No expert on statistics but looking at this I would say the 97% claimed stat for scientific consensus on global warming is a crock….
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
So hang on……66.4% expressed no position on the causes of global warming…
but……32.6% endorsed the alarmist position.
And the 97%?
The 97% is 97% of that 32.6%, or least of ‘those who expressed a position’, which definitely counts out the 66.4% who expressed no position and is even more definitely not 97% of ‘all scientists’…by my reading of that explanation.
So maybe around 33% of the literature openly supports the man-made climate change theory.
I’m sure someone will put me right.
NB…Not as if the author of the study isn’t a climate change campaigner himself…
Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper I co-authored in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. [Really?…see above]
So there is still much work to do. Several decades of casting doubt on the consensus has contributed to maintaining the consensus gap. This is why communication experts urge scientists to communicate the 97% consensus. This approach is based on a growing body of evidence underscoring the important role of perceived consensus and the necessity of consensus messaging.
Amusing to see this from our old mate Richard Black in 2007..
Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.
“The research itself is biased,” as one recent blog entry put it.
“Scientists are quick to find what they’re looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government.”
That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did, which made me wonder whether there was any evidence.
Naturally Black couldn’t find any convincing evidence of that….but the above surely is where “Scientists are quick to find what they’re looking for.” 97%? That’ll do nicely.
Last night. At least I think it was. BBc news and the “historic” Paris agreement. Once again no one to state this is bollocks just talking heads given the it’s a proven fact blah blah blah.
Agreements they like are ‘historic’.
Sneak murder attacks they like are ‘daring’ or ‘audacious’.
Rigged polls they like that result in ways they like are ‘routs’.
Meanwhile…
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/readers-comment-of-the-day-the-bbc-is-sore-about-labours-defeat/
Maybe Jon Donnison and Jasmine Lawrence could ‘analyse’ why, once BBC World News has put Andrew Neil back in the ‘not helpful’ box?
I was unshure of what to make of the Paris “agreement” as I know that the BBC absolutely cannot be relied upon to tell an unvarnished truth about it. I knew they would spin it to be a favourable agreement to their “establishment” agenda, regardless of the outcome. And so it has proven.
Instead of relying on the BBC, I have looked at the reaction from interested parties on both sides of the allegedly mythical debate. From that approach, I see that both the GWPF (denialists) and Dr Hansen et al (alarmist extremists) are both claiming this result to be an utter waste of time, money and energy. The GPWF welcome the deal and Dr Hansen et al is disparing of it. It means that CO2 will NOT be reduced (Good) but taxes and energy prices will continue to rise (bad) and the whole extravigant and carbon intensive bandwagon will continue into the future.
I genuinely think that looking at the actual outcome of this extravagant waste of effort, that if you look at what has been achieved, I believe that “saving the planet” was never, ever the goal. At the end of the day, what with the climate refusing to play ball and actually warm up in reality for the last 20 years, it appears that the greedy, avaricious troughers who love to gather at this hot-air generating “jolly” mainly wanted any excuse to continue the party in years to come. Realising that either the climate was not warming currently as predicted, proving the scare to be over, or alternatively that the deadly climate tipping point (as predicted to arrive in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 etc) had been reached some time ago, meaning that any action would be too late, would remove the reason for these lavish get-togethers. That is the last thing that the greedy delegates wanted. So all that has come from this latest charade is a reason to hold ever more lavish and luxuriant carbon producing charades.
Right on, Geyza! ” So all that has come from this latest charade is a reason to hold ever more lavish and luxuriant carbon producing charades.”
Somebody at BBC R4 let slip last week that there were 40,000 delegates at COP21 in Paris. That is an average of over 200 politicians, civil servants, scientists, economists & lobbyists per nation. That’s a lot of air miles, train and taxi journeys, right there, but that doesn’t include the demonstrators outside including the one from Mongolia pictured by the BBC.
Gullibles Travels.
Geyza, here’s a useful introduction to the agenda behind AGW:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html
During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government, dedicated to ensuring that the wealth enjoyed by the richer countries of the West should be spread out around the world’s underprivileged majority.
But then just as with Evolution and Relativity, Climate science only needs one scientific paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) to prove the Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis, and therefore the AGW Consensus is a false religion. And it helps if you are not part of the 98 percent consensus who can never get into Mensa.
