A new paper tries to clean up the chicken entrail decrees of Mark Lynas (and earlier of John Cook) and concludes that their methodology is so bad, a 99.85% consensus could just as easily have been 32%.
All the papers in between 32 and 99% were neutral on the cause of man-made climate catastrophes, but Lynas et al bundled them in with the believer pack and made hay in the global media. This was even though many of the “neutral” papers showed results that didn’t fit the consensus. But who cares about results eh? If an abstract was neutral, it was therefore a “sign” the authors believed — like reading their tea leaves, or laying out the entrails. (Either that or it was a sign scientists who question the dogma get sacked, lose funding, and get uninvited to laboratory barbeques, but, shh! We won’t mention that.) So Lynas assumes that as long as a scientist doesn’t specifically say they disagree, they de facto endorse the “consensus”.
Why do people who call themselves scientists even talk about a “consensus”?
Obviously if believers had evidence, they’d talk about that instead.
Dentelski et al do an admirable job of pointing out galactic level bias, grand flaws and wild assumptions of Lynas, but the central fallacy of The Global Industry of Sciencery is barely mentioned. Why do people who call themselves scientists even talk about using consensuses as an instrument of “Truth Seeking”? The whole idea that truth can be figured out by interpreting the first paragraph of industry publications is a parody of science. It’s a fallacy of science (or three at once).
We might as well add up the funding offered to each side of a theory and declare the issue settled. 99% of climate funding is paid to scientists who don’t rock the boat, therefore climate sensitivity on the third rock from the sun is 3.3 degrees…
If the opinions of scientists counted in science, we’d just survey them directly anyway instead of conducting seances on abstracts. But when we do, the consensus blows away. Outside the star chamber of the IPCC junkets, half of Meteorologists and two thirds of Engineers and Geologists flatly didn’t agree. There’s nothing remotely like a consensus in the world of science in the hideously complex and immature world of climate prophesies. Those polling results were done in 2017 and 2012, but the results scared the science pollsters so much, they have been too frightened to ask them ever since.
If the magic wand of “consensus” worked, research could be so much cheaper. Who needs the satellites and thermometers, when opinions cost so little?
As Kenneth Richards says at No Tricks Zone: 67% Of Scientific Papers Can Be Said To Reject The AGW Hypothesis…
Of the 3,000 papers analyzed in Lynas et al., 282 were deemed not sufficiently “climate-related.” Another 2,104 papers were placed in Category 4, which meant either the paper’s authors took “no position” or the position on AGW was deemed “uncertain”…in the abstract. So, exploiting the “if you are not against, you are for” classification bias, Lynas and colleagues decided that the authors of these 2,104 scientific papers in Category 4 do indeed agree with AGW, as what is written in the abstract does not explicitly state they do not agree.
Interestingly, if this classification bias had not been utilized and the thousands of Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) papers were not counted as supporting AGW, only 892 of the 2,718 (climate-related) papers, or 32%, could be said to have affirmatively stated they support AGW. So, simply by assuming one cannot divine the AGW opinions of authors of scientific papers by reading abstracts, it could just as facilely be said that 67% (1,826 of 2,718) of climate-related papers reject AGW.
As I’ve said before, these junk consensus studies are merely sociological surveys of the purity of government funding:
Given the $7 billion in funding from the US government for the 2015 financial year, marked for climate science and clean energy, it is hardly surprising that there are a lot of papers about “climate change” and “global warming”. There are a lot of people studying how big the crisis might be, how to solve the crisis we might be having, and what the effects of this crisis might be (if we are having one). What there is not, are institutions of people specifically tasked to investigate how minor CO2 is, how beneficial it is, or to assess if the Sun controls most of our climate. Around the Western world there is no government funding specifically to audit or find problems with the man-made global warming theory. There are no programs with the sole purpose of finding natural causes to provide the counter arguments ($0). The purity is near complete. Skeptics mostly have to fund themselves. That’s a very high barrier to publication.
In a complex science, purity of opinion is a bad sign.
