info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by 97% of scientists?"
71 views
Skip to first unread message
Andre Jute
Nov 7, 2015, 12:14:37 PM11/7/15
to
We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.
MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
9% of US respondents came from California.
California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***
Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
What sort of a distorted sample is this?
Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.
Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.
To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.
97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...
This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:
"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.
Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
No consensus, period.
The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
Andre Jute
Thorough
MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
9% of US respondents came from California.
California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***
Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
What sort of a distorted sample is this?
Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.
Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.
To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.
97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...
This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:
"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.
Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
No consensus, period.
The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
Andre Jute
Thorough
Andre Jute
Nov 19, 2015, 5:24:43 PM11/19/15
to
Andre Jute
Empathy is defined as feeling sorry for even the thicker global warmies, who surely did it to themselves from the weakness of their characters, their lust to posture as morally superior, their salivating craving to practice their control freakery on everyone else, which are the most powerful motivators of the whole global warming scam among the scientifically ignorant masses.
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 20, 2015, 12:50:16 PM11/20/15
to
AMuzi
Nov 20, 2015, 1:02:04 PM11/20/15
to
On 11/20/2015 11:50 AM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
>
As regards my area on that image:
1. Heavy snow is probable not merely possible tonight.
2. This is typical November weather.
3. Here's extreme November weather:
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/top5/numbertwo.htm
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
>
As regards my area on that image:
1. Heavy snow is probable not merely possible tonight.
2. This is typical November weather.
3. Here's extreme November weather:
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/top5/numbertwo.htm
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jeff Liebermann
Nov 20, 2015, 2:45:01 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:50:13 -0800 (PST), avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
I like moving pictures:
<http://www.goes.noaa.gov/dml/comp/goes/nhem/rb.html>
<http://www.goes.noaa.gov>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
I like moving pictures:
<http://www.goes.noaa.gov/dml/comp/goes/nhem/rb.html>
<http://www.goes.noaa.gov>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Andre Jute
Nov 20, 2015, 6:07:57 PM11/20/15
to
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:50:16 PM UTC, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
So this is a little local weather that happens every year. WTF does it have to do with climate change? WTF does it have to do with global warmies lying about a "scientific consensus"? WTF does have to do with me proving that the "scientific consensus" was born in gross bullshit, too dumb even to be typed as a statistical abuse?
You have a tasty habit of proving my point, usually with your very next inane utterance, Daniels. Thanks. In case your attention span is too short to remember the point of this thread, here we go:
***
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
So this is a little local weather that happens every year. WTF does it have to do with climate change? WTF does it have to do with global warmies lying about a "scientific consensus"? WTF does have to do with me proving that the "scientific consensus" was born in gross bullshit, too dumb even to be typed as a statistical abuse?
You have a tasty habit of proving my point, usually with your very next inane utterance, Daniels. Thanks. In case your attention span is too short to remember the point of this thread, here we go:
***
Andre Jute
Nov 20, 2015, 6:16:14 PM11/20/15
to
More seriously, I can't say I'm overly impresses with a supposedly huge weather event that consists of... 8 or 10 feet of snow. Now, if it was 800 or a 1000 feet of snow in a week, I'd be impressed.
Andre Jute
The Apocalyptic Church of the Global Warmies and the Apocalyptic Church of the Jihadi Islamites have so much in common, starting with their hatred of people, they should unite.
cycl...@yahoo.com
Nov 20, 2015, 6:28:43 PM11/20/15
to
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:14:37 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>
> No consensus, period.
>
> The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>
> Andre Jute
> Thorough
Science is the art of looking for the truth. So I do not in the least criticize scientists for using their OWN discoveries to stand on one side or the other of the line.
>
> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>
> No consensus, period.
>
> The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>
> Andre Jute
> Thorough
What I DO criticize is people that both have no training and no ability to research these subjects and merely repeat what someone else has said. NASA's and NOAA's data as presented have been hopelessly compromised and is now essentially worthless. And hopefully the new administration will completely clean out those offices and find real scientists to fill those positions. I also criticize those scientists that arrive at findings due to political expediency and FAR too many are guilty of that.
I find that Bill Nye the Science Guy being quoted forever more to be more annoying than some high school child who is "protesting" the oil companies because they have been taught not to think but to react.
And I find the lame stream media taking sides to be disgusting in the extreme.
