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


“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%. “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 :


A Deceptive New Report On Climate

“This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US.

Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicised report, designed to promote alarmism.

There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus.

It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticised. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment.

The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.”

Spot-on Paul. Great re-reporting to make the non-politicised version available!

The mere fact that activist “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe was a lead on the report, speaks volumes.

Corruption of climate ‘science’ by eco-activists, gobbled up by the sycophant mainstream media without any objective analysis.

Eisenhower was right, warning of the corruption of sciences by govt in 1960:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”


By Paul Homewood


The Federal Climate Science Special Report from the US Global Change Research Program, mandated under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, has now been published.

As with the draft, which I reported on in August, it is the usual mix of half truths, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies.

Let’s look at the main sections:

View original post 2,389 more words

10 REASONS Not To Believe The Climate Hype


Paul Homewood of NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT recently posted a blog listing ten reasons countering climate “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe’s assertion that some of us don’t believe in global warming because we don’t care!

I don’t know a single person who doesn’t “care” about the planet or their environment. So, it would appear Katharine is using more of that divisive and marginalising language favoured by the totalitarian Left, in preference to facts and reason, in a deliberate effort to force you into a narrow set of beliefs that align with the alarmist orthodoxy.

By extension, these ten points lay out fundamental reasoning as to why increasingly, more and more climate truth-seekers are forming a sceptical view of the hayhoe-hysterical “climate change” debate.

And, they happen to make an excellent resource for your next friendly climate debate!

1) We don’t trust climate scientists.

The Climategate emails revealed just how untrustworthy the climate establishment has become.

We know that literally billions in grants are being shovelled their way, and that these grants would quickly dry up if they dropped their alarmism.

2) We don’t like being misled.

You, Katharine, have form in this respect, as you know.

It was you who claimed, in a magazine article in 2011, that increasing winter temperatures in Texas were a sign of climate change.

You came to this conclusion by starting your analysis in 1965, right at the start of a cold period.

You, of course, must have known that warming since then was just part of a cycle, and that temperatures have actually changed little since the 1920s.

Texa Winter Temps

Texas Winter Mean Temperatures

3) It was hotter in the 1930s

We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerable higher in the 1930s than in recent years.

Is it surprising that people are not in the least concerned about current climate?

4) It was warmer in the Middle Ages

Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm then as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.

There is nothing unprecedented about current climate, so why should we be concerned?

5) The 19thC was the coldest period since the ice age

Ice cores show that the Little Ice Age was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since?

6) Cold kills

There can be no question at all that our current climate is beneficial compared with the cold of the Little Ice Age.

Or maybe you would prefer to return to that age of famine, cold, storms, floods and drought?

7) Extreme weather is not increasing

Despite climate scientists attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on climate change, there is no evidence that extreme weather is getting worse.

Droughts in the US, that were severe and widespread in the 1930s and 50s, have become much less of a problem since.

The US has now gone 11 years without a major hurricane, the longest such period on record.

The USGS can find no evidence that flooding has got worse.

And tornado activity has also diminished significantly since the cold years of the 1970s.

8) We don’t trust your data

Global temperature data has continually been adjusted to show more warming.

Yet the satellite data continues to diverge from surface data, and still shows temperatures have not increased since 1998.

9) Apocalypse never comes

For many years, we have been fed scare stories of apocalypse round the corner. These, of course, never materialise.

If climate scientists were to treat us with a bit of respect, honestly admitted that they have little idea of what is to come, and stopped trying to intimidate us with silly scares, you might find that we returned that respect.

10) Redistribution of wealth

Your attempts to treat us like children and trust the nice scientists ignore the issue.

Regardless of the science, the whole issue of climate change has been hijacked by politicians, the UN and a veritable army of vested interests.

People are not stupid, and know that developed countries have committed to transferring $100bn a year to developing ones, as part of the Paris Agreement.

Christina Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

Full article: Ten Reasons Why We Don’t Believe You, Katharine | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT


Related :