None of the 32.6 percent produce proof of cause, otherwise we would know about it, because such a scientific paper would be “ON THE BBC“, “DAY AND NIGHT“.
I would guess that almost all of the 32.6 percent, would take for granted, AGW was the cause of changes in temperature. That’s Politics, and it helps get funding for scientific studies.
None of the 32.6 percent produce proof of cause, otherwise we would know about it, because such a scientific paper would be “ON THE BBC“, “DAY AND NIGHT“.
I would love to see how the BBC pitched that one given they keep telling us the science is already ‘settled’, though at a rough guess I’d say it would be ‘showing the usual contempt for their trusting, gullible listeners’.
Richard, it should be remembered that the A in the AGW accepted by this 97% Concensus is not fully A or even wholly ‘a’. Quite a lot (no pun intended) is left out or discounted by them, despite the fact that it still – 7.3bn+ human bodies instead of 2.something bn, for example – must be affecting the warmth of the planet, along with other forms of increasing life, expansion of cities, use of weapons, nuclear testing, etc., etc., from the middle of the 20th century onwards.
Nikolov and Zeller can be ranked alongside Darwin and Einstein and the Unified Theory of Climate is the precambrian rabbit of Climate Science? Is that what you’re saying? To put it mildly, those claims are mind boggingly stupid.
As for saying that it only takes one paper to disprove a scientific theory – that’s not how science works. Just in case you’re right, here’s one paper that disproves the Unified Theory of Climate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
The 97% is 97% of that 32.6%, or least of ‘those who expressed a position’, which definitely counts out the 66.4% who expressed no position and is even more definitely not 97% of ‘all scientists’…by my reading of that explanation.
So maybe around 33% of the literature openly supports the man-made climate change theory.
And not a single one of the world’s best 4000 investigative journalists managed to work that one out? Well, waddya expect from a bunch of arts graduates!
An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper I co-authored in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers
Ah, ‘relevant’ – that would be the 32.6% then. Sleight of hand methinks. So why were the 66.4% a) selected in the first place b) not considered relevant just because they didn’t ‘express a position’? Wouldn’t that rate as a ‘don’t know in any other kind of survey?
This whole survey has been comprehensively trashed anyway, including rebuttals from scientists themselves whose papers have been counted in the ‘pro’ camp.
A couple more points to throw in:
1) I read somewhere that one of the reviewers in this exercise managed to get through 700 papers in 72 hours.
2) A third of ‘scientific’ papers referenced by the IPCC’s report are non-peer reviewed.
Happily, the 97% deception has been thoroughly taken apart by many authors although, sadly, the true facts have and are being ignored by the warmist press and the BBC. For much useful information go to WattsUpWithThat search page ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=97%25 ) and type 97% into the search box.
Thanks.
Never got round to looking at this in detail before…it looked somewhat daunting a prospect to tackle….all that data etc.
However that’s not so. One look at Cook’s explanation made it apparent that something was wrong…which makes it all the more certain that any journalist who relies upon Cook’s claim is knowingly misleading their audience….Richard Black for instance linking to it…though of course he is no longer a journo…if ever he was.
‘In his introduction, Quentin Letts tells us that the Met Office takes a “not uncontroversial” stance on climate change. In reality its stance is so uncontroversial as to be shared by every major national science academy and well over 90% of climate scientists.’
from 2013:
Thank you Span for putting me onto Legates et al. Solid.
As MartinW said , the 97% lies have been completely debunked ,
It started out as a paper by Zimmerman , which claimed the 97% concensus from a survey of just 75 chosen
” Scientists ” . Then rehashed by COOK Et Al in an attempt to hide the tiny survey number & give it a bit of plausibility .
But just about every scientific & media organisation in the world realised it was total lies .
Even the IPCC & the green loonies at the guardian admitted it was rubbish .
But as more actual weather facts come out to prove all of the warmist stories are lies , the ” most scientists agree ” story is about all they have left .
Link to report on Zimmerman paper , showing consensus was just 75 .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/
Bottom line, science is about fact, not consensus. Scientists (proper ones) rely on the scientific method, not totting up how many random names they can append to their theses (should that be faeces?) It’s about the proper application of the scientific method. No amount of consensus counts. What consensus? From who? On what? On what basis? Under what conditions? On what evidence? How tested? Where published? etc. Loose definitions of “consensus” might be enough for a degree in spoon whittling or lentil knitting, but science it ain’t. In the climate change lobby industry they have to rely on much the same tactics as Al Beeb – obfuscation, invention, omission, bullying, lying, politics.
‘Bottom line, science is about fact, not consensus.’
True but not if you are Roger Harrabin. He came out with the immortal line this weekend, ” … have agreed to limit warming to xx which is lower than the 2 degrees which nature can stand.”
I wonder how many people were then yelling at their radios and TVs “How do you know that Roger? Have you asked nature? When did you ask nature? Just now or several months ago? Suppose it changed its mind?”
While we, in the south-east at least, bask in one of the warmest early winters for a long time, any mention of holding global temperatures to any figure really ought to carry a statutory warning from the scientific community that ‘Global warming temperatures can go down as well as up.’
I’ve always liked the 97%. It suggested someone decided 99.99% would not sound credible, so nudged it off 11.
Funnily enough the ad world was long ago forced to pop in percentages that stood some chance of holding up to scrutiny. Even toothpaste ads showing plaque removal have to show a few dangly bits clinging on. I still don’t know what to make of female shampoo ads, when X% of Y% respondents suggest a few are not quite whole.
And even at 99.99% of germs, I now remain a bit wary of the .01% still knocking around. As these fellows do come in the billions. Like climate scientists.
Don’t worry about the 0.1%. They’re not important ones – just stuff like ebola and, you know, that sort of thing.
“lentil knitting”, beauty, I am stealing this one.
Remember “Scientists against Immigration” ?
Remember “Scientists against Islamic Terrorism”?
Remember “Scientists against Mass Rape by paedophile Muslims”?
Remember “Scientists against EU tyranny”?
Remember “Scientists against waste in the EU”?
Remember “Scientists against corruption in the EU”?
Remember “Scientists against overpopulation”?
Remember “Scientists against corruption in overseas aid”?
Remember “Scientists against mendacity in the media”?
Remember “Scientists against lies by politicians”?
Remember “Scientists against Labour Party multiple voting”?
Remember “Scientists against lies by public sector employees”?
Remember “Scientists against Scientists getting on the gravy train, doing useless “research””?
Of course you do not remember them, I had to create them, because scientists are, with few exceptions, in bed with the Marxist left.
You do, however, remember numerous open letters to major UK newspapers, extolling the virtues of the latest
hare-brained Labour proposal. Or denouncing a sensible proposal from every other point on the political
compass except hard left.
Open letters, signed by “celebrities” and other left wing half-wits, but also signed by numerous academics,
who are thereby guilty by association.
For any scientist reading this here is your problem. It is not just about AGW, we do not trust you..
Very few scientists say anything about the appalling, treasonous, manner in which the indigenous people
of Europe have been treated since WW2. Treated by the very people who should be, and were elected to, protect them.
But, as noted above, scientists are in bed with, and taking funds from, the traitors.
Open your eyes and mouths, use your influence to speak up for white people, because no-one else does, then your
reports might be read, and you might regain the public trust, which you most richly deserved to lose.
How many of us have noticed the change in rhetoric?
First, it was “Global Warming”. There hasn’t been any “Global Warming” for 18 years and nine months, so that got changed to “Climate Change”. But over the recent years, several peer reviewed scientific papers have shown much caution and stated that there has been no or very little indication of “Climate Change” attributed to man made Co2. Oh dear, the sheeple aren’t buying into the “Climate Change” so let us try another tack. How about “Saving the Planet?”. Yup, sounds about right to me. So, “Saving the Planet” will become the new catchphrase. Get used to it, good people. And kiss your spare cash goodbye.
We need to be very worried about Climate Stasis. We’ve had a dangerously static climate for more than 18 years now and if we don’t do something expensive and ineffective immediately to make FA difference to the planet then we’re in trouble. FFS, send some Range Rovers to Malawi or set fire to some money or something quick.
“The 97% is 97% of that 32.6%, or least of ‘those who expressed a position’, which definitely counts out the 66.4% who expressed no position and is even more definitely not 97% of ‘all scientists’…”
This is just nonsense.
What the report is saying is that most published papers about climate change (1991–2011) aren’t concerned with the causes of climate change. But of those that are investigating the causes, 97% agree that it’s due to us humans.
If it will help, think of it another way:
There are 10,000 papers about lung cancer.
3,000 of them investigate whether tobacco might be a cause.
