SUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ Myth


The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
Climate modeller, Oxford University

***

A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.

Via Clear Energy Alliance :

97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

***

SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :

“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.”
― Michael Crichton

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 
― Michael Crichton

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

MUST READ CRICHTON :

•••


‘END OF SNOW’ UPDATE : Natural Snow Depth In Australia The Highest In Two Decades


SNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David VinerSenior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)

“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)

“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)

***

WEATHER is, of course, not climate.

WE are keenly reminded of this fact by our global warming climate change hysterical friends ‘if’ a significant snow event or cold blast is reported on the media.

THOUGH, do keep in mind the “End-Of-World” prophecies declared by our same friends every time a two-day heat wave (in summer) is reported, on repeat, throughout the mainstream media.

THE rules are simple – cold equals weather, hot equals climate!

*

SKIING in Australia takes place in the high country of the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, as well as in the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), during the southern hemisphere winter. The season varies between ski fields and years, starting from mid June and ending mid October. The past three years have seen extended seasons across most higher altitude resorts.

THE 2019 ski season started early after the heaviest May snow in decades across Australia’s east coast.

WHILE most of the regular season since then has been ‘regular’, the latter half has been anything but, with the past two weeks seeing record snow dumps.

OFFICIAL MEASUREMENTS

SNOWY Hydro have been measuring weekly natural snow depths at three locations the Snowy Mountains of NSW since the 1950’s. Their highest measuring site is at Spencers Creek (1,830m elevation) near Charlotte Pass.

THE latest readings have been impressive. Record-breaking, in fact …

ACCORDING to Elders weather:

The natural snow depth at Spencers Creek was 202.7cm this week. This is the earliest date for a depth of two metres to be measured at Spencers Creek in 15 years. 

It’s also an increase of 77.5cm from last week and, impressively, the third weekly increase of more than 70cm so far this season. This is a new record for Spencers Creek. Prior to 2019, there had only ever been two weekly depth increases 70cm or more in any one season, with data available back to 1954.

While there have been some long periods without any significant snow this season, when it has snowed, it’s been exceptional in a historical context.

Elders Weather

*

WITH more snow on the way this weekend for Australia’s ski fields, natural snow depth could reach its deepest level in two decades

*

“SETTLED” SNOW SCIENCE?

WITH ‘unexpected’ snow over the past four years boosting historical averages across Australia’s ski fields, the big question still remains: Is Australia’s premier science body, the CSIRO, and the Ski industry willing to retract their ‘end of snow’ predictions?

A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020 …

By 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%

CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria

*

THE “97% Consensus Of Experts” AGREED, TOO!

IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that :

Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David VinerSenior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

*

IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…

THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”

warmer-winters-ipcc

warmer-winters-ipcc

*

THE SCIENCE WAS “SETTLED”

2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…

“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif

2000 : Spiegel

“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”

2004 : Mark Lynas told us

“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas

2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel

Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”

2005 : George Monbiot on climate change and snow

Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…

2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …

“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”

Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 30.04.2006

2006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…

The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…

2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…

It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.

2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU

“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”

2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…

Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

2007 : Die Zeit

“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”

2008 : Another prediction

A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. ”I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.

2012 :

Enjoy snow now . . . by 2020, it’ll be gone | The Australian

2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…

The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level. screenhunter_314-feb-07-11-00

This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”

(Climatism bolds)

The End of Snow? – The New York Times

2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…

Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.

Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGE

*

U-TURN!

NOW, of course, climate ‘scientists’ are trying to dig themselves out of snow that’s kept falling …

Looking back at 65 years’ worth of statistics, Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips noted that since 1948, winter temperatures in the prairie regions have increased by an average of four degrees Celsius… Ironically, warmer weather can mean greater snowfall. “As we warm up, we may see more moisture, we may see more moist air masses, and therefore we could very well see more snow rather than less snow, because the air masses are going to be more moist and so therefore you’re going to be able to wring out more snow than you would be if it was dry air,” Phillips said.

*

UNFORTUNATELY for CO2-centric climatologists like David Phillips, attempting to ‘dig’ themselves out of their “end of snow” dud-predictions, you need cold air to make snow!

