Claims of scientific consensus on catastrophic human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming do not stand up to scrutiny.
*Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
Recently, the New York Times razzed a “climate denier”, Dr. Richard Lindzen, for having the temerity to go against the grain. After all, asserted the Times, “polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.”
I’ve heard this figure a lot, and never questioned it.
So, I thought I’d look up this claim.
Non-Scientist Challenges Scientific Consensus
There are three items I found on-line that review the surveys. The Science and Public Policy Institute offers an assessment by Dennis Ambler from December 2010 entitled “Climate Consensus Opiate: The 97% Solution” and another entitled “Controlling the Science: National Academies and Consensus”.
The first item found that in the 2009 Doron and Zimmerman paper (both scientists from the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois) there seems to be significant manipulation of numbers.
Shocking Manipulation of Data – Only 79 Scientists Picked for Poll
According to Ambler’s review of the Doron/Zimmerman data, 10,257 scientists were contacted, 3,146 responded. That’s less than 31%. Of that group “only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduced that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists.”
Ambler further dissects the consensus: “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
Questions Designed to Get the Answer You Want
Here are two of the questions that were asked:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
These questions cannot elicit a scientific answer because they are asking about a person’s subjective opinion. Further I doubt any scientist of any persuasion would deny that human activity affects climate as in question number 2. Humans impact global temperatures; so can beavers, pine beetles, wild fires, volcanoes and solar flares. But how much is ‘significant’?
National Academy Climate Change Groups are Rife with NGO Political Influence
The second item about the National Academy is an interesting deconstruction of who’s who on the climate panels. Again, the evidence is shocking. Of 20 people on one panel, only 4 are climate scientists. Most of the other members are lawyers or business managers who are key figures in massive, well-funded eco-groups; people who have a clearly biased agenda and no science background whatsoever.
Leading Scientists Dissent
What will the media do now that scientist James Lovelock, creator of the “Gaia” theory and one of the leading CAGW alarmists has recanted saying: “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
But we’re not.
We are out of pocket for billions of dollars world-wide.
We Want Restitution
Shouldn’t someone pay for this fraud? It should be someone besides you and I, the taxpayers, and industry that can no longer afford to create jobs in this EPA restricted business ‘environment’, struggling to control the invisible “Carbon Boogeyman” who it turns out, is just as real as the monster under the bed.