Climate Scam – 97% Of Climate Scientists Are In Consensus, Is A Lie

77 earth scientists out of 10,257 earth scientists invited replied, so how do they get 97% consensus

The next UN Climate Religion Synod (COP17) in Durban is just 10 weeks away, and despite almost universal consensus that Climate Change talks will slide off the precipice and into oblivion, the drones of the Church of Climatology are still pumping out the sound bytes that are only believed by Climate Activists and those with power and money to gain.

Typical of the Climate Religion drones are the journalists propagandists at the Guardian who are claiming that most of the world is irrational, a lacklustre effort to spin the massive decline in belief in Climate Religion and many more stories of approaching climate Armageddon.

Underpining all of these fairy tales is the dead horse of More than 97% of active climate scientists are in consensus:

The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.

Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).

Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

As a side note, in order to assure an initial high survey percentage, the two researchers did not ask major segments of the scientific world to participate. Those would be the segments that were known to be critical of the AGW theory, including: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.

As Al Gore prepares for Goregasm day on September 14th you can count on the dead horse on consensus being flogged to it’s boney hooves again, and again.

London will be one of the cities where a Scottish warming alarmist will tell scary tales of the CO2 wolf again, as it says on Climate Reality web site for London:

London has been called “the world in one city,” and with the summer 2012 Olympic Games, that has never been truer.

Can’t really fault Climate Reality on that one, the London Olympics has abandoned it’s carbon off setting pledge, much like the rest of the world then.

The latest article in the Grauniad Cif America Hurricanes, floods and wildfires – but Washington won’t talk global warming blames all manner of weather events on Man Made Climate Change and underpins the whole pile of bovine fecal matter with the erroneous dead horse of consensus.

The real consensus of scientists who agree with Climate Religion is 0.73% (75 divided by 10257).

Which does beggar the question if Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, then why do 99.27% of scientists disagree?

About these ads

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on September 12, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climategate, Social Engineering, Wealth Redistribution and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 37 Comments.

  1. I can’t wait for Durban. Almost no one is planning to attend except a few tofu eating greenie faithful and environmental ‘journalists’. Reuters will most certainly be there since the owners of Reuters are heavily invested in Green Tech companies (That would be the Thompson Group, owners of the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper).

    Otherwise, no leaders will be there, no one of significance anyway. And besides, nothing which happens at these meetings is legally binding. They can resolve to do whatever they want but no one needs to heed them. If a country does not meet its carbon targets, the worst the UN can do is give you the glaring of a lifetime. Lol!

    Cheers

  2. I just looked up the survey, and the results clearly show that there were over 3,000 responders, not 77 as you claim here. Why have you said there were only 77 responders when there were actually more than 40 times that amount?
    Regards.

    • There were 3000 respondents but only 79 were climate scientists, of those 77 agreed that humans were responsible for altering the climate, two did not agree.

      cheers

  3. do you have a link becuase I think you are confused between two surveys one was 2,500 the other 77
    If you click the links you will find the results of the polls and the quoted conclusion are verifiable, or I would not have run the story.

  4. do you have a link to the hacked emails and the data manipulation.
    or perhaps you can field this question as you have the emails to hand

    “Want to show me which email shows that data was manipulated?”

    http://www.adifferentopinion.net/t14642p15-climate-scam-97-of-climate-scientists-are-in-consensus-is-a-lie

  5. this one ????

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

  6. I also remember a piece on UofEA being cleared, have you more on that as well.

  7. simon hopkinson

    Great, right up to the 0.73, 75/10257. The questions were poor and were loaded, but not all the other 1K+ scientists disagreed. They were excluded in the paper for their specialised subject and by recent activity in the field because their inclusion didn’t make an “overwhelming” figure (i.e. 97pc). Opinion is divided among them, and they do not all dispute all aspects of AGW.

    I figure, with such a good write up of the Doran farce otherwise, it’d be a shame to introduce an alternative fallacy. Better to be true.

    Rgds
    S

  8. simon hopkinson

    Incidentally, 10257 polled, around 3K respondents, cherry-picked to 77, 75 of which answered in the affirmative to the stupid, loaded questions.

    The consensus is a sham, not least because it is a consensus of opinion rather than of scientific evidence, but is presented as the latter.

    In other news, 100pc of vicars/priests/rabbis polled confirmed that god exists. Now that’s what I call a solid consensus! That’s another big question answered, I guess, too.

  9. Prof Phil Jones (in a BBC interview)

    This remark has nothing to do with any “decline” in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years. The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were. This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive – but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record. I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time – an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report. The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

    The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.

  10. The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over leaked emails were yesterday cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics, but a review found they had failed to be open enough about their work.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science?intcmp=239

  11. A nicely conducted whitewash all in all

    http://toryaardvark.com/2010/09/14/university-of-east-anglia-inquiry-was-a-whitewash/

    Only Guardian readers and Climate Religion believers buy into that inquiry

  12. In what way ?

  13. And the scientists have been cleared of wrongdoing in several independent investigations, including those by the United Kingdom’s House of Commons, the National Research Council and Pennsylvania State University.

    Just some people see conspiracy round every corner and refuse to accept anything that conflicts with their world view regardless of evidence to the contrary

  14. emm, some people seem to be getting really confused on this subject.

