“A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of climate change,” the Washington Times reported yesterday.
But what about that grand consensus — “97 percent” — of scientists saying the exact opposite?
Well, economist and legal theoretician David D. Friedman wrote, this week, that one of the most famous citations about the climate change consensus is the result of some, uh, data fudging.
Friedman chased down the origin of that infamous and oft-repeated 97 percent figure through three papers, all available online. Despite the high tone of certainty, the scientists who collated information from surveys of other scientists did not find that “over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” At best, a huge cohort of these scientists agreed that humans merely contributed to global warming. Very different.
Friedman concluded that the main author responsible for the strong interpretation of weak findings, John Cook, told “a deliberate lie.”
This scientist’s misrepresentation of “the result of his own research” doesn’t prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true or untrue, of course. But it does suggest that the “consensus” so much talked about is shaky indeed.
I began the week talking about our reliance upon experts to gather, analyze and report on information honestly and reliably.
And how horrible it is when they let us down.
The climate change we need is in the culture of academic responsibility.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
10 replies on “A Trumped-up “Consensus””
Thanks for passing this on. Agreeing that humans burn fuel is not the same as agreeing that it matters.
None of that would be a problem if the common person would think for themselves and realize that there can be no “consensus” in science at all. Something is either a “fact” or THEY DON’T KNOW. There is no FACT just because a bunch of so-called agree scientists to say so.
LOL…“so-called scientists agree to say so.”
Paul, “our reliance upon experts to gather, analyze and report on information honestly and reliably” is foolish at best.
The war of the experts is a normal occurrence in the Court room and legislative hearings.
Intellectual and academic freedom demands the ability of those proponents of a new theory the right to express it, and be peer and generally reviewed, disagreed with, proven or disproven, adopted or discarded.
What appears lacking today is the freedom to respond.
When the system goes fascist the government funding system stifles the research of those with any views which might discourage the confirmation of a “truth” willed by those in power. Hitler’s crimes against humanity were commonly “scientifically” based and agreed to by the “intellectual community”. That provides little comfort to me.
President Eisenhower’s famous warning about the military-industrial complex is widely known, and often repeated (especially by anti-defense liberturds).
WHAT IS NOT OFTEN REPEATED, was that, in the same speech, President Eisenhower warned against the government-scientific research industry. He said (paraphrasing) that the scientists and researchers getting government money (grants) for research will come up with the results that the government (agency or government by the entirety‑I guess) wants,
This global warming garbage is an example. One, I am sure, of many.
Right, and I used to believe so. More recently I have come to believe humans are the primary source of ‘climate engineering,’ mostly adverse and perhaps consciously genocidal: http://www.skyderalert.com/
PS: Your spam filter is beginning to ask harder questions [ ]x6=eighteen, may cut down on your messages. 🙂
If I read the Cook report correctly, it’s actually worse than you or Friedman report. If you look at the original Cook et al report, you will see that the majority (62%) of scientists contacted took no position at all on AGW (Table 3). The 97% figure, with the flaws you describe, only refers to the remaining 38%. The original Cook report has been changed a couple of times, and I don’t see the table that you and Friedman reference, although the commentary and other tables refer to it.
Six thousand years ago North Africa was a lush verdant paradise. Over the following two thousand years it morphed into the Sahara Desert. We can learn three things from this single example:
1) Climate does indeed change.
2) Man doesn’t cause, and cannot prevent it.
3) Rather than civilization causing climate change, it was climate change that gave birth to civilization by causing mankind to gravitate to the productive area around the Nile.
Climate change is justification for the government to usurp more and more power. Since this is their bent anyway, were it not climate change, they would find another even less believable reason to rationalize it. They actually NEED a hypothesis that is not provable.
“I began the week talking about our reliance upon experts to gather, analyze and report on information honestly and reliably.”
Jay hits the nail on the head. Who can rely on “experts” when those choosing who the experts are and what to pay them, have their own personal agendas? And how many qualified PhDs are willing to write reports in such a way to ensure they get to keep the work?
The climate will change, and humans will adapt.