Andrew Chaplin
Nov 21, 2015, 10:57:40 AM11/21/15
to
avag...@gmail.com wrote in news:fc284ef3-60ee-4f70-a107-0f4949095119
@googlegroups.com:
>
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
Crap. I live between "Rain/Snow" and "Heavy Snow Possible."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
@googlegroups.com:
>
> http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov//noaa/noaa.gif
Crap. I live between "Rain/Snow" and "Heavy Snow Possible."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 21, 2015, 11:24:13 AM11/21/15
to
1 April, 1971
snow ? snow does not exist. winter is a fraud
http://www.intellicast.com/local/weather.aspx?location=USAZ9808
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the NWS map link isnot static....since posting the form changed off course leaving the suggestion behind...
at the entry time, the frontal zones were very broad covering the between area Rockies and Apps with a curve bordering warmth from the desert and Gulf storage cushioning cold jet stream flow from the Artic.
The broadness allowing more precip more tornadoes and more delusional snow whatever snow is..
I found the broadness unusual, related to the heuristic quest .
Maybe I'll ski ..... I can smell the snow !
snow ? snow does not exist. winter is a fraud
http://www.intellicast.com/local/weather.aspx?location=USAZ9808
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the NWS map link isnot static....since posting the form changed off course leaving the suggestion behind...
at the entry time, the frontal zones were very broad covering the between area Rockies and Apps with a curve bordering warmth from the desert and Gulf storage cushioning cold jet stream flow from the Artic.
The broadness allowing more precip more tornadoes and more delusional snow whatever snow is..
I found the broadness unusual, related to the heuristic quest .
Maybe I'll ski ..... I can smell the snow !
jbeattie
Nov 21, 2015, 11:28:16 AM11/21/15
to
-- The Man.
sms
Nov 21, 2015, 2:16:15 PM11/21/15
to
On 11/21/2015 8:28 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.
I am helping OJ look for the killers.
> I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.
Andre Jute
Nov 21, 2015, 6:26:49 PM11/21/15
to
Not signed for fear of being recognized
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 21, 2015, 8:57:50 PM11/21/15
to
jbeattie
Nov 21, 2015, 11:02:18 PM11/21/15
to
-- Jay Beattie.
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2015, 12:48:10 AM11/22/15
to
California went bankrupt while the pensioners took their million n fled to zPortland n Monterey ...
I herd Brown made off with 35 .
incroyable ...
I herd Brown made off with 35 .
incroyable ...
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 22, 2015, 10:27:52 PM11/22/15
to
Andre Jute
Nov 26, 2015, 8:06:34 PM11/26/15
to
UPDATED with specifics and examples:
ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
***
This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
9% of US respondents came from California.
California is overrepresented within the US sample.
In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
What sort of a distorted sample is this?
***
Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
***
To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Amazing what you can do with statistics!
***
There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
***
Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
***
There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
No consensus, period.
***
The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
Quad erat demonstrandum.
Copyright (c) 2009, 2015 Andre Jute
ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
***
This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
9% of US respondents came from California.
California is overrepresented within the US sample.
Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
What sort of a distorted sample is this?
Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
***
To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Amazing what you can do with statistics!
***
There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
***
There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
No consensus, period.
***
The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
Quad erat demonstrandum.
Copyright (c) 2009, 2015 Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Nov 27, 2015, 4:41:38 AM11/27/15
to
A fellow on Facebook, name of Campbell, didn't like my article above and sent a post, which I quote in full in my reply.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After further appeals to authority, Campbell comes up with the already discredited Cook paper to "prove" that 97% of scientists who have grants to study global warming believe in global warming. (I once had a seven-figure grant to prove people live next door to their neighbours.) In fact, when analyzed by a real statistician, the Cook paper proves that 0.54% of all scientists (well, not all, but some of those who write in certain magazines in English only -- but let's not quibble) believe in significant human-made global warming, 0.65% (a larger number) reject human influence totally, and the rest are somewhere in between, probably a normal distribution, if someone wants to feed it to a spreadsheet. Meanwhile global temperatures rise has "paused" for 17 years despite annual exhortations from the global warmies. All this is about what scientists believe, not a word of proof yet from Campbell about the facts of global warming.The rest of the wriggling may amuse you if you have a sick mind.
For openers, Campbell puts me in my place with, "I can't let your hysterical ad hominem attacks, and general frothy mouthed hyperbole, stand. I am not afraid to debate you. There is just not a serious debate to be had."
That's because you don't know the literature, Campbell, and I do. So don't try to lay your shortcomings as a champion for a lost cause off on me. I'm an innocent bystander that you dragged in willy-nilly. I'm just doing you a favour straightening out your misconceptions and the lacunae in your statistical education.
