More Abbottacus type magic with figures


97% of scientists support the theory [and it is a theory] of man-made climate change…due in the main to CO2.

Except that is bunk based on a lie as we pointed out in 2015…..

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.

We also noted this from the Guardian way back in 2014….the need to promote that ‘consensus’ message…

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.

Which is why the Guardian leads its climate change articles with this lie even now….


Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to More Abbottacus type magic with figures

  1. boohanna says:

    All consistent I’m sure. There’s never a Viner around when you need one.


    • kane says:

      As stated in “Frozen Britain” by Gavin Cooke in 2009 and recently confirmed by the mathematics dept of Northumbria university, the action of the sun is the driver of global temperature change and that change is heading towards a new mini ice age.
      PS. Did anyone hear the Muslim BBC bod (head of Persian radio) refer to the those demonstrating against Iran’s murderous despots as “hardliners”on BBC news 24? Is this the shape of “unbiased” BBC reporting to come? (read: “2030: Your Children’s Future in Islamic Britain” by David Vincent, Amazon and Kindle).


  2. boohanna says:

    Hahahahahahahahaha……..”that good old global warming”……. He is such a naughty boy….


    • Eddy Booth says:
      ”Commuters across North America are bundling up.”

      Ha ha, didn’t Trump just use Bundle up!
      Maybe a biased BBC secret agent working at enemy head quarters ??


    • NCBBC says:

      Unfortunately, the waters on the “debate” on Climate Weather AGW, have been so poisoned, that no honest debate can take place.

      The way forward is to withdraw all funding from Climate Change AGW topics. The issue will be debated without money poisoning the debate. The majority of the people interested in AGW etc are ones who are either getting funding for it, or those who are making huge amounts of money, as subsidy. That is some 90% or more of the people involved, will simply vanish from the debate, as there is no money in it.

      As far as the emperical evidence is concerned, there is no Global Warming. No rise in sea levels. No evidence of Pacific islands under water. So thats that. All the dire predictions that London and other coastal cities would be under water, have not come about.

      And this is where Donald Trump comes in. Pres Trump has trumped AGW Climate Change funding, and the real debate can now start.

      Only those people who are genuinely and honestly interested in which hypothesis/theory could be correct – Man made, Cosmic rays, the sun, orbital mechanics, cow fart hypothesis etc, will bother to turn up.

      And the best thing, it will be so unimportant and unintelligible to illiterate BBC journos, we wont hear of it.


  3. Guest Who says:

    Don’t know what has happened to the other deranged old blonde Katty, but Emily M is RTing like a good ‘un all her mates who are not, as such, Trump fans.

    And here she is herself:


  4. MarkyMark says:

    He’s got a 50% chance of piling through, but only a 10% chance of that!


  5. vesnadog says:


    At long last I’ve convinced myself that the BBC news presenters think that they are talking to new BBC TV viewers only.

    Of course I refer to the alarming amount of snow that the poor UK is having just now and how the British “stiff upper lip” as morphed into a “wobbly, droopy lip”

    Oh, and don’t forget to recharge your Apple iPhone 6 as this will no doubt be some great joy for that old long blond haired tory MP who will use this as yet another ploy/lie to bring about a second referendum down the line (pardon the pun).


  6. In The Real World says:

    The 97% concensus has long been discredited .

    Click to access 97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

    The original Doran / Zimmerman paper was actually just 75 people , [ out of thousands asked ], agreeing that there might be some human influence on climate , & the later Cook et al paper was just 41 out of 12000 science papers that said there might be some human effect .
    So actually a true figure of less than 1 % scientists agreed .

    But as more actual weather facts prove that CAGW is rubbish , the green loonies are falling back on their old lies because some people might still believe them .


    • Rick Bradford says:

      Actually, I think if you told most green loonies that the evil gas CO2 had been invented by satanic Monsanto purely to make more money, most of them would believe you.


  7. Eddy Booth says:

    looks like the BBC have left it to their bum chums at The Guardian, to trot out the other man made climate change cliche :
    ”US president again conflates weather with climate to pour scepticism on climate change..”

    Just a minute – aren’t they forever telling us about extreme WEATHER events caused by the likes of me and my one bar electric fire?


    • NCBBC says:

      Indeed, every warm day in Britain is ruined by the BBC conflating it to AGW or Climate Change.


      • RJ says:

        Basic BBC reporting rule.

        When it’s cold in the winter that is only weather. When it’s hot in the summer that can only be caused by evil CO2 and it’s proof of man made global warming. Any arts graduate or snail biologist can tell you that.


  8. Arthurp says:

    By the way – it is not a theory. It hasn’t reached the level of substantiation to be called a theory.

    It is a hypothesis – nothing more.


    • NCBBC says:

      Agreed in spades.

      General Relativity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Evolution is a narrative.


    • johnnythefish says:

      Well said, Arthur P.

      One could go a step further and say it’s a failed hypothesis as none of the climate models predicted the 20-year flatlining of ‘global’ temperatures (if there is such a thing).

      Natural variability of climate is little understood and barely accommodated in the models – so much for ‘settled science’ and so much for an ‘impartial’ BBC that finds itself incapable of challenging this fraudulent religion.

      “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      – IPCC AR4 WG1


  9. Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

    I think the title to this article is misleading and does not represent the article that follows. Diane Abbott is simply hopeless at maths and has demonstrated a below gcse level of mathematical ability. She is not magical with her numbers she is simply incompetent with her numbers. Maybe someone could find out what education qualifications she has. Her Wikipedia page gives no information on her qualifications:

    Born to Jamaican parents in 1953. Her father was a welder and her mother was a nurse. She attended Harrow County Grammar School for Girls, and then Newnham College, Cambridge, where she read history.
    [Wikipedia, paraphrased]


  10. Swelter says:

    I wonder how long it will be before the Eco zealots blow the dust of their Mann hockey stick graph. That must due an airing.


  11. Richard Pinder says:

    I presume 97% of scientists do not have any relevant qualifications in causational Climate science subjects such as Atmospheric Physics and Solar Astronomy.

    The theory of man-made climate change is a failed hypothesis based on a formula produced by Svante August Arrhenius in Victorian times. It was subsequently superseded by thermodynamics, which in 2011, produced the Unified Theory of Climate, showing that Arrhenius unintentionally produced a hoax. But low IQ scientists using Computer Models, still think it could produce something, despite the 100 percent failure rate, produced for all Models that have come to fruition, such as those produced by the BBC’s favourite idiot, Peter Cox, resident “fool” of the University of Exeter.

    Also, there are no known results for calibrating carbon-dioxide warming, produced from Atmospheric chambers, nor do results for this formula produced for Mars, fit Venus, nor do results for Venus fit Mars. In fact the Astronomers I know feel embarrassed about it all, or repeat the well known phrase “it’s a Hoax”.

    Anyway the formula is based on the total amount of atmospheric Carbon-Dioxide, of which only 4 percent is Man-made, that’s 16 parts per million, but the attributed increase is 100 parts per million. That is taken as proof that the Medieval Warm period caused the increase in Carbon Dioxide, while the Man-made increased is “diluted to invisibility” by the Atmospheric mass “fifty to one ratio” with the upper Ocean mass. That’s why the 4 percent attributed to Man, appears not to have ever increased.

    If a scientist attributes their opinion to “Man-made cause” instead of Carbon-Dioxide, Clouds or the Sun, then that would help the scientist to obtain further funding from left-wing politicians.
    That’s why they do it, its not really important other than to fool inferior low IQ left-wing politicians who wouldn’t read or understand a scientific paper, but like what they hear and have the power to give more taxpayer money to a creepy charlatan, at say Reading or East Anglia University.


    • Edward says:

      “The theory of man-made climate change is a failed hypothesis based on a formula produced by Svante August Arrhenius in Victorian times. It was subsequently superseded by thermodynamics…”

      No, it wasn’t!!!

      The laws of thermodynamics have been superseded by quantum mechanics (see my comment above). There is NO SUCH THING as a theory of climate change. Climate change is an observation based on NUMEROUS THEORIES!!!

      Global warming is an observation – NOT A PREDICTION!!!


  12. Polytropic says:

    The 97% has been debunked over and over. It is probably the most disputed statistic in the history of science. Yet the bbc constantly uses the figure as if it’s a fact.