WhatFinger

97% of Scientists State Global Warming is Man-made – Perhaps Not?

By Elizabeth Marshall ——--November 26, 2019

Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

97% of Scientists State Global Warming is Man-madeIn 2013 there was a very good paper released by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford. This document completely debunks the statement “that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made.” There is also a document from the Fraser Institute “Consensus on Climate Change Stifles Debate Surrounding Public Policy,” by Kyle Sholes, in 2016. Both are very good documents and yet one must realize that these are not the only papers that debunk the rhetoric of the “97%” statement.
The 97% statement comes from the document ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,’ authored by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce. These people are associated with:
  1. Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia
  2. Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
  4. Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA
  5. Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA
  6. Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
  7. Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
  8. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA
  9. Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada”1
And even Barack Obama, in conjunction with a number of other politicians, were fooled into stating “that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made.” But is there any real fact to this statement, or is this merely playing a numbers game? Fact – “the 12,000 abstracts used give false legitimacy to the study, for although nearly 12,000 articles were identified, 66.4% of them did not take a stance on AGW (Cook et al., 2013). Instead, the 97% claim is based off of the abstracts in which there was a judgment made; those which took no stance are not considered in the claim, which again calls into question its accuracy.”2
“However, the vast majority of scientific papers on global warming do not take a position on this question, so the idea of determining the extent of any consensus by a comprehensive review of the literature in the field was something of a nonsense. Cook and his colleagues were well aware of this problem and therefore appear to have decided to adopt a definition of the consensus that was deliberately vague--‘that humans are causing global warming’. In the discussion on the Skeptical Science forum, this was called the ‘porno’ approach: Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being ‘any amount of human influence’ or ‘more than 50% human influence’. We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.”3
Fact – “the 97% claim is vague and often used to support arguments beyond its scope. On its own, the claim simply suggests that some amount of human activity is causing a certain degree of warming. The claim does not substantiate to what extent human activity causes warming, how much warming is being caused, and, most importantly, if this phenomenon is a danger to human health, either now or in the future.”4 Fact – the Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment) statement of “that climate science is “indisputable, and [the Government of Canada recognizes] the need for urgent/greater action,”5 “Words like “indisputable” and “the need for urgent action” limit the scope of debate, relying on claims of perceived experts to justify any and all policy decisions without room for discussion. But, as will be shown, not all of these experts’ claims are as reliable as our politicians make them out to be.”6

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
And yet there are other research documents that challenge that “indisputable” purported science.
“It was even referred to on President Obama’s Twitter feed: @BarackObama: Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. It should be noted that the Obama statement misrepresented the Cook et al. paper, which said nothing about global warming being dangerous and was based on analysis of published abstracts rather than the opinions of scientists.”7
The best statement from those who challenge the “97%” statement are:
“that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper.”8
Based on these and other challenges it would seem our political representatives may be setting scientists up to be the “fall guys” considering any politician can merely say they were quoting this or that scientist. But what about those who have been misled into the belief that the end is near, based on the “12 year” scenario proclaimed by politicians and the UN? An example
“Last October, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that mankind has 12 years to act to avoid “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Even in the best scenarios, it said, the world will face more extreme weather events – more wildfires, more droughts, more floods, rising sea levels and the loss of almost all coral reefs.” 'More women say climate change means they won't have kids', Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY. Published March 26, 2019 9
And it just has to be said – is this not Darwinism because, like the Mayan apocalypse wasn’t the world supposed to end in 2012? So, shouldn’t those who are repeating a debunked statement actually be the ones who should be ridiculed – not those who challenged “indisputable”(s) which are not truly indisputable? Surely, those who would cause this type of harm to families and children should be ridiculed, shouldn’t they? 97 % of Scientists State Global Warming is Man-made – Perhaps Not?

Footnotes:

  1. Consensus? What Consensus? By Andrew Montford THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION, 2013.
  2. “CONSENSUS” ON CLIMATE CHANGE STIFLES DEBATE SURROUNDING PUBLIC POLICY Kyle Sholes, 2016
  3. Consensus? What Consensus? By Andrew Montford THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION, 2013.
  4. "CONSENSUS” ON CLIMATE CHANGE STIFLES DEBATE SURROUNDING PUBLIC POLICY Kyle Sholes, 2016.
  5. “CONSENSUS” ON CLIMATE CHANGE STIFLES DEBATE SURROUNDING PUBLIC POLICY Kyle Sholes, 2016
  6. “CONSENSUS” ON CLIMATE CHANGE STIFLES DEBATE SURROUNDING PUBLIC POLICY Kyle Sholes, 2016
  7. Consensus? What Consensus? By Andrew Montford THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION, 2013.
  8. Consensus? What Consensus? By Andrew Montford THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION, 2013.
  9. 'How could I bring a child into the world?': More women say climate change means they won't have kids
Subscribe

View Comments
Elizabeth Marshall——

• Elizabeth Marshall on Facebook
• Non-Partisan Advocate
• Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association
• Author – “Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”
• Board Member/Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board
• Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc.,
• Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Municipal Councilors,
• President All Rights Research Ltd.,

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.  Any information relayed is for informational purposes only.  Please contact a lawyer.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored