What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinionessay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year inNature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
James, clearly Kerry was just exaggerating for effect here, just like Trump did with his “thousands and thousands” purported to celebrate the 9/11 attacks in NJ. Whether it’s 51% or 68% or 95% of climate scientists agreeing, what’s the difference in getting the actual facts and numbers right? And since it’s okay for Trump to exaggerate, presumably it’s okay for Kerry to exaggerate?
Kerry is stupid
That’s not what I asked. Is it okay for Kerry to exaggerate if it’s okay for Trump to exaggerate?
Kerry is just stupid , climate change is fake a made up issue to make some people ie al gore , GE , carbon credit traders rich , there is more hard evidence on Bigfoot , exaggerating the truth is far different than lying or propagandizing .
Do you honestly believe there is more “hard evidence” on Bigfoot than there is on climate change? Or are you just in troll mode? It’s okay if you’re just trolling, I understand the effect it has and how it can be fun sometimes! I just want to be clear before I attempt to use logic, facts, and my brain to respond…
tone the pomposity down a bit it gives away poor breeding , as for logic , logic would make you extremely skeptical at the least of the whole theory of man made climate change ,there is ZERO hard evidence on man made climate change . While climate does change ask the dinosaurs , there is ,something called science and you need to use it ,not politicians at the UN and there hair dressers .To link changes in climate to mans actions or in actions that is a very tall order you would have to create a base climate norm, under stand the effects of sun cycles, radiation, natural disasters, global precipitation and some how isolate mans actions. At lest with big foot there are foot prints, films (perhaps) and sightings (perhaps) . With climate change a simple look at the geologic record of thousands of years would refute virtually any assumptions you make about climate .
Happy to be pompous! I graduated from Princeton with an undergraduate degree in Geosciences, and from Stanford with a PhD in Geophysics. So while I’m not a climate scientist, I am indeed a geologist by training. I can assure you that there is no such thing as a simple look at the geological record – it’s extremely complex from start to finish. Linking changes in climate to man’s actions is indeed a tall order, which is why many thousands of scientists are working on that project. Here is a starter on that list of scientists: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_AnnexV_FINAL.pdf. I fully concede there are many good reasons to criticize the IPCC. But making isolated criticisms is not the same as refuting the many, many facts that make up the basis of the IPCC’s reports.
even a non Princeton person could read this
the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.
Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/
My last comment not approved?