VETERAN Boston meteorologist Barry Burbank explains …

“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.

Will The Snowiest Decade Continue? – CBS Boston

***

CONCLUSION

LISTEN to what the ‘experts’ promised you back then. Because, if they got it wrong then, how can you trust what they are foretelling today or tomorrow? The answer is you cannot, because they have no idea what long-range conditions Mother Nature is going to serve up in such a “chaotic” and complex system as our climate.

AND, most importantly, does the CSIRO and “97% of all climate experts” still stand by their ‘end of snow’ predictions? Or is their alarmist sophistry simply more global warming climate change fear-mongering based on CO2-centric ideology, eco-religious dogma and overheated UN IPCC and CSIRO climate computer models that do not accord with observed reality?

IN parting, keep in mind how the Climate Change theory-obsessed mainstream media sells you snow in the era of Global Warming theory-madness

•••

UPDATE : 25, AUGUST 2019

AS seen on Sky News Australia’s “Outsiders”. The most watched, daily, Sky news program…

 

•••

SEE also :

RELATED :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

IPCC Extreme Weather Report 2018 SR15 :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••

 


CLIMATISM : State Of The Climate Report

CLIMATISM - State Of The Climate


THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.

IN THEIR (IPCC) OWN WORDS:

ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.

STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare :

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University/Royal Society fellow

*

THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.

STRONG and the UN’s charter and agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of climate change was butchered and tortured to fit the global warming narrative…

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP

*

FORMER Australian PM Julia Gillard, who implemented Australia’s ruinous and politically destructive 2011 carbon tax, was open in expressing its core function to drive substantial changes in patterns of energy production and energy use.’

*

THE climate fix was in from the start, and now we’re paying for it, big time, in the form of unreliable energy, skyrocketing power bills, energy poverty, economic ruin and death…

*

STATE OF THE CLIMATE

CLIMATE catastrophists blame humans and their use of fossil fuels for the purported destruction of climate with “tipping points” and “runaway global warming” some of the emotional descriptors driving the narrative.

LET’S check out the most well known environmental metrics used by the Climate Crisis Industry to push their global warming scare and see exactly what damage fossil fuels and harmless byproduct CO2 are doing to Gaia…

*

ANTARCTICA

ANTARCTICA, the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

2017 Study

From the abstract :

Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1.

Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core

SEE more :

*

ARCTIC

OVER the past decade, the Arctic has seen a large increase in multi-year, thick sea-ice.

ARCTIC-Sea-Ice-Growth-AUG-2008---2018---CLIMATISM

Read the rest of this entry »


THE “97% Consensus” Meme Further Discredited By 97 New Papers Supporting A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

climatism-97-consensus.jpg

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

.
IN order to avoid important free and open debate, on a system so chaotic as our climate, CAGW alarmists instinctively claim that the “science is settled” based on a purported “97% consensus” of all scientists.
.
ANY person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a climate ‘denier’ – likened to those who claim the holocaust never occurred. A classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who refuse to comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.
.
BOGUS 97% surveys have been concocted over the years claiming a scientific ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do.
.
THE late Michael Crichton on the folly of a so-called ‘consensus’ in science…
“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.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 

Pierre L. Gosselin’s masterful resource NoTricksZone has unearthed 97 new papers in 2018 alone that further discredit the bogus “97% consensus” meme…

A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

The Science Unsettles

In just the first 8 weeks of 2018,  97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.

These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”

A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions.  The papers do not do more than that.  Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.

Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.  Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)


(Parts 2 and 3 are on the same page).  

Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3)
Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)

Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate (21)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (3)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (2)

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1)
Miscellaneous (5)

Read full report here…

A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | NoTricksZone

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ

Donate with PayPal

•••

Climatism hot links :

Climate Science related :


TOP 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed

Global Warming HOAX.jpg

WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt, the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated against mankind is that human’s modern life (including your sandwich) is causing catastrophic “climate change” or “global warming” or “climate disruption” or “climate breakdown”, depending on the day and the activist concerned.

