Exposing The Bogus "97% Consensus" Claim Over Climate Change 'Science'

[Guest]

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.” Now these claims have been dubious from the start; people like David Friedman have demonstrated that the “97% consensus” assertion became a talking point only through a biased procedure that mischaracterized how journal articles were rated, and thereby inflating the estimate. 

But beyond that, a review in The New Republic of a book critical of mainstream economics uses the exact same degree of consensus in order to cast aspersions on the science of economics. In other words, when it comes to the nearly unanimous rejection of rent control or tariffs among professional economists, at least some progressive leftists conclude that there must be group-think involved. The one consistent thread in both cases - that of the climate scientists and that of the economists - is that The New Republic takes the side that will expand the scope of government power, a central tenet since its birth by Herbert Croly a century ago.

        

The Dubious “97% Consensus” Claim Regarding Climate Science

Back in 2014, David Friedman worked through the original paper that kicked off the “97% consensus” talking point. What the original authors, Cook et al., actually found in their 2013 paper was that 97.1% of the relevant articles agreed that humans contribute to global warming. But notice that that is not at all the same thing as saying that humans are the main contributors to observed global warming (since the Industrial Revolution).

This is a huge distinction. For example, I co-authored a Cato study with climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, in which we strongly opposed a U.S. carbon tax. Yet both Michaels and Knappenberger would be climate scientists who were part of the “97% consensus” according to Cook et al. That is, Michaels and Knappenberger both agree that, other things equal, human activity that emits carbon dioxide will make the world warmer than it otherwise would be. That observation by itself does not mean there is a crisis nor does it justify a large carbon tax. Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson: 

[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]

So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change. This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend.

The New Republic’s Differing Attitudes Towards Consensus

The journal The New Republic was founded in 1914. Its website states: “For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas and challenged popular opinion….The New Republic promotes novel solutions for today’s most critical issues.” With that context, it’s not surprising that The New Republic uses the alleged 97% consensus in climate science the way other progressive outlets typically do. Here’s an excerpt from a 2015 article (by Rebecca Leber) in which Republicans were excoriated for their anti-science stance on climate change: 

Two years ago, a group of international researchers led by University of Queensland’s John Cook surveyed 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate change since the 1990s. Out of the 4,000 papers that took a position one way or another on the causes of global warming, 97 percent of them were in agreement: Humans are the primary cause. By putting a number on the scientific consensus, the study provided everyone from President Barack Obama to comedian John Oliver with a tidy talking point. [Leber, bold added.]

Notice already that Leber is helping to perpetuate a falsehood, though she can be forgiven—part of David Friedman’s blog post was to show that Cook himself was responsible (Friedman calls it an outright lie) for the confusion regarding what he and his co-authors actually found. And notice that Leber confirms what I have claimed in this post, namely that it was the Cook et al. (2013) paper that originally provided the “talking point” (her term) about so-called consensus. The point of Leber’s essay is to then denounce Ted Cruz and certain other Republicans for ignoring this consensus among climate scientists: 

All this debate over one statistic might seem silly, but it’s important that Americans understand there is overwhelming agreement about human-caused global warming. Deniers have managed to undermine how the public views climate science, which in turn makes voters less likely to support climate action. Now here’s what’s really interesting. A colleague sent me a recent review in The New Republic of a new book by Binyan Appelbaum that is critical of the economics profession. The reviewer, Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein, quoted with approval Appelbaum’s low view of consensus in economics: 

Appelbaum shows the strangely high degree of consensus in the field of economics, including a 1979 survey of economists that “found 98 percent opposed rent controls, 97 percent opposed tariffs, 95 percent favored floating exchange rates, and 90 percent opposed minimum wage laws.” And in a moment of impish humor he notes that “Although nature tends toward entropy, they shared a confidence that economies tend toward equilibrium.” Economists shared a creepy lack of doubt about how the world worked. [Kaiser-Schatzlein, bold added.] Isn’t that amazing? Rather than hunting down and demonizing Democratic politicians who dare to oppose the expert consensus on items like rent control - which Bernie Sanders has recently promoted - the reaction here is to guffaw at the hubris and “creepy lack of doubt about how the world [works].”

Conclusion

From the beginning, the “97% consensus” claim about climate change has been dubious, with supporters claiming that it represented much more than it really did. Furthermore, a recent book review in The New Republic shows that when it comes to economic science, 97% consensus means nothing, if it doesn’t support progressive politics.

Authored by Robert Murphy via The Mises Institute

err but Trump   how dare you

Edited November 4, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.” 

The logical fallacies in the first sentence alone confine any further commentary to the dustbin, and why you continue to post such crap is a total mystery (except for the probability you are not even aware how dumb your copypastes are!).