    There as only one survey sent to 10,257 people, 3146 replied.

    There were 9 questions.

    Of all respondents, around 82% agreed in AGW. The 77 ‘cherry picked’ were climatologists who regularly publish papers on GW.

    see here
    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    The paper itself looks fine to me in the way it was done, the problem has been both sides taking what they want from it.

    • Thats right, 82% agreed with AGW, but that suggests that almost one in five respondents did not agree. That’s not high enough, so they cherry picked only the climate scientists and arrived at 97%. Asking climate scientists if AGW is real is like asking a priest about the existance of god.

  15. humans have only sped the natrual processes of our planet up, i fear that humans in general need to “man up” and stop being so greedy and dishonest, and we should probley start cleaning up this planet we call home. its not just magic that 90% of large and small ocean fish have been overfished or just killed off, disrupting an entire food web and now that the fido plankton(greatly outnumberd by plastic floating in the ocean) has started to build up causing tennesse sized methane plums in “deadzones” across the world. im really dissapointed in the level of ignorace the entire human species shows on a daily basis, nobody is exempt, we need to start acting like we are the most intellegent mammals to have ever graced this rock.(that we know of anyways) stop letting people like al gore tell us that we need to control the climate changes(so he can profit from it) we produce…duh we dont need some old fart to tell us this, someone who isnt affected by the global recession at all. we need to stop letting goverments get over on us.. for instance, getting charged for power you didn’t use, that was never produced you might as well pay someone to punch you in the nads. and why do we let people give green tech such a bad name charging that much for energy produced (or not produced) we need to stop letting greedy, outdated, ragged , politics tell us how to run our lives. my fellow humans we really need to “Man up” here, ive started doing my part now how about you start doing yours, by not listening to a group of men and women who are taking advantage of us and start to use our own minds for the first time since the television was introduced, how about we actually use our tech to better the lives of everyone, why does it feel like we’ve got guys running the worlds politics and they really could put a stop to this but instead want to tax us but not themselves, a global ecosystem and global economical collpase are on the way and most of us are just sitting here, living a disorganized taterd life all brought on by the suppression of our goverments, what ever happend to Freedom, does that not exist i know that you say, that americas founding fathers were raciest, and sexist, but look the bill of rights, which is the first ten admendments of the united states constitution for anyone who dosent know and is the only section of the constitution that refers to us as people and not Citizens or citizens(yes the capitolization does matter) depending on what sections your are reading. and why is a failing court system telling us how to use our first admendment, why cant we peacefully protest without violence and (a permit) i know this rant has been long but i have faith for humanity but only if the individuals whose lifes are most affected by these recessions stand up a do something , this is just not for the americans like myself, this is for everyone across the planet ,Our most prized posession, i fear without proper care our planet will not be able to keep on being ripped apart, piece by piece one generation at a time..

  16. Klem, who cherry picked the number exactly? was it those who conducted the survey, or was it the media???

    82% is a large consensus in the world, it’s much higher than those that believe in evolution.

    The fact is this is a large consensus within the scientific community whether you like it or not. The problem is that the media, and those with a vested interest (on both sides) spin the actual results, like the media did originally and like TAB has done here

  17. Cleared? Yep, Michael Mann was cleared by Penn State, the same people who conveniently look the other way about child molesters. All were whitewash investigations and have no credibility whatsoever.

  18. From the article:

    “They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77).”

    That pretty much unequivocally suggests 77 responses from 10,257 requests, which is a bare-faced lie. When you resort to introducing lies that a schoolchild could see through,it’s a pretty clear sign that you’re floundering.

  19. There was supposed to be a windmill at the London Olympics. I think it was the prospect of beaming pictures of a stationary windmill around the world that killed that idea.

  20. What you didn’t know:
    In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE STOPPED ARGUING about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. THERE IS NO VOTE!
    We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
    In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

  1. Pingback: 24 Hours of Climate Reality: Gore-a-thon – Hour 9 | Watts Up With That?

  2. Pingback: Climate Scam – 97% Of Climate Scientists Are In Consensus, Is A Lie (via Tory Aardvark) « Docentas's Blog

  3. Pingback: Climate Change Sea Levels Are Not Rising « Tory Aardvark

  4. Pingback: Warming Alarmism – Even The Jehovah’s Witnesses Don’t Call Every Day « Tory Aardvark

  5. Pingback: Global Warming Has Fallen Off The Political Radar « Tory Aardvark

  6. Pingback: Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Global Warming Lies | ukipscotland

  7. Pingback: Fritz Vahrenholt 30% Of The IPCC Are Greenpeace & WWF Activists « Tory Aardvark

  8. Pingback: Fifty IPCC Scientists Out The Global Waming Hoax | News On The Right

  9. Pingback: Climate Science – The Abuse Of Science For A Global Political Agenda « Tory Aardvark

  10. Pingback: CAGW Science – or what if Velikovsky had won | Omnologos

  11. Pingback: Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark - Page 9 (politics)

  12. Pingback: Britain’s Climate Change Fool Pontificates About Climate Change | Tory Aardvark

  13. Pingback: Anonymous

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,949 other followers

%d bloggers like this: