May 2024

The great “97% of scientists agree……” Global Warming lie

Today I wanted to write about how Britain is being threatened by an Irish pederast (I hope that is a politically-correct term). But as some cretinous reader commented on yesterday’s blog about Global Warming bollox asking how it was that I thought I knew more about climate change than the oft-quoted “97% of scientists agree….”, I thought I’d explain, yet again, how the totally fraudulent “97% of scientists agree…” figure was conjured up.

Ever since their infamous “Hockey Stick” graph was shown to be based on fraudulent data, the Himalayan glaciers didn’t melt as predicted and there was a pause in warming, the Warmists have been desperately looking for a new weapon with which to attack anyone who didn’t subscribe to their Man-Made Global Warming cult.

The Warmists thought they had found their latest weapon of mass deception when some guy called Cook (or should that be “Crook”?) published a study claiming that about “97% of scientists agreed that Global Warming was caused by human activity” (Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW). There’s only one problem – Mr Cook was either a liar or a buffoon.

Mr Cook’s group looked through the abstracts of 25 years of articles about supposed Global Warming – they didn’t read the actual articles! Based on just a few lines of each abstract (not the full article), they classed each article into one of 7 categories ranging from articles that appeared to endorse the AGW theory to those that rejected it (click on the image below to see the 7 categories more clearly):

The results were as follows:

1. Endorsed AGW with quantification – 65

2. Endorsed with no quantification – 934

3. “Implicit” endorsement – 2,934

4. Uncertain – 8,269

5. “Implicit” rejection – 53

6. Reject without quantification – 15

7. Reject with quantification – 10.

Total papers included – 12,280.

Then Mr Cook’s group did something very clever/dishonest (delete as appropriate). They took out the 8,269 papers which didn’t take a position. That left 3,933 papers which possibly endorsed the AGW theory and just 78 which rejected it. So suddenly you have just 4,011 papers which expressed an opinion and of these 3,933 (97%) could be interpreted as endorsing the AGW theory. This is madness. This is an absurd abuse of all mathematical and scientific processes. And remember, Cook’s group didn’t read the actual scientific papers – they just looked at the abstracts!

But here is the worst part of this (IMHO) fraud. There were a large bunch – 2,934 scientific papers (75% of those papers Cook’s group deemed to have taken a position on AGW) – which didn’t explicitly endorse AGW but which Mr Cook’s group (perhaps creatively?) interpreted as “implicitly” supporting the AGW theory.

Let’s look at the figures another way. There were 12,280 papers discussing supposed Global Warming. Of these, a minuscule 65 (0.5%) endorsed the AGW theory and were confident enough to quantify by how much the earth would warm. Then there were just 934 (7.6%) which endorsed the AGW theory, but were not confident enough to make any numerical predictions about the expected warming. So, we actually have a pathetic 8.1% that explicitly backed up the theory of AGW. This is laughable! And it’s rather far away from the claimed 97%! You can only get to the 97% by including the 2,934 papers which Cook’s group helpfully interpreted as “implicitly” supporting the AGW theory.

So, to claim that 97% of scientists agreed that humans are responsible for supposed Global Warming is utterly ludicrous. As usual with figures used by the Warmists, there seems to have been blatant manipulation of the data to prove a point that the data didn’t actually support.

Sorry there are so many numbers in today’s blog. But hopefully this analysis of the figures totally debunks once and for all the fanciful and misleading claim that the vast majority of scientists agree that supposed Global Warming is due to human activity.

It’s a pity that none of the politicians and journalists and Warmies who have parroted the “97% claim” bothered to look at how the original figures were manufactured as I have done.

10 comments to The great “97% of scientists agree……” Global Warming lie

  • Stillreading

    This demonstrates the misrepresentation of original work in many fields of research which has been going on for decades. Many years ago a good friend who needed a higher degree in order to be considered for more senior employment status in her profession explained to me how, the desired sphere of research having been agreed with the supervisor, one then proceeded to plough through sheaves of so-called “research papers” on the chosen topic, all of which were in fact summaries of earlier researchers’ papers, which themselves were summaries of agglomerations of earlier researchers’ works. And so it went up, up the generations as it were, the original work having disappeared into genealogical obscurity. What relation any of the more recently published works, my friend’s higher degree included, bore to its origins no one seemed much to care. Certainly obtaining the higher degree involved very little original work. As long as the student’s paper, when presented, showed a plethora of references, and the student (at least in the case of a PhD) could survive the requisite oral element, job done! That student’s published paper – MA, MSc, PhD – contributed to the vast agglomeration of scientific, or not-so-scientific, work out there, easily available on the internet, waiting to mislead the next generation. So yes – let’s question everything. A big problem is, though, that the vast majority of the population – and I an NOT being elitist here – is so fundamentally unscientifically minded and so mathematically illiterate, that any form of even the simplest statistics in incomprehensible. Much easier to let oneself be carried away on a melting sea of emotion by the likes of Al Gore!