[Guest]

lol well if your science is anything like your history your comments don't mean a lot lol, considering you've been arguing on a thread with half the forum for about 10 pages because your government controlled history books told you something different and instead of ever answering anything, because you can't, you accuse everyone of diversion

you were invaded, tons of times, get over it winston jeez, it was a while ago

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hey 99.99%, the .001% are laughing their butts off that the suckers (i.e. you) are buying the notion of austerity to combat a necessary ingredient of life on Planet Earth: Carbon Dioxide.

No Tom, Leo is right. Newtons here said so, and a teenage girl backed by an agenda.

[remake it + 288]

36 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

lol well if your science is anything like your history your comments don't mean a lot lol, considering you've been arguing on a thread with half the forum for about 10 pages because your government controlled history books told you something different and instead of ever answering anything, because you can't, you accuse everyone of diversion

you were invaded, tons of times, get over it winston jeez, it was a while ago

You actually need to construct an argument and not make unsupported statements because this forum does not appear to have posters able to defend their views despite shooting every messenger with a contrary opinion to yours and a few others.

[Guest]

And I'm gonna take a stab that the above is either about diversion or presenting an argument - something you have not done in about 2 months. Bore me some more Pooh.

Confucius turning in his grave at your lack of any logic ever I'm guessing. Like your own borders. Can't even clarify your position after 10 pages of a thread. 

HOPELESS

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

No Tom, Leo is right. Newtons here said so, and a teenage girl backed by an agenda.

Quoting Tom K! LOL Trash recycling.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

And I'm gonna take a stab that the above is either about diversion or presenting an argument - something you have not done in about 2 months. Bore me some more Pooh.

Confucius turning in his grave at your lack of any logic ever I'm guessing. Like your own borders. Can't even clarify your position after 10 pages of a thread. 

HOPELESS

You response to the crap you posted has not addressed why it is other than crap, so is that something you can do, or will you keep attacking posters you cannot rebut with childish comments?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

You actually need to construct an argument and not make unsupported statements because this forum does not appear to have posters able to defend their views despite shooting every messenger with a contrary opinion to yours and a few others.

Here we go again....😖

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Here we go again....😖

Yes, another pointless copypaste with no personal views attached and no capacity to do other than make the same childish comments that you too stoop to, which raises the question of why do you even bother when it makes you look so impotent?

[Zak Pol + 14]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Yes, another pointless copypaste with no personal views attached and no capacity to do other than make the same childish comments that you too stoop to, which raises the question of why do you even bother when it makes you look so impotent?

All I can tell you, that is pointless to argue with the stupid people like you..... why bother?

- You always have to be right.

- You react to conflict with anger, and aggression.

- You think, you are better than everyone else.

- You always blame others.

So just going thru your verbal diarrhea, I say enough!!! You won, you are right. Does this fit your definition? No argument from me. I am just passing by. Hope to never hear from you again. But this can be a lofty dream:))

[remake it + 288]

31 minutes ago, Zak Pol said:

All I can tell you, that is pointless to argue with the stupid people like you..... why bother?

- You always have to be right.

- You react to conflict with anger, and aggression.

- You think, you are better than everyone else.

- You always blame others.

So just going thru your verbal diarrhea, I say enough!!! You won, you are right. Does this fit your definition? No argument from me. I am just passing by. Hope to never hear from you again. But this can be a lofty dream:))

Well here's another person with an opinion ...just another useless opinion, so why did you bother, especially seeing that you fell for the same tactic as the others in blaming a poster for pointing out that the thread starter was logically full of more holes than Swiss cheese?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

Yes, another pointless copypaste with no personal views attached and no capacity to do other than make the same childish comments that you too stoop to, which raises the question of why do you even bother when it makes you look so impotent?

Dear Shit-for-Brains,

i will have you know that my previous reply was NOT a ‘cut & paste, I took the time to read your previous comment and actually took the time to respond accordingly.

 

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Here we go again....😖

Yes, another copypaste from DT - not you - and with his usual amount of commentary!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Dear Shit-for-Brains,

i will have you know that my previous reply was NOT a ‘cut & paste, I took the time to read your previous comment and actually took the time to respond accordingly.

 

Douglas I've blocked the idiot

He has zero facts, cannot reply to any when presented by others, and just says everyone else is diverting

he's not worth your time

I swear he argues just to wind people up

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Yeah, I’ll be blocking as well.

[remake it + 288]

11 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Douglas I've blocked the idiot

He has zero facts, cannot reply to any when presented by others, and just says everyone else is diverting

he's not worth your time

I swear he argues just to wind people up

More of the usual insults from people here who have no idea how to present a idea which is defensible, so another one bites the dust - keep it up folks as it really shows how shallow you all are.

[Guest]

I'll quote someone with a ridiculous IQ over a moron who says ''I'll stop acting childish when Trump does'' any day yes.

Err ... but Yaris.

Can't help but notice that the tree huggers never seem to have to prove THEIR argument. I'd say the emphasis is on you as we are all doomed, but nothing, apart from 'I drive a Yaris' and 'well the scientists I want to believe said so', but no actual argument ever.

Greta said so? 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Guest

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

More of the usual insults from people here who have no idea how to present a idea which is defensible, so another one bites the dust - keep it up folks as it really shows how shallow you all are.

Maybe idiot was harsh

But I maintain that your are unwilling to accept reasoned argument no matter how factually correct it is if it differs from your view.

Also when proven incorrect by many many posters on here on any topic (who I believe are intelligent well educated people) you divert and give no reasoned contrary facts to back up your point of view. If you did you may actually gain some respect instead of the contrary.

I reckon I learn something valuable on this site daily from some very knowledgeable people and I am prepared to alter my view on some subjects. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the case with you, and that will forever be your loss not theirs.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Clearly I have temporarily unblocked you to see if you respond in a conciliatory tone or whether you revert to type

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Maybe idiot was harsh

But I maintain that your are unwilling to accept reasoned argument no matter how factually correct it is if it differs from your view.

Also when proven incorrect by many many posters on here on any topic (who I believe are intelligent well educated people) you divert and give no reasoned contrary facts to back up your point of view. If you did you may actually gain some respect instead of the contrary.

I reckon I learn something valuable on this site daily from some very knowledgeable people and I am prepared to alter my view on some subjects. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the case with you, and that will forever be your loss not theirs.

 

I’d stick with ‘idiot’ Rob, descriptively accurate.

[Otis11 + 551]

18 hours ago, remake it said:

The logical fallacies in the first sentence alone confine any further commentary to the dustbin, and why you continue to post such crap is a total mystery (except for the probability you are not even aware how dumb your copypastes are!).

16 hours ago, remake it said:

You actually need to construct an argument and not make unsupported statements because this forum does not appear to have posters able to defend their views despite shooting every messenger with a contrary opinion to yours and a few others.

A number of posters went on extensively in another thread - to which you provided nothing but Ad Hominems until the 14th page. Page 14!

(And even then there wasn't really a coherent argument from you)

At least 10 of those 14 pages were directly responding to you. Please feel free to respond to any of those posts in something other than a personal attack, and I'm sure people would be happy to respond. (If they haven't blocked you yet)

Alternatively -  feel free to point out the logical fallacies in the first sentence of this article, because I - for one - missed it. 

Quote

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.” 

First sentence for your reference. I'll be waiting.

(Though you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath... I have some CO2 that I would really prefer to disseminate in a timely fashion. Ya know - plant food.)

12 hours ago, Zak Pol said:

All I can tell you, that is pointless to argue with the stupid people like you..... why bother?

- You always have to be right.

- You react to conflict with anger, and aggression.

- You think, you are better than everyone else.

- You always blame others.

So just going thru your verbal diarrhea, I say enough!!! You won, you are right. Does this fit your definition? No argument from me. I am just passing by. Hope to never hear from you again. But this can be a lofty dream:))

Ha! Someone who wasn't even in that drawn out thread weighing in... 

Welcome Zak Pol!

And i think the answer to your question was no...

12 hours ago, remake it said:

Well here's another person with an opinion ...just another useless opinion, so why did you bother, especially seeing that you fell for the same tactic as the others in blaming a poster for pointing out that the thread starter was logically full of more holes than Swiss cheese?

🤣

... stop engaging Otis... stop engaging. 

It's just so hard sometimes...

[remake it + 288]

36 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

At least 10 of those 14 pages were directly responding to you. Please feel free to respond to any of those posts in something other than a personal attack, and I'm sure people would be happy to respond. (If they haven't blocked you yet)

You mean responses unlike almost every post above and yours which have been exactly personal attacks, but apparently you are blind to the concept of an ad hominem seeing you failed to notice.

 

39 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Alternatively -  feel free to point out the logical fallacies in the first sentence of this article, because I - for one - missed it. 

That's for you to resolve and is not hard if logic applied.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Quote

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

==========================================================

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 hours ago, DayTrader said:

I'll quote someone with a ridiculous IQ over a moron who says ''I'll stop acting childish when Trump does'' any day yes.

Err ... but Yaris.

Can't help but notice that the tree huggers never seem to have to prove THEIR argument. I'd say the emphasis is on you as we are all doomed, but nothing, apart from 'I drive a Yaris' and 'well the scientists I want to believe said so', but no actual argument ever.

Greta said so? 

 

 

I'm flattered you remember everything I write.

Be strong -  PMS only lasts a few days - you will survive. Try Midol.  Or prove my arguments (pollution bad) by sucking on a tailpipe.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Enthalpic