2,900 of those come to the conclusion that yes, tobacco causes cancer.
And up you pop, saying; “none of those other 700 lung cancer papers even mention tobacco – what a load of rubbish… oh but I’m no expert on statistics…”
_
Conclusions from the research you selectively quoted from:
“The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘…on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘…the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year’ (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
BANG BANG BANG BANG
What is that noise?
That is the sound of goalposts being moved, goalposts being dismantled, goalposts being resized, goalposts being re-purposed.
zero.
Zero?
ZERO!
Zero credibility.
These reports all emanate from people who approve of the UN.
These reports are all tainted with the same left wing brush.
These reports are all “peer” reviewed.
These “peers” already believe in the work they are, allegedly, criticising.
Even if all this climate change, or whatever term is currently fashionable, was true, we should still ignore it. Sorry, no we should do whatever is necessary to make it worse.
Sorry, that is also not correct, we should do, immediately, everything we can, to make the situation as bad as it possibly can be. So all life on earth ceases permanently. I have elsewhere on BBBC explained why this is so.
I explained this with total clarity above, in a contribution which you felt unable to criticise.
The “scientists” are not really scientists, given their track record there are no reasons why we should believe or trust them, any many reasons why we should mistrust them. These “scientists” are just left wing socialist scum, without any skill in panmendacity.
“Eight out of ten cats preferred Whiskers” said all the adverts.
With statistics like that what else could I possible feed to my moggy? I mean, it must run into millions of contented cats.
Later, possibly after a complaint or two, the adverts were subtly changed to …
“Eight out of ten cats (mumble) that expressed a preference (end mumble) preferred Whiskers”
Now, the latter could mean 1000 cats took part in some trials with 990 turning up their noses as nothing on offer resembled tinned tuna, leaving just 10 cats, 8 of which went to the Whiskers bowl!
Maybe the statistics were trying to fool me, God forbid!
97% of scientific studies into the causes of climate change are wrong; because cat food adverts used misleading statistics. Of course! Why didn’t I think of this before?
You obviously don’t understand the debate (see above if you disagree and really want to join in).
Constantly parroting a lie doesn’t make it the truth.
Maybe Marvin and zero can chip in on the statistics of BBC Complaint findings?
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/12/15/bbc-ecu-upholds-complaint-concerning-iranian-threats-to-israel/
For instance, the significance of a presenter flat out lying, and only after several months and astounding levels of attrition from ranks of CECUTT drones and directors to grind down the complainant, gets told not to get caught next time, which will be seen by very few, and around none of the vast majority exposed to it at the time.
The BBC as propagandist is without question.
How long before they decide to run a programme labelling even such cursory, insincere, neutered oversight from the Trust as ‘not helpful’?
I do use BBC Watch occasionally.
Its usefulness is limited, it is only concerned with Israel, it has its own agenda and its own version of the truth.
Razia Iqbal is female, Asian and Muslim, this combination has no credibility whatsoever
“97% of scientific studies into the causes of climate change are wrong; because cat food adverts used misleading statistics. Of course! Why didn’t I think of this before? ”
Your words not mine.
But I have upticks! So it could be 100% of readers (mumble) that expressed a preference (end mumble) agree I might be on to something.
100% of (mumble) Christian (end mumble) people think it’s possible for a 2000 year old kind person to come back to life. 100% that’s a real lot of people, and not too much to do with cat food I tell you.
Or to put the whole thing another way.
When you compare the 75 ” scientists ” who are the basis of the claimed 97% consensus [ Cooks paper tries to hide this actual number which is why it has less credibility than the original ] , with the actual number of real scientists , [ 31,000 ] who signed the Oregon petition , which says that AGW does not exist as claimed ,then you come to the fact that less than 1% of scientists believe in man made global warming .
If it pleases m’lud I’d like to enter into evidence Exhibit A: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1450204444&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=A+discrace+to+the+profession
It really is a comprehensive take down of Michael Mann’s hockey stick B.S. It’s interesting because it details real world reactions from credible scientists to what amounts to blatant dishonesty. Using actual verbatim email exchanges with Mann himself (he didn’t expect to see these in the public domain) it exposes the reality. We are also led carefully through the arguments. You cannot reach the end of this book and with any objectivity conclude that our political leaders (and Osorry Harrabin Lyin) are anything other than wilfully corrupt.