Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » AGW true believers » But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus.

But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus.

Chariots of the Dogs

Chariots of the Dogs

Here is a lovely exposition of the way that statistics can be manipulated and distorted as a propaganda tool and then cited ad infinitum as if they have some intrinsic meaning, sorry in advance to the true believers in Climate change but this may just upset your apple cart just a little next time you cite the “97% consensus” claim.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday 28 May 2014
Media Contact: Tim Black
+44 (0)207 40 40 470
tim.black@spiked-online.com

Today on spiked, Michael Cook takes apart the claim, cited by President Barack Obama, that 97 per cent of scientists are in agreement that climate change is man-made and poses a serious danger.

‘Do 97 per cent of scientists really agree on both propositions? Let?s do a reality check here’, writes Cook. ‘On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn?t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.’

So how did an Australian scientist at the University of Queensland, and several colleagues, arrive at the this now famous figure of 97 per cent?

Cook discovered that the researchers had sorted through thousands of academic abstracts featuring the words ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’, dividing them up into four piles to indicate whether they held a position on climate change (the biggest pile (66.4 per cent) held no position)

Cook writes: ‘Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.’ 

The researchers then emailed a survey to 8,547 out of the 29,083 authors who ‘endorsed the consensus position’ on climate change, of which only 1,189 responded (nearly all of whom did agree that climate change was man made (97.2 per cent)).

But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus. 

Furthermore, Cook points out, ‘Obama rashly added the word “dangerous” to the claim. Not even [the Australian reseachers] dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is “dangerous”.’

Cook concludes: ‘Scientists and politicians do themselves no favours when they use shoddy statistics and public relations flim-flam to sell scientific hypotheses to the public.’ 

Read the full article:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/15069

When we are given any numerical value as a signifier of a proposition’s veracity we should, of course always ask the obvious question of just how was that number made or settled upon. Especially when it is a major  dot point in the climate change debate. In any event in scientific terms “consensus” is and always has been close to utterly meaningless, not that any of the true believers will ever admit that because to them its their ticket to ride in the Chariots of the Dogs.

Cheers Comrades

this post was produced entirely with puppy power

this post was produced entirely with sustainable  puppy power

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. les h matthews says:

    Place head back in sand. Continue.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Les
    Are trying to tell me that you have no interest at all at just how that 97% claim came to be? Or that you are happy to accept everything that you are told no matter how outrageous as long as it comes from the Gurus of the Green religion? Because that is how it looks to me from your dismissal of this piece. As such if anyone has their head in a dark place then its you mate.

  3. les h matthews says:

    A bit like you accepting everything you are told by those opposite to the Gurus of the Green Religion you mean.

    You are slipping Iain, your grip on reality and memory is slowly fading.

    Now, place head back in sand. Continue.

  4. GD says:

    The debunking of the claim that 97% of scientists agree global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been around for a while. It belies belief that warmists haven’t accepted that this ‘survey’ was a crock.

    All the models promoted by the warmists have failed. Tim Flannery’s apocalypic prediction for a drought stricken Australia is a laughing stock. Perth would be a ghost town by now, Sydney’s dams would never be filled to capacity..or so he reckoned.

    With subsequent plentiful rainfall in WA, Victoria and NSW, Flannery has shown himself to be a scaremonger at best and in reality a conniving opportunist.

    In fact, as Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.

    Yet warmist/alarmists such as lower case les and white-coat wearing deknarf still reckon putting a tax on CO2 will somehow stop this non-existent ‘warming’.

  5. PKD says:

    ‘Gurus of the Green religion’ = same old ideological denialism from Iain.

    GD meanwhile quotes the already debunked theory that that ‘pause’ is warming proves AGW isn’t happening.
    He’s already badly out of date, or has read it and still denies it – just like Iain!

  6. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    ‘Gurus of the Green religion’ = same old ideological denialism from Iain.

    We grown ups have a rhetorical device called sarcasm and as such we are using humour and mockery as an apt response to the excessively sanctimonious believers in the AGW proposition. That said do you have no comment on the revealed methodology that gave us the much vaunted “97%” figure and the very clear shortcomings, nay, shortcomings does not come close to describing the problems of that number as it is used in the debate so obviously you just ignore it and carry on as if it is the divinely revealed gospel of Gaia

    GD meanwhile quotes the already debunked theory that that ‘pause’ is warming proves AGW isn’t happening.
    He’s already badly out of date, or has read it and still denies it – just like Iain!

    You still don’t seem to get the fine distinction that one should always make between what is observed and the reasons that are postulated to explain them have you PKD?
    In other words while you can suggest that AGW is substantiated by the observed data without definitive proof you can not reasonably insist that it is DEFINITELY the cause.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: