Fear and loathing in DC

[turtlespeed 226]

StreetScooby

Quote

The 97% has been verified independently.

Please, pretty please, provide your sources for that. I for one would love to see it. Thanks.

Don't hope for miracles.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mistercwood 287]

rushmc

I accept the fact that people are paying attention and know what a farse AWG really has become

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/17/Australia-repeals-its-hated-carbon-tax

Quote

Australia has become the first country in the world to abolish its hated carbon tax - in fulfillment of an electoral "pledge in blood" by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Just for some background there... You're referring to a PM who's approval rating after 8 or so months on the job was lower than the previous party when they were ousted.

He was happy to keep this promise since his best lady-friend is a billionaire mining magnate. He broke just about every other election promise he made.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[billvon 3,111]

>FIFY, billvon. I really think you should stop quoting this. It's been widely debunked now.

No, it hasn't. Right wingers have expressed that they are really, really upset about it, but that does not equal "debunked" - just as all the truthers who found flaws in the official 9/11 report have not debunked the "terrorists did it" theory.

>Too many sources to count.

I'd suggest both counting them and validating their opinions.

>Please, pretty please, provide your sources for that.

Oreskes 2004 - The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Science

928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Doran 2009 - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union

Survey of scientists. Question - "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.4% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

Anderegg 2010 - Expert credibility in climate change - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Now let's see your sources.

[billvon 3,111]

>hank goodness there are real scientists working on this problem.

Yes, there are. And as study after study has shown, they agree that AGW is a real issue.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...they agree that AGW is a real issue.

Besides what the 97% of social scientists think, you and I have had this conversation before:
1) Yes, it's clear that CO2 has an impact on climate.
2) It's also clear that there are many drivers in our climate, many of which are not understood, and that the impact of CO2 is no where near the dominant force in our climate.
3) It's becoming increasingly clear that this impact will be not be catastrophic, or anything remotely catastrophic.
4) It's crystal clear that what's is being proposed by AGW proponents is worthless, in terms of effectively mitigating this effect.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,111]

>Besides what the 97% of social scientists think

No, these were not social scientists.

>1) Yes, it's clear that CO2 has an impact on climate.
>2) It's also clear that there are many drivers in our climate, many of which are not
>understood, and that the impact of CO2 is no where near the dominant force in
>our climate.

Right, all AGW scientists agree on that.

>3) It's becoming increasingly clear that this impact will be not be catastrophic, or
>anything remotely catastrophic.

You'd have to define "catastrophic" for that statement to have any meaning. Is some sea level rise "catastrophic?" Then it will be catastrophic. Do you define "catastrophic" as the loss of half the Earth's human population, or an iceball planet as depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow?" Then it won't likely be catastrophic.

>4) It's crystal clear that what's is being proposed by AGW proponents is
>worthless, in terms of effectively mitigating this effect.

Which mitigation are you talking about there? The science of AGW quantifies the effects that anthropogenic emissions has on the climate. It can also predict how various mitigation strategies will work. It does not propose strategies, since that is a political function.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>Besides what the 97% of social scientists think

No, these were not social scientists.

>1) Yes, it's clear that CO2 has an impact on climate.
>2) It's also clear that there are many drivers in our climate, many of which are not
>understood, and that the impact of CO2 is no where near the dominant force in
>our climate.

Right, all AGW scientists agree on that.

>3) It's becoming increasingly clear that this impact will be not be catastrophic, or
>anything remotely catastrophic.

You'd have to define "catastrophic" for that statement to have any meaning. Is some sea level rise "catastrophic?" Then it will be catastrophic. Do you define "catastrophic" as the loss of half the Earth's human population, or an iceball planet as depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow?" Then it won't likely be catastrophic.

>4) It's crystal clear that what's is being proposed by AGW proponents is
>worthless, in terms of effectively mitigating this effect.

Which mitigation are you talking about there? The science of AGW quantifies the effects that anthropogenic emissions has on the climate. It can also predict how various mitigation strategies will work. It does not propose strategies, since that is a political function.

The people of the Solomon Islands are pretty sure its already catastrophic.

http://www.solomontimes.com/news/climatethreatened-solomon-islanders-prepare-for-evacuation/8012

[billvon 3,111]

>The people of the Solomon Islands are pretty sure its already catastrophic.

Right, as do the people in Barrow. But the people in Denver aren't at too much of risk of flooding. Like I said, you have to define "catastrophic" before you have any prayer of agreeing on whether something is a catastrophe or not.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Besides what the 97% of social scientists think

No, these were not social scientists.

>1) Yes, it's clear that CO2 has an impact on climate.
>2) It's also clear that there are many drivers in our climate, many of which are not
>understood, and that the impact of CO2 is no where near the dominant force in
>our climate.

Right, all AGW scientists agree on that.

>3) It's becoming increasingly clear that this impact will be not be catastrophic, or
>anything remotely catastrophic.

You'd have to define "catastrophic" for that statement to have any meaning. Is some sea level rise "catastrophic?" Then it will be catastrophic. Do you define "catastrophic" as the loss of half the Earth's human population, or an iceball planet as depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow?" Then it won't likely be catastrophic.

>4) It's crystal clear that what's is being proposed by AGW proponents is
>worthless, in terms of effectively mitigating this effect.

Which mitigation are you talking about there? The science of AGW quantifies the effects that anthropogenic emissions has on the climate. It can also predict how various mitigation strategies will work. It does not propose strategies, since that is a political function.

Riddle me this
How the hell can you say they can predict how various mitigation stratagies will work when they have not even come close to prediticting the effects??
And you are mistaken
The AWG stratagies must be political because they can not possibley be based on science since nearly all the preditions make have not come true

sheeshhh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>How the hell can you say they can predict how various mitigation stratagies will
>work when they have not even come close to prediticting the effects?

The IPCC predictions have come quite close to predicting the effects. See below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif

>The AWG stratagies must be political . . . .

AWG mitigation strategies are decided via political methods. Their effectiveness is validated via scientific methods.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>The people of the Solomon Islands are pretty sure its already catastrophic.

Right, as do the people in Barrow. But the people in Denver aren't at too much of risk of flooding. Like I said, you have to define "catastrophic" before you have any prayer of agreeing on whether something is a catastrophe or not.

I think Iowa is pretty safe from the melting glaciers too.. Can't see a melting glacier anywhere there.

At least a little more north they took down the signs as you go into North Dakota from Minnesota on I-94 that stated " Welcome to North Dakota. Mountain removal project complete 20,000BC."

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>How the hell can you say they can predict how various mitigation stratagies will
>work when they have not even come close to prediticting the effects?

The IPCC predictions have come quite close to predicting the effects. See below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif

>The AWG stratagies must be political . . . .

AWG mitigation strategies are decided via political methods. Their effectiveness is validated via scientific methods.

IPCC????

You make me feel more confident with nearly every post you make now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>IPCC?

Yes, the IPCC predictions have been quite close to the actual temperature rise. See previous graph. Compare that to the predictions of the deniers. The IPCC wins, hands down.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>IPCC?

Yes, the IPCC predictions have been quite close to the actual temperature rise. See previous graph. Compare that to the predictions of the deniers. The IPCC wins, hands down.

ok. But risen from what? You are helping my confidence post by post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>ok. But risen from what?

From the temperature baseline measured from 1901–2000: 13.9°C

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I'd suggest both counting them and validating their opinions.

billvon, in the interest of accurate communication, can you post the list of scientists you are referring to, please? As I mentioned in a previous post, I would love to see this list. Again, I want to see the list you are referring to.

Quote

Survey of scientists. Question - "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.4% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

IIRC, the vast majority of these scientists did not feel it was going to be a significant life altering event, and did not count themselves as "AGW-alarmists".

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,111]

>billvon, in the interest of accurate communication, can you post the list of
>scientists you are referring to, please?

?? This was your list. You referred to the 97% study and said "It's been widely debunked now. Too many sources to count." I suggested you both count them and validate them, since I have not seen any credible sources that have debunked them.

So to answer your question - there are no scientists who have debunked that study. There was one scientist who claimed to have debunked the earlier Oreskes study (Peiser) - but he later retracted his statement and apologized to Oreskes. Here's what he said in his apology:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

>IIRC, the vast majority of these scientists did not feel it was going to be a
>significant life altering event, and did not count themselves as "AGW-alarmists".

Agreed. The study determined that most papers agreed that the planet was warming and that humans were the primary cause. It did not speak to whether any scientists would have a "significant life altering event" due to AGW. To use an example I used above, a scientist in Denver will likely see very little change due to AGW in his lifetime.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

.. You referred to the 97% study ....

No, it was you that quoted that number... See post# blah-blah, ...oh, never mind.

I really do want to find "that list", and see who is on it.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,111]

>I really do want to find "that list", and see who is on it.

Knock yourself out! One of the people who "debunked" the study (Richard Tol) ended his comments with this:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

I have a feeling that denier websites will accidentally overlook that part of his comments.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>I really do want to find "that list", and see who is on it.

Knock yourself out! One of the people who "debunked" the study (Richard Tol) ended his comments with this:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

I have a feeling that denier websites will accidentally overlook that part of his comments.

I guess we are still waiting to find out whom the 97% are.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Knock yourself out! One of the people who "debunked" the study (Richard Tol) ended his comments with this:

Below is a WSJ article "debunking" the 97% number. This is one of several I've seen, not all in the WSJ. I realize the authors are controversial, but WSJ is pretty good with their opinion pieces, IMO.

==========================================================================

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
Joseph Bast And
Roy Spencer
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Enlarge Image

Getty Images/Imagezoo

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

We are all engines of karma

[DanG 1]

Your articles relies almost entirely on the premise that 97% of scientists must agree that climate changeis not only real and man-made, but also "dangerous". That's not what billvon, or anyone else as far as I can tell, has claimed. By adding the requirement that the published papers must label climate change as "dangerous" your article sets up a convenient strawman, and then knocks it down. It doesn't debunk the claim that 97% of knowledgable scientists believe that the climate is changing, and man's activities are mostly to blame.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,111]

>There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made
>climate change is a dangerous problem.

Agreed, because he did not define "dangerous." Again, if Dr. Spencer lives in Denver, it is likely that climate change will never endanger him or his neighbors, so for him that claim is most likely not true.

However, it is also not a claim that the studies made. What this study has shown (and the three other studies I posted) indicate quite clearly is that climate change is happening and was caused by man.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Your articles relies almost entirely on the premise that 97% of scientists must agree that climate changeis not only real and man-made, but also "dangerous". That's not what billvon, or anyone else as far as I can tell, has claimed.

Really? Obama, Biden, and just about every other person who engages in this question claims it's going to be "catastrophic".

Quote

By adding the requirement that the published papers must label climate change as "dangerous" your article sets up a convenient strawman, and then knocks it down.

My take on the various articles was that the bulk of these scientists had words put into their mouth.

CO2 makes up 0.0004 weight fraction of the atmosphere. Over the next approx. 100 years, with China and India increasing their CO2 output, it's expected this weight fraction will rise to 0.0008. Using the low end of the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate (which continues to decrease with each publication), and assuming their models are reasonably complete (...which I don't think is the case), that would net a 2 degF rise in temperature.

Considering that water vapor is the dominant green house gas by far, and it alone is responsible for about 60 degF in warming (life as we know it wouldn't be here on this planet without that), I can no longer take AGW alarmists seriously, at least not in any technical sense.

Politicians are using this issue for a power grab. The solutions they are advocating are insane (...the US must shut down it's coal plants NOW...), will have no positive impact on the problem at all, will end up causing far more harm than good, and will give them ever increasing control over our lives.

Not a good trade off, IMO.

Quote

It doesn't debunk the claim that 97% of knowledgable scientists believe that the climate is changing, and man's activities are mostly to blame.

The way you phrased that makes it sound like your an AGW activist who feels government action is mandated and worth what ever else happens. Is that a fair statement on my part?

My understanding is the Sun drives the climate far more than man made activities. We don't even fully understand it, yet. To claim that a "modeled 2 degF increase over 100 years" justifies current actions of EPA, Europen bureaucrat, et. al., is simply insane, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What this study has shown (and the three other studies I posted) indicate quite clearly is that climate change is happening and was caused by man.

Man is aiding climate change, but we're far from the only force driving that, IMO. We're not even the dominant force driving that. Here's more articles re: the 97%. In a nut shell, politicians should not be saying that "97% of all scientists agree..." Likewise, the only "urgent action" needed here is for rationale adults to show up in Washington.

I believe the original article that started this whole nonsense number is here:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Quote

Abstract

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.

In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Here's another article "debunking this number", this one from Forbes. I've included the link here as the article references several other articles that are worth the read. Full text of the Forbes article is shown below.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Comment Now
Follow Comments
Global warming graphic

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

We are all engines of karma