  • ItsALLovernow

    Piers Corbyn on the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming.

    Physicist & Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls: ‘One day I started checking the facts and data –first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it’

    Physicist Exposes Global Warming Hoax.Gordon Fulks

    Too many so called experts have been bought, just like too many Politicians have been bought.Politicians don’t become politicians to help you and me, they are in it for the money.The Bankster’s are in it for the Carbon Credit Trading.
    How do you think all the Crooks and Shyster EU Bureaucrats gained control of the EU,by buying their way there with the people’s own money.

  • ItsALLovernow

    Of course we were told all this before and took no notice, preferring to believe main stream FAKE news instead.

    31,000 Scientists including 9000 PHD’S told us the truth in 1997.

    But because the West’s media is controlled by 6 Giant Media companies that co-ordinate the Crap we read daily the,Sheeple Swallowed the story wholesale.

    These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America.

    The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the “big six” absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the “big six” do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.

  • SciMan

    100% of Christians believe in the Lord Jesus so he must be the one true God, amen!

  • William Boreham

    Professor Richard Lindzen covers the subject of climate change.
    One can scroll down to global warming as the cause of everything and the conclusions if one lacks the time to read all.

    The problem for this country is that we have planed our future energy policy on the FACT of global warming, the absence of which (as we see today) has been metamorphosed into ‘climate change’ so we poor consumers will be paying for the most expensive and undependable sources of electricity generation known, while other countries sign all sorts of Kyoto and Paris accords, then build as many coal burning power stations producing cheap electricity as they can. We are the ONLY country in the world legally committed to cutting our CO2 omissions due to that half-witted Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act, voted for by virtually all the idiots we have sitting in Parliament.

  • chris

    in 1600AD, 100% of astronomers were convinced the sun went round the earth. Their conviction did not make them right. However, those astronomers had legitimate reasons for their conviction. The only reason global warming is propagandised is to generate profit.

  • Alan Thorpe

    I don’t know whether the IPCC has been very clever in the way it promotes the nonsense of man-made climate change or whether the ease of brainwashing a badly educated population is all they need.

    The consensus of scientists is superficially something that seems credible especially when the BBC and the rest of the media promote it ruthlessly. Last year Brian Cox appeared on Australian TV (Q&A) telling us there is an “absolute, absolute consensus” that the humans are the cause of global warming. I wonder how much he was paid to say this? I haven’t heard him claim that the existence of the Higgs Boson particle is based on a consensus rather than the result of detailed and very expensive experimental evidence. He is no longer a credible scientist; he is just a paid mouthpiece of the left wing political movement that is trying to make everything a global issue that needs global solutions. In other words he supports highly paid jobs doing nothing useful at the tax payers’ expense. The UN and all its activities are at the centre of this. The EU does the same in Europe by convincing people our own governments are not capable of running their countries. Richard Dawkins has also joined the bandwagon. He thinks the signs of climate change, and he quotes the disappearing polar ice caps as evidence, show that humans are the cause. This is a man who believes in rational thought and evidence but he offers nothing to support his claimed link between the climate change and humans. David Attenborough is another promoter and he uses the distress of sea creatures as evidence. Only a few days ago a video on the internet of a dying polar bear was the latest offering from the environmental brigade. We all know that polar bears never die unless we are the cause. It is perfectly obvious to a brainwashed population.

    I have tried to find a quote of Einstein but failed. It was something along the lines of being asked if he was pleased about the large number of people who supported his ideas and he replied that it was the one comment that disagreed with him that would be more important. It really doesn’t matter how many agree, it is the science that matters and I cannot find evidence of that in any of the papers claiming that human released CO2 is the cause of global warming.

    Michael Mann who did the work on the hockey stick did everything he could to avoid releasing the data and computer programmes he used, but thanks to the determination of McIntyre and McKitrick his work has been discredited. Mann deliberately published work that removed the known warm and cold periods during the last 1000 years to provide “evidence” that the temperatures now were increasing beyond anything experienced in the past. What I cannot understand is the importance placed on this work. What about all the evidence from the history of ice ages going back 400,000 years? This is completely ignored in almost every paper on climate change. The ice core data show a saw tooth cycling between warm periods and ice ages on a cycle of about 116,000 years. The last peak of the interglacial was about 116,000 years ago. If the past cycles continue we are on a steep upward part of the recovery from the last ice age. It is hardly a surprise that the temperatures are increasing. When does this get discussed? Climate research should focus on this if we are to understand the future climate and not on the nonsense of a small amount of CO2 and humans as a cause.