REFERENCES
Dentelski, David, Ran Damari, Yanir Marmor, Avner Niv, Mor Roses, and Yonatan Dubi. (2023) “Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change” Climate 11, no. 11: 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215
Lynas, M.; Houlton, B.Z.; Perry, S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 114005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Painting, R.; Honeycutt, R.; Skuce, A.; Jacobs, P.; Green, S.A.; Lewandowsky, S.; Richardson, M.; Way, R.G. Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 706–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 024024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cook, J.; Cowtan, K. Reply to Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 039002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Art: Witchdoctors: US CDC
I think my only source of information on the matter was here but I could never understand why John Cook’s 97% was ever taken seriously.
It always looked like a nose thumbing job to me.
360
I’ve been looking for details so I can debunk a persistent letter writer to the local paper, so like this very much.
He is full on almost every week about the coming catastrophe.
340
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
There are two or three other “studies” reporting a high percentage. All have been refuted. It takes more than a little searching because this is an old issue and because of the many biased sites.
200
Good luck Graeme No.3 , faith and ideology trump science .
130
Just like the bloke who walked around with “The End is Nigh” sign. He died of old age. His heart stopped beating.
90
Well, it could be claimed, and it is by the climate alarmists, that the End Has Never Been So Nigh as it is Now!
40
Legates et al, 2014, used the Cook et al, 2013 data set and methodology, arrived at 0.3% IIRC. Supposedly John Cook just thought 97% sounded/felt right. The case against Uni of QLD to find out what John and co-conspirators actually did was dismissed on privacy grounds….! (because apparently at least one person was reviewing 200 papers per hour!?!)
130
If universities are so cavalier about climate science i.e. so long as it keeps the bucks coming inaccuracies and fraud are quite OK, then can we accept any of their research as being thorough? If science is about questioning but questions are not allowed then is their science worth funding in the first place? Are the engineers and doctors also given a pass so long as they adhere to the current thoughts? Can our universities be trusted at all and are their graduates worth employing? When an institution fails in one area every area is suspect. Spread the word to your grand kids. Go to TAFE instead and learn a real job. When universities realise no one is coming they might start lifting their standards and ridding themselves of the woke rubbish. The hip pocket nerve is still the most persuasive.
30
The whole ideology of AGW is built around distorted facts , it’s a money making ponzi scheme .
310
It was, but after the “climategate” leak just prior to COP 2009, that was over. Sure, many grifters are still cashing in, but the big money was supposed to be in hot air trading, not subsidy dependent bird slasher farms or car park collapsing Land Rover diesel hybrids.
These were just the twinkle toys that were dangled to hypnotise the sheeple. They weren’t the main game. They were never meant to be tested to their obvious sobulent failure in prime time. The bird blenders and lithium bombs were just meant to be window dressing.
Money is not the answer now. Why now are the flabby wrinkled lips and wheasing lungs of Soros, Klaus and their cronies attempting CPR on GoreBull Warbling? Because NATO lost and Russia won. Their “next crisis” was just laid to waste. They are just desecrating an ideological corpse in a crazed effort to resuscitate an old crisis that that has already gone to waste.
No, it’s not “more money” those wrinkled cronies want now as they frantically desecrate the putrecent and liquefying corpse of AGW. It’s power. The power that they lost when 30% of their “subservient peasants” didn’t take the jab.
These parisites still retain some power, but they never had the power to replace a single washer in their own toilet. Those that can, didn’t take the jab, and don’t believe in Climey Whimey …
151
No, Konrad. Nothing has changed. Their big money is just around the corner. It has just taken a bit longer to get there.
40
If they have to add “science” to their discipline name, they aren’t real scientists. So all those papers should be discounted immediately.
280
I followed the science and it led me back to the money . As long as money is required for research it will rule the outcome. Manipulation on a grand scale . Don’t believe in “Climate Change”? – no money for you…
400
The Left have caused terrible corruption of science by the propagation to the masses of the fraudulent idea that scientific fact is decided by “consensus”.
341
Consensus is what you use when you don’t have the answer to the question.
210
Why are people not calling the climate change mitigation schemes racketeering?
