- Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
- Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
- Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.
- The number was derived by a masters student, Kendall Zimmerman, and her advisor, Peter Doran.
- Thus, we are not talking about a well seasoned scientist, a PhD expert, or someone who has a long history in doing survey study work, we are talking about a student who does not even have her masters degree at the time.
- Her study consisted of, hold your breath, a two question online study. So participants in the study had the option of not responding to the survey, something that probably introduced bias into the study if it was not controlled for in the sample, something that does not appear to have been done.
- As a result, only 5% of the survey respondents, only about 160 people, were actually climate scientists, making statistical validity a little shaky, given the small sample size.
- But it gets worse. The 97% number was calculated off of a sample size that was half that size, 79 respondents.
- These 79 respondents were self-reported climate scientists which makes it impossible to tell if they actually were climate scientists or were mediocre climate scientists since they self reported.
- Out of this extremely small sample of 79, 77 of those agreed that global warming was caused by mankind.
- Mr. Cook obviously has a financial stake in the 97% number since he probably wants to sell more books and get traffic to his website, both of which advocate for manmade global warming.
- At first glance, Cook claims to have done an analysis of 12,000 scientific abstracts where he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” This large number of abstracts obviously overcomes the flaws in the previously discussed survey studies above where there were only 79 respondents in one study and only 200 in another.
- But “Among papers taking a position” is a significant disclaimers since only 34% of the papers Cook looked had any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Thus, our sample size has now been cut by two thirds and is not the lofty 12,000 abstracts and papers claimed on the surface.
- Since Cook decided that 33% of those supported the mankind causing global warming theory, he simply divided 33%by 34% to get 97%. Not real scientific.
- David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who once lead that university’s Center for Climatic Research tried to recreate Cook’s study and approach, a tried and true and widely accepted approach to verifying scientific conclusions, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” supported what Cook’s 97% conclusion.
- Additionally, several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample took exception that their work had been misinterpreted by Cook.
- “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
- The original 97% claim first appeared in a research paper by Australian global warming advocate John Cook.
- The paper drew its conclusions having allegedly reviewed 12,000 papers on climate change and claimed that the vast majority of them supported the “consensus” on global warming.
- But Cook defined “consensus as having two and only two components: 1) that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and 2) human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.
- There was no quantitative or benchmark criteria used, just an unspecified extent, hardly a scientific approach or analysis. Thus, under Cook’s definition, even if a scientists conceded there was a less than 1% probability of manmade global warming, that scientist would be considered part of the 97% consensus.
- Keep in mind that John Cook’s Internet home is a global warming advocate website called Skeptical Science so he has a vested interest in global warming propaganda.
- Unfortunately for Cook, a security lapse at his site in 2012 led to the uncovering of private email exchanges between Cook and his co-conspirators: “It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So [Skeptical Science activists] Jim Powell, Dana [Nucitelli] and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.”
- This is not science, this is public relations and propaganda since the conclusions were drawn and done before any research into whether there was a consensus was conducted.
It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
Term Limits Now: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com