THIS must watch 5 minute video, backed up by peer-reviewed-scientific-evidence and verifiable government data, exposes the climate fraud rather masterfully…

Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed – YouTube

•••

Related :


THE “97%” Climate Consensus Lie Nailed

97_percent_busted.jpg

ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made global warming climate change”…

Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.

  • How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
  • 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
  • 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
  • If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate experts alarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?

Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

•••

These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…

petition-warming-screenshot.jpg

31,487 Sigs (9,029 PHD’s) Global Warming Petition Project

The “97%” Hoax Related :

consensus-peer-review-climate.gif


Triumph of the Sceptics!

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of 
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

•••

Sceptic Majority

Follow up column from yesterdays post – CSIRO: Most Australians Are Now Global Warming Sceptics | Climatism …

CSIRO survey shows more Aussies are cool on warming

  • HERALD SUN
  • NOVEMBER 05, 2015 12:00AM

IT’S a miracle. Most Australians are now global warming sceptics, despite years of being misled by the media.

A CSIRO survey of more than 5000 people has confirmed it, even though warmist reporters tried to spin it.

For the first time since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth claimed man was heating the world to disaster, Australians who believe this scare are outnumbered by those who don’t. True, a worrying 45.9 per cent of Australians do still think man is mostly to blame for what warming we’ve seen over the past several decades.

But those believers are now outnumbered by people who think this warming is natural (38.6 per cent) or not occurring at all (7.9 per cent) — which means sceptics total 46.5 per cent. The rest don’t know.

In fact, even 19 per cent of Greens voters are sceptics. Yes, the shift is that huge. What a tribute to the good sense of Australians.

For nearly a decade, reporters claimed the vast majority of you believed man really was heating the world dangerously. And the media campaigned furiously to make sure you did. You were bombarded with propaganda. Your doubts were mocked. You were told that the world’s temperature was soaring, when there’s actually been no significant warming of the atmosphere for some 18 years.

You were told we were getting more and worse cyclones, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report in fact admits neither seems true and, if anything, we’re getting fewer.

You were told by Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 that warming could dry out the dams of Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide within a couple of years because “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”. Except it did, repeatedly, to the point of flooding.

You were told by the ABC’s chief science presenter, Robyn Williams, the seas could rise up to 100 metres this century, thanks to a dramatic melting of the Antarctic — which NASA last week conceded was instead increasing in ice mass.

You were told by the UN that the world’s food crops would fail, when they’ve instead set new records.

You were told to beware of giant hailstones (Professor Ross Garnaut), dengue fever (Professor Tony McMichael), tsunamis (World Vision boss Tim Costello), killer heatwaves (Professor Peter Doherty), seas as high as “an eight-storey building” (Flannery), a “permanent drought” (Greens leader Bob Brown) and a dead Great Barrier Reef by 2050 (Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg).

Your politicians, with rare exceptions, failed you. They should have challenged this disgraceful alarmism. Instead, they exploited it and even forced you to pay billions for fake schemes and taxes to “stop” a warming that actually halted or dramatically slowed nearly two decades ago.

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

Yet this miracle has occurred. You’ve kept your heads when so many journalists tried so hard to make you panic.

In fact, they’re still at it, even with this report, which the warmist CSIRO quietly slipped out among the distractions of Melbourne Cup day.

None of the media reports pointed out the central finding: that believers in man-made global warming are now in a minority in Australia.

Instead, they tried to bury it with spin. Typically, the ABC was worst, actually giving the impression that global warming faith was as strong as ever. “Research by the CSIRO has found more than three quarters of Australians agree climate change is happening,” it burbled, “with divisions emerging along political lines”. Excuse me, but this debate has never been about whether “climate change is real”.

Of course, it’s real. The climate always changes. The real debate is what caused what warming we’ve seen — and whether more warming is bad and worth trying to stop.

The Sydney Morning Herald and Age were little better, spinning the CSIRO’s results into a story of how Coalition voters were numbskulls — the holdouts refusing to “accept” the truth: “Barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly caused by humans,” its tut-tutting report began.

It even added the hope, expressed by an alarmist scientist, that new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could save the Liberals from this error: “Many Coalition voters will take their cue from the PM and shift their views.”

Don’t count on it, champ. He tried to shift the views of Coalition supporters the last time he was Liberal leader and it cost him his job.

Face facts: the public smells the warmist bull and is finally crying: “Enough!” The time for truth is now.

•••

See also :

Global Warming “Pause” related :

Sceptic related :

CSIRO related :


CSIRO: Most Australians Are Now Global Warming Sceptics

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

A new survey from Australia’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, shows that most Global warming believers are now in the minority!

The findings demonstrate that the majority of the population are not stupid, and see straight through and reject the endless ‘climate change’ alarmism and propaganda that is drilled into them day and night from the global-warming-crisis-industry and complicit mainstream media.

Hats off to the sceptical majority for maintaining their independence of thought, and not being tempted into the comfort of groupthink.

•••

Andrew Bolt picks apart the CSIRO study in his Herald Sun Blog :

The Sydney Morning Herald misses the most astonishing finding of the CSIRO study to complain that Malcolm Turnbull leads a party of sceptics:

Barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly caused by humans, with more than half of Liberal voters believing changes to global temperatures are natural, according to a CSIRO survey.

And it holds out false hope:

Andy Pitman, Director of ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW, predicted that many Coalition voters will take their cue from the new PM and shift their views.

They didn’t last time, Mr Pitman. No, this is a reminder to Malcolm Turnbull not to push his luck too hard as leader of a party far more sceptical than he is:

But this Herald report misses the most startling finding: only a minority of Australians now think man is mostly to blame for global warming. More think global warming is largely natural or not happening:

image

Incredibly, even 19 per cent of Greens voters are now sceptics, too:

image

Despite the media’s best efforts, there has been a huge shift in opinion. The global warming scare is dying.

Mind you, another drought – inevitable in this continent – could keep the scare going for a while yet.

•••

Related :

CSIRO Related :


The journal Nature embraces ‘the pause’ and ocean cycles as the cause, Trenberth still betting his heat will show up

See also : NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA

View original post


A cooling 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.”

“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” 

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton

Screen Shot 2013-08-22 at , August 22, 6.06.23 PM

Climate change

A cooling consensus

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: “Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections”.

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries. Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that “we cannot afford to wait”. More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus.

Of course, if the consensus climate models turn out to be falsified just a few years later, average temperature having remained at levels not even admitted to be have been physically possible, the authority of consensus will have been exposed as rather weak. The authority of expert consensus obviously strengthens as the quality of expertise improves, which is why it’s quite sensible, as matter of science-based policy-making, to wait for a callow science to improve before taking grand measures on the basis of its predictions.   

Anyway, Mr Cohn cites a few scientists who are unruffled by the surprisingly slow warming.

It might seem like a decade-long warming plateau would cause a crisis for climate science. It hasn’t. Gerald Meehl, a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has seen hiatus periods before. They “occur pretty commonly in the observed records,” and there are climate models showing “a hiatus as long as 15 years.” As a result, Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” Those much-cited computer models are composed of numerous simulations that individually account for naturally occurring variability. But, Meehl says, “the averages cancel it out.”

Isn’t this transparently ad hoc. The point of averaging is to prune off exceedingly unlikely possibilities. It does not vindicate a model to note that it gives no weight—that it “cancels out”—its only accurate constitutive simulations.

If “hiatus periods are commonly observed” is the right way to think about the current warming plateau, then the rest of Mr Cohn’s article, examining various explanations of the puzzle of the hiatus would be unnecessary. But, as all the pieces discussing the warming plateau make perfectly clear, climate scientists are actually pretty baffled about the failure of their predictions. Is it the oceans? Clouds? Volcanoes? The sun? An artifact of temperature data?

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn’t. This isn’t a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that

In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity.

But his attempt to minimise the political relevance of this is unconvincing. He writes:

The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.

But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. As this paper has maintained:

If … temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.

We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.

•••

Related:

Modelling Climate Alarmism