Thursday, 28 March 2013

Could this be the new consensus?

The alarmists keep repeating the old line of "consensus."

They say that 97% of scientists agree that the world has warmed.

Using the bottom of the Little Ice Age until now,it is surprising that 3% didn't agree that the world had warmed.

The question asked by Doran, and Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3) was "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"

However the 97% was derived from a flawed study. See Here, here, here and here.

What if the sceptics start claiming the consensus?

Well, as the sceptical side of the debate is science based, you won't hear sceptics claiming a consensus. Consensus is a political term, not a scientific term.

Having said that, James Taylor in uses the "C" word. (link)
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.
By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
James previously reported that (link)
Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.

As the late Israeli diplomat and politician Abba Eban said: "A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually. "

More Flannery FlimFlam

The Dictionary defines flimflam as humbug; deception; swindle.

The Prince of Flimflam is none other than Prof Tim Flannery. Anyone who has read Wes Allen's The WeatherMakers Re-examined (link) know that Prof Flanney's book is shown to contain
  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements,
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish. (A brilliant Spreadsheet that documents all this available on request.)
Now Professor Tim is at it again.

Piers Akerman reporting in the Australian:

CLIMATE commissioner Tim Flannery has dismissed concerns about possible health effects from wind farm noise, saying illness may be caused by stress or residents being "sick with envy" at not getting payment for turbines on their properties. 
Speaking at a nurses' forum yesterday about the relationship between climate change and health, Professor Flannery fended off a question from a regional Victorian nurse who said she supported wind energy but was seeing many patients with health problems attributed to a nearby wind farm. 
"What I've read and experienced is that there are no proven health impacts directly from wind-related noise," Professor Flannery said. "What we do see is people who are adversely affected by it through perhaps stress or tension or worry."
Perhaps Mr Flannery hasn't read enough. Or could it be that he is prevaricating to boost his $180,000 part-time Panasonic Climate Commission position. 

Some papers from Scientific Sources:

Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self‐reported health and well‐being in different living environments  -Occup Environ Med. 2007 July; 64(7): 480–486. Pedersen, Waye. (Link)

There is a need to take the unique environment into account when planning a new wind farm so that adverse health effects are avoided. The influence of area‐related factors should also be considered in future community noise research.

WindVOiCe, a Self-Reporting Survey: Adverse Health Effects, Industrial Wind Turbines, and the Need for Vigilance Monitoring  (link)
DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412551 Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 334   Carmen M.E. Krogh, Lorrie Gillis, Nicholas Kouwen and Jeff Aramini

Results of this study suggest an underlying relationship between IWTs and adverse health effects and support the need for additional studies

The online version of this article can be found at

And from the Australian: (link)

WHEN American noise expert Robert Rand turned up to work in Maine, in the US northeast, in April to investigate the impact of wind turbines on nearby residents he was literally blown away. 
Not only did Rand's readings confirm many fears in the community, he claims to have become an unwitting victim himself. 
A member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and a technician with 30 years' experience, Rand was working for a philanthropic donor wanting to investigate why wind turbines were causing so much concern. 
Rand told The Australian yesterday his experience had been unexpected. He had measured the noise from wind turbines on many previous occasions without difficulty but, in testimony to the State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection in July, Rand said the turbines had delivered "a miserable and unnerving experience".
Over to you, Mr Flannery. As Australia's $180,000 part-time Panasonic Climate Commissioner, surely you should be more up to date on the recognised health effects of Wind Farms.