210
Because they are in on the racket!
210
It’s all Barack Obama’s fault. That quote of his regarding 97% consensus gets repeated over and over again. He also said “ never underestimate Joe’s ( Biden) ability to f**k things up” . But , funny how that quote doesn’t get as repeated as much.
280
Didn’t Barry ramp it up to “99% believe”? Or was that the Pope? Maybe Al Gore? Too many experts boil the broth.
The Automated Brainwashing Consensus (ABC) today tried its best downplaying last month’s topsy-turvy weather in Australia – and failed miserably – by claiming it was nigh-impossible to forecast a week ahead with the climate refusing to play along with the rules. In other words, BoM’s consensus experts got everything bass ackwards (again). Maybe they need more taxpayers’ money…
Hawaii’s Maunakea Weather Center mkwc.ifa.hawaii.edu has some lovely webcam pics of the volcano’s summit BURIED under a fresh coating of snow – then again it’s 1 December there, their first day of winter: perfect timing (again). Aloha brrrrrrr!!!
170
“A new paper …”
Lo … more than 50 years ago … I schleped brick and mortar for twin brother masons, Buster and Earl.
They would never speak directly to us laborers.
Earl would say “Buster, I ‘blieve I’m almost out of mud” … that was our cue.
Once heard …
“Earl, I ‘blieve a piece of paper will lay there and let ‘ya put anything on it”.
90
Seen elsewhere:
Incompetence in defence of unsupported dogma (and professional self-interest) is malice. Continued failure to see that is incompetent.
161
If you aren’t likely to get the answer you want…don’t ask the question.
This same principle largely applies to the many WuFlu enquiries currently being held.
They aren’t after the truth in either case.
180
AGAIN Willis Eschenbach proves that they have been YAPPING their TRILLION $ BS and FRAUD since Dr Hansen’s BS talk in Washington DC in 1988.
And Willis has provided another update on the 29th of NOV 2023 and see his new deaths from both HEAT and COLD for all of Europe.
Cold deaths are about 10 times heat deaths and very interesting to see Europe divided up into different areas.
Of course he recently challenged Prof Dessler to show any error in the post and Dessler then threatened to delete his comments.
Willis then called Dessler’s response PATHETIC.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
150
Too late. The kool aid has been swallowed and the patient is terminal. Rather than admit they’ve been duped they simply double down and rant louder.
It’s like the ending of Invasion of the Body Snatchers – the few remaining non-duplicates attempting to avoid the pointing, screaming drones.
100
Earth’s temperature is dominated by evaporative cooling and this latest Clintel Group’s study points out the science that determines our water planet’s destiny.
Of course the eventual switch to another full 90,000 year glaciation is determined by other orbital factors.
https://clintel.org/a-much-larger-greenhouse-effect-but-temperatures-dominated-by-cooling/
150
In a nutshall.
‘Thanks to water vapor our temperature system is far more stable than admitted by the consensus, and thanks to water, water vapor, and clouds surface temperatures are favorable for present life.’
190
The consensus was cobbled together,
To claim man changes climate and weather,
And is in science akin,
To claim storms can begin,
By the flap of a wing or a feather.
280
Dr Pielke jnr easily shut down their extreme weather BS and FRAUD in just 5 minutes in this appearance before the US Senate 10 years ago.
But they still BELIEVE their delusional, RELIGIOUS CULT in December 2023 and King Charles, the POPE and all the other liars and con merchants will still persist with their lunacy until Hell freezes over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS8Rr0AxmFI
190
Obviously. If sceptics had evidence they’d be submitting it rather than snarking on blogs.
The consensus exists due to the consilience from unrelated fields. Evolution has the same level of consensus yet it still has its sceptics.
032
As a Mensa member I agree with Einstein. To defeat the ‘laps rate’ one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.
(1) For ‘carbon dioxide’ we have a consensus with zero facts. The evidence from an Atmospheric Chamber for the calibration of carbon dioxide warming is ‘zero evidence’.
