Posted on 10/20/2021 3:42:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
A new “peer-reviewed” paper has been released from Cornell University titled “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.”
The study is yet another attempt to convey the nebulous notion that widespread scientific consensus exists regarding the primary causal factor behind climate change. A previous study, spearheaded by climate blogger activist John Cook, concluded in 2013 there was “97 percent consensus.” Despite near universal acclaim and its citation by leading policymakers such as the United Kingdom’s energy minister, the study was inherently flawed.
Dr. Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia explains, “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
Even the Guardian -- typically a stalwart supporter of climate activism -- ran a headline stating: “The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up.”
After a thorough analysis, more than 100 published articles shredded the study’s faulty methodology and completely rejected its postulated consensus level of 97 percent.
Yet, Cook’s baseless study was still used as the inspiration for today’s release from Cornell -- which, unsurprisingly, is similarly flawed. Regarding the researchers’ methodological approach, the article’s press release states, “In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
We are so far beyond this discussion that it is pointless to debunk the “consensus” again and again and again.
While some are wasting time arguing the “consensus” validity, the policies are being put in place and the transformation of our economy is taking place.
Why not argue against the “Great Society” programs while the left is pushing a $3.5 Trillion social program bill?
The current consideration:
Do ants (all species) outnumber the human population?
Do ants emit CO2 and Methane as part of their existence?
Do ants contribute to Climate Change, according to their number and activity?
My position is that ants should be taxed at a rate 45% of their productive effort and those monies should be re-directed to Climate Change efforts world-wide...or, at least paying for Greta’s University costs.
The most critical issue, the one the survival of the species may well depend on, is that “consensus” among scientists is meaningless and may in fact be dangerous.
If the narrative were changed to “97% of scientists funded by government climate-change research funding agree that climate change is real and needs much more funding”, then most people might start to get it...
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Question for greenies:
would you rather fight so-called climate change or have full shelves in the supermarket?
Anyone who believes CO2 is dangerous to “mother earth” should do their part and stop exhaling their own CO2.
The world would suddenly become a MUCH better place to live.
Isn’t it kind of irrrelevant to analyze the number of “positive” vs. “negative” climate-change articles?
Most of these “science publications” are already so fooled by the propaganda they WON’T EVEN publish anything critical of the Climate Agenda
so of course you get a 99% figure ... soon to be 100%, when they cut out all criticism
Yes, and at one time in World History there was near 100% consensus that the world was flat !!
As I have always said, “start with yourself and let’s see how that goes.”
A new “peer-reviewed” paper has been released from Cornell University titled “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change...”
I always wanted to be part of the 1%.
Simply put, anything that emerges from Cornell or Ithaca, New York is not to be believed. Determinedly Marxist, it can’t even get its Marxism right.
Bingo. At one time, the consensus was the earth was flat (not in the time of Columbus, we know that was caca). At one time, the consensus was that mud caused disease — not the buggies in it.
As to Cook’s analysis, read it. From my memory:
It started of with a review of 14K papers, ~4k were summarily discarded without explanation.
The “consensus” was then jiggered by conflation. ~3% said warming is real and caused by mankind, 97% said ~”can’t really rule out global warming but no hard evidence that mankind has a hand in it”.
Gore’s original line that 97% of scientists agree is a lie. Kinda. Yeah, they agree, but not with how he set up the lie.
They are not fooled.
They are in on it. It is literally impossible for anyone with a shred of science training to believe a word of "climate change" in its popular sense.
If the narrative were changed to “97% of scientists funded by government climate-change research funding agree that climate change is real and needs much more funding”, then most people might start to get it...
The Cook Study, for instance, applied both a paper which supported a key point on global warming as supporting the consensus, as well as the paper which showed the first paper was flawed rubbish, another paper which didn’t even address climate change, and another which was written by a skeptic - all as supporting the ‘consensus’.
Chat logs showed that the decisions to count a paper as supporting the reviewers position were at least in some cases based upon what the reviewers thought others would think of their assessments rather than the papers themselves.
It was just multi-layered junk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.