The views of 200 researchers out of the thousands of earth scientists who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus, and may instead be evidence of editorial bias in favor of a small clique of writers who have come to dominate the peer-review processes of science journals. .... This study was quickly debunked by a paper by Legates et al. published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found “just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” They found “only 41 papers – 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent – had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis.” Scientists whose work questions the consensus, including Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv, protested that Cook misrepresented their work. Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, “the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.” heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-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. As this summary makes apparent, 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. The following documents provide additional information about the so-called global warming consensus. The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax heartland.org/policy-documents/un-climate-change-numbers-hoax In this 2007 article, climate researcher John McLean and International Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Tom Harris systematically take apart the claim that “2,500 scientist reviewers” support the IPCC’s claim that man-made global warming is a serious problem. 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html PopularTechnology.net presents a bibliography of more than 1,350 peer-reviewed papers that support arguments skeptical of alarmism over anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or anthropogenic global warming. Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-consensus-climate-change-0 Medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly. Schulte counted 31 papers (6 percent of the sample) that explicitly or implicitly rejected the “consensus.” His findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment, 19 (2) (2008). Modelling the Effects of Subjective and Objective Decision Making in Scientific Peer Review nature/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12786.html A 2014 paper published in Nature explains how scientists converge on false conclusions, summarizing research on publication bias, careerism, data fabrication, and fraud. The authors also find “a mismatch between the claims made in the abstracts, and the strength of evidence for those claims based on a neutral analysis of the data, consistent with the occurrence of herding.” The Myth of the 98 Percent heartland.org/policy-documents/myth-98-percent Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast critiques articles by Doran and Zimmerman (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010) and explains why global warming alarmists publish more than skeptics, rendering abstract-counting exercises unreliable and misleading. “Consensus?” What “Consensus”? Among Scientists, the Debate is Not Over heartland.org/policy-documents/consensus-what-consensus-among-scientists-debate-not-over This 2007 report published by the Science and Public Policy Institute rebuts Naomi Orestes and the IPCC as reliable sources of the alleged “consensus” of scientists. AMS Survey Shows No Consensus on Global Warming heartland.org/policy-documents/ams-survey-shows-no-consensus-global-warming In this September 2013 Heartland Institute Policy Brief, Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast examines an American Meteorological Survey of its members that revealed only 39.5 percent of those who responded said they believed manmade global warming is dangerous. You Call This Consensus? heartland.org/policy-documents/you-call-consensus-0 Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, in a 2011 paper, examines the claim of a scientific “consensus” that humans are the primary cause of catastrophic climate change. Bast traces the origins of such claims and finds they are often conflicted, disingenuous, and patently false. Consensus? What Consensus? heartland.org/policy-documents/consensus-what-consensus-0 This 2013 report by Andrew Montford, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, examines the paper by Cook et al. and concludes “the consensus referred to is trivial” since the paper “said nothing about global warming being dangerous” and that “the project was not a scientific investigation to determine the extent of agreement on global warming, but a public relations exercise.” 97 Percent Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs heartland.org/policy-documents/97-consensus-no-global-warming-math-myths-social-proofs This 2014 paper from Friends of Science, a Canadian public policy group, closely examines five studies that seek to establish a scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change and finds mathematical errors and in some cases, manipulation. “The deconstruction of the surveys that follow shows the claim of a 97 percent consensus is pure spin and ‘statisticulation’ – mathematical manipulation.” 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists Papers, according to the scientists that published them heartland.org/policy-documents/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-scientists-published-them The author contacted a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the report by Cook et al. (2013) and asked them if their papers were accurately represented. Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv protested that their work had been misrepresented. IPCC Lead Author Reports Flaws in Asserted 97-Percent Consensus news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/08/28/ipcc-lead-author-debunks-asserted-97-percent-consensus Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, says the study by Cook et al. claiming 97 percent of peer-reviewed studies on climate agree “humans are causing global warming” is riddled with procedural errors. Analysis: New International Survey of Climate Scientists heartland.org/policy-documents/analysis-new-international-survey-climate-scientists-0 In a September 2010 Heartland Institute Policy Brief, Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast examines the latest international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, and finds scientific opinion to be deeply divided on some two-thirds of the questions asked about the underlying science. Approximately half of scientists dissent from the assumptions and predictions presented in the reports of the United Nations’ IPCC. Scientific Consensus on Global Warming heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-consensus-global-warming Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor and President Joseph Bast calculated and reported the average responses to every question in international surveys of climate scientists conducted by Bray and von Storch in 1996 and 2003 and then singled out 18 questions from the 2003 survey and presented the answers here in a simplified and less academic style. The results reveal a lack of consensus on the most important questions in the climate change debate. 31,072 American Scientists Say There Is No Climate Crisis heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-2009/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf The Petition Project, an independent initiative to identify the amount of support for or opposition to claims that man-made global warming is a serious problem, has collected more than 31,000 signatures by American scientists on a petition stating, “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.” This 2009 document presents background on the Petition Project and a directory of the signers. Q&A: Prof. Phil Jones heartland.org/policy-documents/qa-professor-phil-jones-0 In the wake of the Climategate scandal in February, 2010, the BBCs environment analyst Roger Harrabin put a series of questions to Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Jones confessed “for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different,” that “from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming,” and when asked, “When scientists say the debate on climate change is over, what exactly do they mean - and what dont they mean?” he replied, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.” A Truly Disturbing Look at Why Global Warming Alarmists Lie about the Science heartland.org/policy-documents/truly-disturbing-look-why-global-warming-alarmists-lie-about-science This 2009 review of Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity (Cambridge University Press, 2009) highlights some of the astonishing admissions made by one of the leading spokespersons for global warming alarmism. For example, he writes, Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate. (p. 83) On the subject of the IPCCs credibility, he admits “the Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists. (p. 95) Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit the Environment & Climate News Web site at news.heartland.org/energy-and-environment, The Heartland Institute’s Web site at heartland.org, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database, at policybot.org. wattsupwiththat/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/ One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay 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 to have 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” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus. Her methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers – but she failed to acknowledge or address this. Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen, and that humans are a significant contributing factor. The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists out of the 3,146 who responded to the survey – or out of the 10,257 scientists who received it – does not a consensus make. Photographs dating back to as early as 1970 of astronauts training on a barren Hawaiian island in preparation for their historic missions to the moon were released by NASA on Saturday. The photos show the crews of Apollo 14, 15 and 17 training on Hawaiis Big Island, a volcanic landscape which sports an environment remarkably similar to the one found on the moon. The astronauts practiced with equipment such as the moon buggy in area with recent volcanic activity, also rehearsing activities such as taking soil samples. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644648/NASA-releases-new-photos-dating-early-70s-astronauts-training-Hawaii-moon-mission.html wattsupwiththat/2014/05/29/success-we-are-now-in-command-of-the-isee-3-spacecraft/ Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST [sea surface temperature] warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. New paper finds Atlantic Ocean warming since 1975 was natural, not due to greenhouse gases A paper published today in Climate Dynamics finds that warming of the surface of tropical Atlantic Ocean since 1975 was not due to an increase of greenhouse gases, and was instead due to natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations. According to the authors, After a decrease of SST by about 1 °C during 1964–1975, most apparent in the northern tropical region, the entire tropical basin warmed up. That warming was the most substantial (>1 °C) in the eastern tropical ocean and in the longitudinal band of the intertropical convergence zone. Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST [sea surface temperature] warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. In other words, sea surface temperatures did not rise as a consequence of increased radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. hockeyschtick.blogspot.au/2014/05/new-paper-finds-atlantic-ocean-warming.html Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST [sea surface temperature] warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. Recent climatic trends in the tropical Atlantic link.springer/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2168-7 Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, we find that the SST warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%. wattsupwiththat/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/#more-110510 West Antarctic Volcanoes Until November last year we didn’t even know one particular volcano was smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica. Do volcanoes melt much ice? Could be… joannenova.au/2014/05/that-west-antarctic-melting-couldnt-be-caused-by-volcanoes-could-it/ A new paper published in the Annals of Glaciology shows Antarctic air temperatures were warmer during the early 1800s and 1940s in comparison to the end of the 20th century. The authors find evidence of a quasi-periodic climate cycle lasting 30-50 years, with at least 5 climate shifts over the past 350 years, the last beginning during the 1970s. hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-finds-antarctic-temperatures.html
Posted on: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 06:33:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015