.