(2) For the ‘laps rate’ we have scepticism with lots of facts. Venus with a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide than the Earth provides the best answer to the problem. The temperature on Venus at the altitude that has identical pressure to that on the Earth’s surface is 1.176 times the Earth’s average surface temperature. The radiating temperature of Venus is 1.176 times that of the Earth, proving that input from the Sun and a change to thermal inertia due to pressure as a precise function of altitude are all that is needed to calculate the atmospheric greenhouse effect on Venus. The mass of the atmosphere of Venus comprises 96.5 percent carbon dioxide. The surface temperature of Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan and Triton follow these rules. This is also confirmed by the fact that the average temperature at the ‘one bar’ pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus.
220
Now that you’ve ranked yourself with Einstein, it would be a doddle for you to point to the ‘zero facts’ underpinning the global consensus .
023
Sorry but I cannot find a scientific paper with ‘zero facts’ on blank pages. Lots with scary assumptions, models, and a moronic dogmatic belief in a consensus of fools. But no basic detailed facts on the calibration of carbon dioxide warming on the Earth, Venus or Mars. Can you fill the ‘zero facts’ with detail, or are you just a ‘useful idiot’ for the consensus of fools.
120
He, she, they;
are/is
a Blogg Klogger.
30
I have seen presentations of that argument and I’m shocked that anyone actually believes in the existence of GHGs. They basically don’t exist.
121
Where is the “one bar” pressure point on Mars?
60
Is that 76 cms of Hg?
20
Use the Tardis because it only exists 3.9 billion years ago.
40
Truly sad.
60
Its actually hilarious .
013
But, hilary is not running for president.
Yet.
130
I think she’d do well against the orange clown ?.
018
I believe in evolution theory because of the quality of the arguments, the refutation of counter-arguments, and the fact that the theory best explains all the evidence. It’s one of the most successful theories in science. The consensus is merely a statistic, a natural result of intellectual rigour and honesty.
161
Thanks for endorsing scientific consensus
017
Skeptics has been publishing many papers that doesn’t support the Climate Change propaganda.
Consensus errors are too many to rely on them, better to go with REPRODUCIBLE research instead.
Meanwhile NO Hot spot exist after 30 years waiting for it.
Meanwhile NO Positive Feedback Loop exists after 30 years waiting for it.
Still no climate crisis exists as factually presented in the LINK
120
CONsensus says it all!
110
So , you’ve a problem with evolution ?. Are you a creationist ?.
015
Some commenters here demonstrate that evolution is not uni-directional.
90
Some also ‘demonstrate’ a god too.
015
Definitely
a
Blog Clogger.
No discussion, no content, just loads of infill.
The blog has become like Skeptical Skience.
60
DON’T FORGIVE. DON’T FORGET. PROSECUTE.
50
Dr Koonin’s recent talk in Holland covers all of their fraudster’s delusional nonsense and he uses so much of the IPCC data to win his arguments.
He has a Q & A session to finish and we can all learn something from his lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7wGfY7lZJE&t=538s
160
That’s it Jo;
“junk consensus studies”.
And this “con-sensus” has only one purpose;
to absolve politicians of responsibility for and defer proper examination of their allocation of our tax money.
Scientifically, this dollar diversion scheme has absolutely, and undeniably, No Credibility whatsoever as a scientific fact.
The fact that this is such a long standing public misconception is a tribute to the new science of Verbalism where truth is swamped by massive amounts of words and concepts that are sort of linked to the issue but not relevant.
The core issue is that “The People” cannot bring themselves to face the fact that politicians are misleading them.
They have trust and faith, now and evermore.
140
Correct.
And so they can say “we were following the best available advice”. BUT THEY WEREN’T. It’s a bit like saying “I was only following orders”.
As I have said before, the five and six year olds next door to me know that windmills don’t work. How much more for the politicians’ highly overpaid advisors, senior public serpents and the advice of the CSIRO. Some among them must know the truth.
DON’T FORGIVE. DON’T FORGET. PROSECUTE.
150
Today’s example of verbalism in a major newspaper.