Mind you, it must be admitted that a whole lotta fools agree with you. Here's the maximum leader of the West overcooking the goose grotesquely: "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous," President Barack Obama tweeted on Thursday, 16 May 2013, after publication of the report Campbell will cite below.
We'll see why none of what Obama says is true.
Here's Campbell's case, which is a hell of long way short of the silly lies the dingbat in the White House tries to pass of, but still hugely inflated, as I will demonstrate. "NASA currently cites Cook et al,
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=DBD5D26D6DFEE9A19AAB9F462F55D179.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
which is a 2013 paper that analyses over 11,000 peer reviewed publications in the field of climate science from 1991 to 2011. Of the abstracts that take a position on global warming (which is about 1/3rd of them), 97% of them support the thesis that human's have caused climate change."
BTW, Campbell, humans, without the apostrophe. Meanwhile, back at the monkey farm. Campbell continues on his happy-slappy rampage through the facts: "This is not a mere collection of 'opinions' expressed in response to a student survey. It is not an appeal to authority."
So, Campbell, why is it then necessary to mention NASA? Surely you know that Cook, who took the lead on this wretchedly misleading paper, is an Australian academic, nothing to do with NASA?
Campbell tells us earnestly of the Cook paper that "It establishes an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature."
Users can view the abstracts, did you know? So now, by your count we're already down to less than 4000 out of 11,000, so about 36% are even interested, with the rest of the scientific community not caring the flying proverbial about global warming, which the global warmies claim is a crisis we should drop everything else for and ruin our planet for.
However, if you apply Cook's own Skeptical Science netsite rating system, defined as "that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)", then a search of Cook's almost 12K abstracts throw up 65 and only 65 papers that meet the criterion "that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)". That's 0.54%.
Just as a matter of interest, the group of papers that agree with the definition Campbell is looking for is the smallest in the entire 12K of papers. Even the papers that reject anthropogenic global warming outright account for a bigger chunk, 78 or 0.65%.
Next Campbell tries to draw the wool over our eyes. "It reflects the best state of our science, and it is to the scientific method, as reflected in that body of research, that I appeal."
The Cook paper may "reflect the best state" of global warmie statistics, which is appallingly incompetent (and that's a kindness, because the alternative is "deliberately misleading"), but what you're "appealing" to is global warmie propaganda which not even NASA's authority can save.
"And you cannot disturb the science--"
What science? There's more science in a Scientology annual report than in your defence of the warmies, Campbell. At least the scientologists get their sums right.
"--by ranting about Zimmerman, or foundation documents, or frauds, or the vacuity of appeals to authority, or alleged lack of intelligence or education of those who dismiss your views, or by calling us slow treehuggers, or post office age bovvers, or laughing at our supposed pagan crusades (led by the Pope, no less)."
You musta missed the news, Campbell; that's not like you: how will you now know which global warmie catastrophe is next week's big scare story? His Holiness put out a Bull (sure'n'all, that's what it is called) basically saying that you can't be a Catholic unless you have faith in global warming. If that isn't a pagan crusade, what is?
Next Campbell agrees with me about Zimmerman's study, which the global warmies, apparently without asking Campbell first, held up as the original stamp of universal scientific approval. "I would add that as a matter of statistics, of which I am trained, even a random survey of 79 people would still have a confidence interval of about +/-12% assuming a normal distribution. Zimmerman's survey was self-selecting, the respondents were not experts in the relevant field, and the questions were quite imprecise, but it likely wouldn't affect the findings much. Your critique is way over the top. But it doesn't matter, because how scientists respond to surveys is really beside the point."
Okay, so you condemn Zimmerman's study. Just for the record, once more, it wasn't me who put her forward as the first and, at the time, final authority claiming 97% of scientists agreed that global warming was manmade, it was your guys, the global warmies. And I got a tip for you, pal:
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science
-- Dr Edward Wegman, speaking under oath to the American Congress about the statistical methods of the IPCC and its happy-slappy band of global warmies. Dr Wegman is a past chair of the National Research Council Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. I trust his credentials meet with your approval, since statistics is the subject "of which you are trained".
The Cook paper that you brought in here, Campbell, not me, is merely another desperate effort to hit and prove Zimmerman's 97% hot air, since the global warmies, once they've told the lie, never, ever let go of the lie.
Of course, this is all about what the global warmies, when they take their snouts out of the trough long enough to catch a quick breath, say they believe. There isn't a word in this discussion yet about proof of global warming, or (dirty words!) accurate climate forecasting for next week, never mind a couple of centuries ahead.
Which part of the scam of global warming would you like to discuss next, Campbell? I'm likely already to know more about that one than you do, too.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Germanicus
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After further appeals to authority, Campbell comes up with the already discredited Cook paper to "prove" that 97% of scientists who have grants to study global warming believe in global warming. (I once had a seven-figure grant to prove people live next door to their neighbours.) In fact, when analyzed by a real statistician, the Cook paper proves that 0.54% of all scientists (well, not all, but some of those who write in certain magazines in English only -- but let's not quibble) believe in significant human-made global warming, 0.65% (a larger number) reject human influence totally, and the rest are somewhere in between, probably a normal distribution, if someone wants to feed it to a spreadsheet. Meanwhile global temperatures rise has "paused" for 17 years despite annual exhortations from the global warmies. All this is about what scientists believe, not a word of proof yet from Campbell about the facts of global warming.The rest of the wriggling may amuse you if you have a sick mind.
For openers, Campbell puts me in my place with, "I can't let your hysterical ad hominem attacks, and general frothy mouthed hyperbole, stand. I am not afraid to debate you. There is just not a serious debate to be had."
That's because you don't know the literature, Campbell, and I do. So don't try to lay your shortcomings as a champion for a lost cause off on me. I'm an innocent bystander that you dragged in willy-nilly. I'm just doing you a favour straightening out your misconceptions and the lacunae in your statistical education.
Mind you, it must be admitted that a whole lotta fools agree with you. Here's the maximum leader of the West overcooking the goose grotesquely: "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous," President Barack Obama tweeted on Thursday, 16 May 2013, after publication of the report Campbell will cite below.
We'll see why none of what Obama says is true.
Here's Campbell's case, which is a hell of long way short of the silly lies the dingbat in the White House tries to pass of, but still hugely inflated, as I will demonstrate. "NASA currently cites Cook et al,
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=DBD5D26D6DFEE9A19AAB9F462F55D179.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org
which is a 2013 paper that analyses over 11,000 peer reviewed publications in the field of climate science from 1991 to 2011. Of the abstracts that take a position on global warming (which is about 1/3rd of them), 97% of them support the thesis that human's have caused climate change."
BTW, Campbell, humans, without the apostrophe. Meanwhile, back at the monkey farm. Campbell continues on his happy-slappy rampage through the facts: "This is not a mere collection of 'opinions' expressed in response to a student survey. It is not an appeal to authority."
So, Campbell, why is it then necessary to mention NASA? Surely you know that Cook, who took the lead on this wretchedly misleading paper, is an Australian academic, nothing to do with NASA?
Campbell tells us earnestly of the Cook paper that "It establishes an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature."
Users can view the abstracts, did you know? So now, by your count we're already down to less than 4000 out of 11,000, so about 36% are even interested, with the rest of the scientific community not caring the flying proverbial about global warming, which the global warmies claim is a crisis we should drop everything else for and ruin our planet for.
However, if you apply Cook's own Skeptical Science netsite rating system, defined as "that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)", then a search of Cook's almost 12K abstracts throw up 65 and only 65 papers that meet the criterion "that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)". That's 0.54%.
Just as a matter of interest, the group of papers that agree with the definition Campbell is looking for is the smallest in the entire 12K of papers. Even the papers that reject anthropogenic global warming outright account for a bigger chunk, 78 or 0.65%.
Next Campbell tries to draw the wool over our eyes. "It reflects the best state of our science, and it is to the scientific method, as reflected in that body of research, that I appeal."
The Cook paper may "reflect the best state" of global warmie statistics, which is appallingly incompetent (and that's a kindness, because the alternative is "deliberately misleading"), but what you're "appealing" to is global warmie propaganda which not even NASA's authority can save.
"And you cannot disturb the science--"
What science? There's more science in a Scientology annual report than in your defence of the warmies, Campbell. At least the scientologists get their sums right.
"--by ranting about Zimmerman, or foundation documents, or frauds, or the vacuity of appeals to authority, or alleged lack of intelligence or education of those who dismiss your views, or by calling us slow treehuggers, or post office age bovvers, or laughing at our supposed pagan crusades (led by the Pope, no less)."
You musta missed the news, Campbell; that's not like you: how will you now know which global warmie catastrophe is next week's big scare story? His Holiness put out a Bull (sure'n'all, that's what it is called) basically saying that you can't be a Catholic unless you have faith in global warming. If that isn't a pagan crusade, what is?
