Looking at these graphs, one could make several hypotheses:
- increased CO2 emissions increases Life Expectancy;
- increased CO2 emissions increases Population;
- increased Population increases Life Expectancy....etc...etc
Joanne Nova once showed two graphs that indicated that
And, as mentioned on these pages, the apparent similarity between historic atmospheric CO2 and temperature does not mean that CO2 is driving temperature:
|Alarmist in Denial|
We know that Al Gore cheated by separating those graphs and we know that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified multiple times (when once is all that is needed.)
How many times do we have to refute this furphy? (Put 97% into the search box to the right and see how many times we have rebutted this.) How any intelligent person, scientist or otherwise, could make the remark without embarrassment amazes most realists.
In his piece, Alex asks:
1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”
Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?
What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.
It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.Alex's Second question:
2. How do we know the 97% agree?To elaborate, how was that proven?
Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.
Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.Paid disinformation purveyor and cartoonist Cook's trashy paper has been trashed many times including (inter alia) on these pages:
Alex ends with: (bold added) Quotes from Popular Technology - LINK)
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.