The great diabetes pandemic. It seems from a quick reading that the focus is on getting enough dialysis equipment.
The real issues of inactivity, excess food consumption, excess sugar intake and no doubt excess alcohol don’t get a mention.
What hope have we got for moving forward as a nation.
150
And in that paper the message is that only more money shall solve the problem, not so much individual responsibility, as you imply. There was a generous dollop of white guilt added just for fun too.
120
Yes Keith. I noticed that too. Three articles in the Australian this morning painted a dismal picture of the incidence of diabetes in Australia. Although the articles did not specifically point to it, the pictures told the story. The huge majority of diabetes patients in Australia, particularly in NT, are aboriginal.
However, very little was said about the causes, although sugar was mentioned, almost in passing. Nothing was said about young aboriginal children walking about with a bottle of Coke in hand, or the problem with excess alcohol intake or the chronically poor diets of many aboriginal people.
It would also have been useful to point out that, over the 60,000 years that aboriginal people have been said to wander these lands, not only did they not invent the wheel, but they never came in contact with sugar or fermented liquids and have never developed a sophisticated biological process to deal with either.
Thus alcohol, in particular, is slow to break down in aboriginal metabolism, resulting in deep inebriation and alcohol poisoning in chronic drinkers. I suspect that their inability to deal with high sugar intake may have some historical genetic bearing too.
170
Here are 32 FACTS about our planet that most people don’t know or fully UNDERSTAND.
This is from the co2 Coalition Group of Scientists and some of these Scientists are from the Clintel Group as well.
We’ll never get stupid Bowen or Albo to understand the Scientific DATA or King Charley or the Pope or Gore or Kerry or Biden etc, but the data and evidence is available at the link for us and it’s very clear and easy to understand.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/
150
BTW you can read more facts after fact 25 by clicking the button.
90
Neville, the question really is why do our governments of either persuasion become zombified and totally unwilling to even see what the rest of the world is doing. Why the dedication to destruction of Australia? Who is driving us externally? There has to be extreme pressure on our governments – unless most of our most powerful politicians really are total dills as indicated -that force them to act so stupidly. They act like automatons needing reprogramming! Is it because they aren’t up to facing down the international environmental movement if they deviate, and they are only there for a few years of power and pay anyway? I notice western governments are so weak they never challenge the enviros on India and China who basically negate all the moves westerners make ‘to save the planet’ and destroy themselves.
It really is time to go to war with these groups that have run the West for 40years.
130
Climate change, Covid, 9/11, Iraq WMDs and all the other lies and scams are simply designed to give the elites a reason to implement more and more oppressive laws and to curtail the standard of living of the average pleb. Management of the plebs is the game, the manipulation is designed to keep the elites in place while transposing any elite suffering onto the plebs.
Discussing who believes it is interesting but ultimately pointless as it is a device used as an excuse for the oppression of the people, for their own good; elites desire solution, elites create problem, elites deliver managed solution to the needy, dependent plebs.
140
Consensus: borrowed from Latin, “agreement, concord,” from Latin consentīre “to join in feeling, be in agreement, concur in opinion”
Consensus has its basis in group agreement, not necessarily in actual fact. Lynch mobs are “in consensus”. So are Witch Burnings.
Consensus is a socially acceptable synonym for “Mob Rule” or some other juvenile group think. Emotions over Facts.
110
That should apply to scientists, politicians and senior public serpents as well.
140
The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.
– Ludwig von Mises
120
So, the approximate population of the World in 1850 was 1.2 billion people.
And, the approximate population of the World in 2023 is projected to be just over 8 billion people.
And, according to a Google search, the World temperature has risen by an astounding 1.1 degree Centigrade.
This proves that a rising temperature is no danger to humans.
In fact, the data seems to prove that a rising temperature allows humans to populate more and more.
Hello UN. For my mind boggling analytical expertise, please send my Consulting fee for 1 Billion US dollars payable in 250 million dollar amounts to my 4 private bank accounts in the following 4 Tax Havens………………..asap.
JR, and happy to be of Service.
140
It never ceases to amaze me that climate alarmists think cold is desirable.
Civilisation loves warmth as demonstrated by the warm periods associated with the Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval warm periods. Not to mention how much money people in cold climates spend to holiday in warm climates.
And plants, and therefore all life, love CO2.
I bet the average green doesn’t even know what gases plants respire.
190
I bet the average green doesn’t even know what gases plants respire.
Nor does our Minister for the Environment have any idea what the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is.
161
Their ignorance was on show well before the election.
50
I see King Chuckles is at cop 28 , hobnobbing with the Saudi princes.
We gots to stop burning fossils, yeah right.
173
He flew there by private jet.
Along with many others who flew in by private jet.
These people are so disconnected from reality, it’s unbelievable.
180
Sorry, wrong hit.
Meant green
60
In the article above, what was the selection process for those 3000 papers. 3000 out of how many thousand made the grade.The 200 plus science crap papers must have come from somewhere, Most times one expects professional statisticians to have examined the process and selection methodology, as well as reviewing the formally stated outcomes.
There’s something about rubbish in – rubbish out, but that doesn’t apply for climate. The fact is the western nations have governments economically destroying them on the basis of this stuff. The world came very suddenly and uniformly to this enforcement-by-governments stage. How could this be? How come all western governments arrived at this stage in unison? They all decided to pay up and destroy the means by which they became first world nations in the first place and were able to make those payment to third (and currently other new and almost first world countries) agreements. When do those payouts stop as we dive to the bottom of the world economic heap.
Its flabberghasting that our governments don’t even seem to consider this stuff. When do they stop the payment rort. Learn from India and China the only way forward is to look after one’s own backyard. Use whatever power resources one has to achieve continuance of a flourishing economy. When the West flourished it dragged most of the rest of the world with it. When the East flourishes everything becomes a matter of subservience, as we see between China and Albo; anything for a quid!
90
COP28…And from the 400 000 “climate change alarmists delegates” that flew by electric aircraft, this just in…”The United States led calls at UN climate talks Saturday for efforts to curb methane emissions”….bye, bye steak, hello eat ze bugs. But I’m sure the inner city elitist TEALS,ALP supporters will still be able to afford meat, but no steak for you plebs.
90
Total BS study just as bad as the former 97% studies
99.9% of scientists believe there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 is part of it, based on data. (More than 99.9% based on a 2013 study of published climate papers). My 99.9% estimate is based on 26 years of climate science reading where I strongly preferred “skeptic” scientists. I have never found any scientist who denied a greenhouse effect. And I have only located three scientists who claimed manmade CO2 was not important because it only accounted for 3% of atmospheric CO2 (the correct percentage is about 33%, not 3%).
Of course many climate papers do not directly discuss AGW. For example, there are over 3,000 papers on CO2 enrichment and plant growth. I have read several hundred of them since 1997. I do not recall AGW discussions in those papers. It is assumed by the authors that manmade CO2 emissions will increase atmospheric CO2, as they have done since 1850. The effect of more CO2 on plants, usually C3 plants, is studied. Would many of these scientists waste their time on CO2 enrichment studies if they did not think atmospheric CO2 would continue to rise from manmade CO2 emissions? Should they be counted as AGW believers based on their studies, that do not directly mention AGW?
59% of scientists believe in CAGW, not based on any data, per a 2022 survey. That is unfortunate because without data there is no science.
There is no consensus on how much warming extra CO2 will cause ( I say not much) and barely any discussions on whether global warming is good news or bad news (I say good news).
What conservatives never seem to learn is that a consensus can be right or wrong. Not always wrong.
A consensus not based on data, such as the belief in coming CAGW, is worthless.
But a consensus on the effects of CO2 based on lab infrared gas spectroscopy is valuable.
Conservatives who deny a greenhouse effect and/or deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, guarantee that conservatives will never be taken seriously in a climate science debate.
AGW is real
CAGW is imaginary.
Not 100% of what the Climate Howlers say is wrong. (maybe 90% wrong, ha ha )
We have to differentiate between
Real Science
Junk Science
Wild guess predictions of CAGW that have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report.
Climate scaremongering is easy
Refuting climate scaremongering is difficult. The “Everything you say is wrong” strategy is a losing strategy for conservatives.
35
Nobody suggests there are no greenhouse gases, but most suggest the most active one in terms of that effect is by far, water vapour. Water vapour is never given a jersey with the activists. They can’t argue it. Worse, it counters their claims that all the other greenhouse gases act with no limit. Water vapour is that limit, simply due to the physical characteristics of water. Nobody says CO2 is without effect; the argument about CO2 is whether it is concentration-limited. We had a recent science visitor to Australia, noted in this blog, who restated that the [CO2]atm effect is concentration limited ie it has doubled since ~1850 and there has already been a 1+degree rise in ‘mean Global Warming’ (whatever that means). The argument put was a further doubling – that’s a lot of CO2- may get some rise but beyond that the concentration limitation kicks in ie little warming effect at all. Activists infer continued rising effect. The media selectively quotes the IPCC! The IPCC gives computer based scenarios, benign to severe. The activists work the worst! They thrive on pushing the fear of (inferred) unlimited heating from continual [CO2]atm rising.
This is where the use of ‘opinion’ based ‘science’ comes in useful for politicians. They chose that option. There is an extremist basis behind the activism that captures the journalists of the world. They love catastrophism. True science is journalistically boring. The results often are debatable. Not set in concrete. Politicians love catastrophism; eg COVID-19. Bowen loves it!
Activists push for the destruction of first world nations while tolerating the extreme alternative for second and third-world nations. The CO2 effect is it totally counters the actions demanded of first-world nations. Therefore, the anti-CO2 drive can have nothing to do with global warming nor the climate. Either there is a political basis to it, or It’s all about pushing the extreme green religion. Greens hate people (who aren’t green); use the planet as their God. Their view is based on their own OPINIONS about the future, as though the planet is their pet lamb and the rest of humanity is stupid. Again, opinion based. Entirely No proof! Normally, people would demand proof of theory before accepting selective destruction of their way of life while half the world thrived under the old ways. WHY have we fallen for this? THAT is the real question!
‘What conservatives never seem to learn is that a consensus can be right or wrong. Not always wrong.’ Bet on the horses lately? ‘Consensus’ is the magic word of the activists, media and politicians. It is impossible to break it. They depend on it.
30
Water vapor is a dependent variable. The amount in the atmosphere depends on the average temperature of the troposphere.
Therefore, water vapor is not a direct cause of climate change. It is a feedback that will amplify any warming of the troposphere.
The huge debate is how much.
IPCC wild guesses a potential huge water vapor positive feedback that could triple the effect of CO2 alone. That worst case assumption creates a possibility of CAGW hundreds of years in the future (because the water vapor positive feedback takes hundreds of years to fully develop).
What people believe about CAGW is meaningless.
CAGW has never happened in the past so there are no historical CAGW data.
There are never data for the future climate.
That means CAGW predictions can not be based on data.
Without data there is no science.
The fact that 59% of scientists believed in CAGW in a 2022 poll conducted by libertarians is sad.
Scientists are supposed to base their theories and beliefs on data.
CAGW has no data. So opinions about CAGW are no more valuable than asking scientists what political party they support.
Almost every article here on climate and energy is recommended on my blogs, which have had over 663,500 page views.
This article was not recommended only because a study of science papers is not a good survey methodology. You can ask scientists directly if they believe in CAGW, and 59% do. But beliefs in CAGW are not science — they are closer to climate astrology.
It is surprising but some conservatives believe there is no greenhouse effect and/or CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Others believe the last +50% rise of atmospheric CO2 was natural.
What not enough people understand is that creating fear allows governments to increase their control of the population. Fear of Covid worked well for a few years. Now climate change is back in the fear driver’s seat.
For the 2023 COP28 scary climate change slogan contest, I submitted:
Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog
That’s better than the old Code Red and Boiling Oceans. Because almost everyone loves dogs
10
No flights, no trains up to Sunday in Munich, because of white global warming… 😀
110