    Mann’s work also needed the steep increase in global average temperatures along with the steep increase of CO2 due to our activities in recent years. This is correct, but there is nothing unusual about the temperature increase at this point in the ice age cycles. It was putting these two graphs together which Al Gore did very effectively that was the killer idea that CO2 is the cause and it is human activity that is releasing the CO2. Putting the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores together confirmed that CO2 was the cause of the temperature rises. The uneducated masses were shown a visual correlation between CO2 and temperature with CO2 as the driver of temperature change was all the evidence needed and they swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Brian Cox in the TV programme I mentioned above also held up these graphs and said that the correlation was evidence of causation. His bank balance certainly increased as a result of that work.

    Recent reports on CO2 suggest that it is now as high as the last interglacial period. This was when temperatures were apparently 3 degrees higher and sea levels 20 metres higher. The BBC has reported this with concern but it doesn’t seem to realise that the CO2 hasn’t produced the same effects. But it is all accepted by a gullible population. The BBC also shows experiments to prove it is CO2. Iain Stewart’s candle experiment was one of these, but this was nothing more than an illusion using a thermal camera tuned to detect CO2. Thermal camera are used to detect CO2 leaks in equipment. The lies are just unbelievable. Andra Sella, a chemist, did an experiment for the BBC with gun cotton which only worked because he used a magnifying glass to concentrate the light.

    Another part of the brainwashing is the use of a global average temperature. This is another clever ploy since everybody thinks that they can understand an average temperature. It is of course completely meaningless; a single temperature cannot be used to describe the behaviour of the climate or be used as a measure of how the climate is changing. The average temperature is also continued into the nonsense of the earth’s energy balance diagrams. It is invalid to assume that there is a long term energy balance at the outer atmosphere. If this was the case than we would not have seen the ice ages. There is no energy balance but the earth’s climate is essentially stable with an oscillation between the higher temperature of the interglacials and the low of the ice ages. But this is not really the problem with the energy balance diagrams. It is the three points of assumed energy balance – at the edge of the atmosphere, at the earth’s surface and at a point in the atmosphere. It is a simple concept that seems to make sense to the uneducated, but it defies all known laws of thermodynamics. Even a bit of simple maths and rational thought can find the error. Something our education system does not teach.

    I recommend everybody to sketch out the fundamentals of the earths energy balance by removing all the minor details. Essentially, energy (S) arrives at the earth’s surface from the sun. This is absorbed by the surface and emitted (E). This energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and the atmosphere in turn emits this equally to space and back the the surface (A). Now look at the balances. At the edge of the atmosphere S = A. At the surface E = S. In the atmosphere E= 2A. Do the substitution and E = 2S. The earth cannot emit twice the energy it receives from the sun. Energy is created from nothing in this diagram which is not possible and it is because the assumptions of balance are not correct. This is the supposed greenhouse effect – trapped energy causing additional heating. The greenhouse effect is a complete fraud being imposed on almost the entire world population by supposed scientists and ignorant politicians. Money can be the only reason for this and they get away with it because the population is really easily brainwashed.

    My real concern is the failure of education to give adults the understanding of the basic physics needed to identify this fraud, but even worse it is now being taught in schools as science.

  • Alan Thorpe

    William Boreham makes an extremely important point above about energy supplies. Today we learn that the explosion at an Austrian gas plant is putting energy supplies throughout Europe at risk and forcing up prices. What use are renewables in this situation when gas is a main source of energy? Our politicians have a lot to answer for.

    I have concerns about the pollution from fossil fuels but CO2 is not one of the pollutants. The worst is probably from diesel engines and it was politicians who forced those on us in their crazy attempts to reduce CO2.

    Nuclear seems the only way forward but that also causes concerns. In the UK we have failed to deal with the nuclear waste and we made the disastrous mistake of failing to build more of the successful PWR design at Sizewell.

  • Roy

    Wow, SciMan, you really DON’T understand what you’re writing about do you !
    If I can recall your comment of yesterday:
    ‘99% of scientists say it’s real and happening. but you don’t because you know better. Right.’
    Today you say:
    ‘100% of Christians believe in the Lord Jesus so he must be the one true God, amen!’

    Do you also lack a sense of irony ?

  • Philip

    Roy, I glad you questioned the comments of SciMan because I intended to do it.

    SciMan can you elaborate in more than one sentence your reasoning and what point you are trying to convey. Do it quickly before the nurse comes.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>