My question would be: Is this individual one of the 3% of people (perhaps even less) that believed the Earth was round back in the days before Columbus when 97% of the people believed it was flat?
Whose view was proven to be correct in the end?
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
My question would be: Is this individual one of the 3% of people (perhaps even less) that believed the Earth was round back in the days before Columbus when 97% of the people believed it was flat?
Whose view was proven to be correct in the end?
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Ox, the oft quoted 97% is a myth.
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Just realised this Wall Street Journal article says subscribe or sign in to read it. But a quick Google search will show many more.
I can't vouch for Cook et al, (2013) who are the latest ones to come up with the 97%, as I have not read their paper in depth. Bast and Spencer appear to base their refutation of the 97% largely on flaws in Cook et al's methodology, but ignore the many other studies that came to the same or similar conclusions (listed here: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust)
My work brings me into contact with about three dozen scientists from round the globe who are actively involved in research on, or related to, climate change. Every one of them believes it is happening and that human influence is the major contributor. Consequently, I have no problem believing that the vast majority (likely >90%) of scientists actively engaged in researching climate change believe we have a problem and that it is not simply going to go away if we ignore it long enough.
I think Ox's question is valid. To answer it, Giaever is a physicist, he has not done any research on climate change as far as I can ascertain. In 2009 he professed himself a climate change skeptic, so yes, he is part of the 3%.
My work brings me into contact with about three dozen scientists from round the globe who are actively involved in research on, or related to, climate change. Every one of them believes it is happening and that human influence is the major contributor. Consequently, I have no problem believing that the vast majority (likely >90%) of scientists actively engaged in researching climate change believe we have a problem and that it is not simply going to go away if we ignore it long enough.
I think Ox's question is valid. To answer it, Giaever is a physicist, he has not done any research on climate change as far as I can ascertain. In 2009 he professed himself a climate change skeptic, so yes, he is part of the 3%.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well did you do a Google search, or are you basing your assumption on the three dozen scientists you know?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
Last edited:
...whose opinions YOU agree with.
To paraphrase what you said, you can find folks whose opinions support whatever view you might hold no matter what the topic/view may be.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I am saying that 97% is not at all accurate, If you used the term the majority of scientists I would happily go along with that. But 97% is patently bullshit. As has been pointed out by many articles and Bloggs. Some even showing graphs!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/consenustablecapture.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/consenustablecapture.png
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I'll go with that chart, even not fully knowing the specifics of the study. It does indicate my numerical values were wrong in my post, but does it really change the message behind my post? That an overwhelming majority believe humans have a greater than 50% impact on GW?
Probably is bullshit if you say 97% of all scientists Pete.
However, your chart shows 52% of climate and atmosphere scientists believe that climate change is real and we are the major cause, add another 10% who think that CC is real and we are partly the cause, and add another 20% who agree it is happening but don't believe there is enough evidence to say it is us or nature...
That's 80% who agree it is happening and that we are probably, or may be, playing some part. In fact only 9%, the majority of whom are non-active researchers, say that we likely don't have anything to do with it.
OK, 80% is short of 97%, but it is still a fairly sizeable majority. And this is from a recognised climate change skeptics blog no less.
All my interpretation of course...
However, your chart shows 52% of climate and atmosphere scientists believe that climate change is real and we are the major cause, add another 10% who think that CC is real and we are partly the cause, and add another 20% who agree it is happening but don't believe there is enough evidence to say it is us or nature...
That's 80% who agree it is happening and that we are probably, or may be, playing some part. In fact only 9%, the majority of whom are non-active researchers, say that we likely don't have anything to do with it.
OK, 80% is short of 97%, but it is still a fairly sizeable majority. And this is from a recognised climate change skeptics blog no less.
All my interpretation of course...
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Of course, it's your interpretation, but tell me, when you say CC do you mean Global warming?
CC is climate change, but, in my mind that is synonymous with global warming. "Climate change" has has become the favourable term of late because, although there has been net warming of the planet, it has not happened uniformly. Some places have got warmer from time to time, others have got cooler from time to time. This is the result of greater extremes of weather, which is consistent with overall warming of the planet. I think people, especially politicians, are pussy-footing around a bit (or being PC if you like) calling it climate change. I prefer to call a spade a spade, so change CC in my last post to global warming if you wish.
...as have been many "numerical values" (figures, 'facts', measurements, temp records, whatever) CC/GW 'scientists' have used from the get-go in their march to "confirm/'prove'" CC/GW is happening...IOW - "wrong".
"The message"? No. But, their "belief" - BELIEF - is no more valid than the opposite belief held by others...especially given the fact that every 'prediction' the CC/GM-ers have made since 1970 has failed to materialize...not to mention the fact it's been proven that their 'proof'/'evidence' was based on fraud from the get-go.
E.G.: Remember their BIGGIE prediction from the 1970s...the impending Ice Age? I ask again - what happened to that?
As I've opined B4, Terry; unless and until 'scientists' from B-O-T-H SIDES...using valid, HONEST data/figures/measurements/etc....come to the conclusion that CC/GW in fact IS happening (the 17-19-year halt in global temp increase be danged) and that man IS the major villian behind it (as opposed to an increase in 'sun spots', etc.) - it's best we not bankrupt the entire world economy while the opposing sides chase that rabbit.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "both sides" but I think what you mean is exactly what happened.
Those who believed in man made climate change slowly, through studies and papers and research, won over the skeptics and we are now at a point where the vast majority of the world's relevant scientists believe it is happening.
That's how science is supposed to work, and how it did work here.
Those who believed in man made climate change slowly, through studies and papers and research, won over the skeptics and we are now at a point where the vast majority of the world's relevant scientists believe it is happening.
That's how science is supposed to work, and how it did work here.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
No those are the facts.
You get suckered into every myth offered on this topic don't you?
Read a bit here and get back to us:
Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
You get suckered into every myth offered on this topic don't you?
Read a bit here and get back to us:
Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I just answered that for you.
It's a myth that SCIENTISTS were predicting an Ice AGe in the 70s. Time Magazine did but ...let's see....that's not a scientist.
From 65 to 70, 42 peer reviewed papers on climate change predicted warming. 7 cooling, and no one an Ice Age.
You've been duped again. Sheeple -- look in the mirror dude.
It's a myth that SCIENTISTS were predicting an Ice AGe in the 70s. Time Magazine did but ...let's see....that's not a scientist.
From 65 to 70, 42 peer reviewed papers on climate change predicted warming. 7 cooling, and no one an Ice Age.
You've been duped again. Sheeple -- look in the mirror dude.
