Thursday, 15 May 2014

The 97% Nonsense Re-examined

This blog has previously written of the flawed 97% of scientists blah blah myth. Some examples:


Canada-based group, the Friends of Science, has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."

The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

The major argument supporting the man made global warming scam [AGW] is that a vast majority of legitimate climate scientists support it while only a motley crew of eccentrics and cranks oppose it. In actual fact the support for AGW is entirely bureaucratic. By that I mean that all the major organisations which publically espouse AGW are in effect bureaucracies with government affiliated or appointed heads who keep tight muster on the underlings and enforce conformity.

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.
And many other similar posts.

Now Heartland's Joe Bast and Taylor Smith have re-examined the Myth in a paper entitled:

Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus

Many legislators are told they must enact climate change legislation because an alleged “scientific consensus” holds that man-made climate change requires urgent action. They are repeatedly told “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that human activities are causing dangerous climate change, and that the only way to prevent this disaster from occurring is to adopt government policies that raise the price of fossil fuels and subsidize or mandate the use of alternatives such as wind and solar energy. But what evidence is there for such unanimity? What do scientists really say? 
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to represent more than 2,500 scientists who agree that man-made global warming is a serious problem. But this is misleading. While a total of 2,500 (or some similar number) scientists participate in some way in the writing or review of its reports, the IPCC’s working group responsible for assessing the causes of climate change and its future trajectory consists of only about 600 scientists, and many of those are activists working for environmental interest groups. For the Fourth Assessment Report, only 62 were responsible for reviewing the chapter that attributed climate change to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, with 55 of those being known advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Of the seven impartial reviewers, two disagreed with the statement, leaving only five credible scientific reviewers who unequivocally endorse the IPCC’s conclusion, a far cry from 2,500.
They look at Naomi Oreskes' highly dubious essay which became the basis of her book Merchants of Doubt.  They also examine the flawed papers of  Doran and Zimmerman 2009, William Anderegg et al 2010 and the more recent travesty Cook et al 2013.
In striking contrast to these studies, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that man-made global warming is a serious problem, many authors and surveys have found disagreement and even a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have found that most scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models and do not believe key climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are adequately understood to predict future climate changes. 
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Of the various petitions circulated for signatures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signatures – more than 31,000 names – says “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.”
They then say that:
 ......there is no survey or study that supports the claim of a scientific consensus that global warming is both man-made and a problem, and ample evidence to the contrary. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. 

Read the full study here -

Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating? NO!

The Resilient Earth
Not according to a new peer-reviewed paper by Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science.

GWPF reports: (link)
I. M. Bahuguna et al publishing in Current Science studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction. 
248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that’s a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.
And a slap in the face for Pachauri and the IPCC:
India stepped up its own scientific research after shoddy work was exposed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 report into climate impacts. That report claimed the Himalayan glaciers would disappear entirely by 2035, leading to widespread drought, starvation and migration. It was rubbish, as the unapologetic IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to admit. 

From Barbara Hollingsworth in cnsnews: (link)
 Nearly 87 percent of Himalayan glaciers are currently “stable,” neither melting nor advancing, according to a new study that cast further doubt on claims that melting glacial ice will help cause a dramatic rise in sea levels this century. 
Often referred to as the “Third Pole,” the Himalayans contain “one of the largest concentrations of glaciers outside the polar regions,” 
Andrew Orlowski for The Register exposed the shoddy IPCC report: (link)
Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has described the IPCC as “alarmist”. 
“The clear and well-established standards of evidence required by the IPCC procedures were not applied properly", Pachauri and co admitted in a 2010 statement [PDF], adding that "poorly substantiated estimates" of the speed of glacier melting found their way past the apparently most exhaustive review process in the world. 
The 2035 date was based on just three sources, none of which had even been subjected to peer review: one was a report by eco-campaigners at the WWF, and another a news item in New Scientist. Both are so-called “grey literature”.