Next Campbell agrees with me about Zimmerman's study, which the global warmies, apparently without asking Campbell first, held up as the original stamp of universal scientific approval. "I would add that as a matter of statistics, of which I am trained, even a random survey of 79 people would still have a confidence interval of about +/-12% assuming a normal distribution. Zimmerman's survey was self-selecting, the respondents were not experts in the relevant field, and the questions were quite imprecise, but it likely wouldn't affect the findings much. Your critique is way over the top. But it doesn't matter, because how scientists respond to surveys is really beside the point."
Okay, so you condemn Zimmerman's study. Just for the record, once more, it wasn't me who put her forward as the first and, at the time, final authority claiming 97% of scientists agreed that global warming was manmade, it was your guys, the global warmies. And I got a tip for you, pal:
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science
-- Dr Edward Wegman, speaking under oath to the American Congress about the statistical methods of the IPCC and its happy-slappy band of global warmies. Dr Wegman is a past chair of the National Research Council Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. I trust his credentials meet with your approval, since statistics is the subject "of which you are trained".
The Cook paper that you brought in here, Campbell, not me, is merely another desperate effort to hit and prove Zimmerman's 97% hot air, since the global warmies, once they've told the lie, never, ever let go of the lie.
Of course, this is all about what the global warmies, when they take their snouts out of the trough long enough to catch a quick breath, say they believe. There isn't a word in this discussion yet about proof of global warming, or (dirty words!) accurate climate forecasting for next week, never mind a couple of centuries ahead.
Which part of the scam of global warming would you like to discuss next, Campbell? I'm likely already to know more about that one than you do, too.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Germanicus
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 27, 2015, 8:42:22 PM11/27/15
to
Global worry warts discussed the problem in the 1920's....but this is a rumour. I haven't read a first order report. Almost 100 years ago.
I placed 2nd in the 8th grade science fair with the idea sprung from a 1930-40's edition of Compton's Encyclopedia. Comptons was a large dictionary sized one all info book. The center piece was a bowl full of coal and ammonia growing deathly colored chemical fungi...1960.
So by 1960 a large mob had formed.
I'm looking at phytoplankton. Plankton produces 02.
news today is plankton increases so far with the CO2 rise.
the skin on an apple is the thickness of our atmosphere.
I placed 2nd in the 8th grade science fair with the idea sprung from a 1930-40's edition of Compton's Encyclopedia. Comptons was a large dictionary sized one all info book. The center piece was a bowl full of coal and ammonia growing deathly colored chemical fungi...1960.
So by 1960 a large mob had formed.
I'm looking at phytoplankton. Plankton produces 02.
news today is plankton increases so far with the CO2 rise.
the skin on an apple is the thickness of our atmosphere.
Andre Jute
Nov 27, 2015, 9:25:54 PM11/27/15
to
Yah, that affair on Facebook blew up, at exactly the wrong time because I'm ferociously busy, when I posted this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/the-ultimate-godwin-effect-science-in-1941-global-warming-caused-hitler/
under the ironic headline "Global warming caused Hitler and Mussolini" and on hand of some discussion added that:
"In 1941 eugenics was still respectable "science" in America from the White House down, and in England too, all the way into the Cabinet Room. (I imagine it stood then where Global Warming stood c 2003, before everyone caught on it was a vicious and expensive fraud.) It was only later, when it turned out Hitler killed white people, that eugenics got a bad odor. Many of those now beatified by the left were serious eugenicists, though you can look hard in their modern bowlerized biographies and find no mention of it, or only limp evasions. "Racist" as a pejorative condemnation is an anachronism when talking about 1941."
I don't see why this should outrage the global warmies, but it pissed off this one, that's for sure.
Andre Jute
To the devil with all the hysterics, apocalyptics and catastrophe-creators lurking
PS When I was a kid, I had a 1911 Britannica. Also a single volume illustrated book of science I won as a select-it-yourself prize at school; the headmaster took it away after I blew up a wing of the school.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/the-ultimate-godwin-effect-science-in-1941-global-warming-caused-hitler/
under the ironic headline "Global warming caused Hitler and Mussolini" and on hand of some discussion added that:
"In 1941 eugenics was still respectable "science" in America from the White House down, and in England too, all the way into the Cabinet Room. (I imagine it stood then where Global Warming stood c 2003, before everyone caught on it was a vicious and expensive fraud.) It was only later, when it turned out Hitler killed white people, that eugenics got a bad odor. Many of those now beatified by the left were serious eugenicists, though you can look hard in their modern bowlerized biographies and find no mention of it, or only limp evasions. "Racist" as a pejorative condemnation is an anachronism when talking about 1941."
I don't see why this should outrage the global warmies, but it pissed off this one, that's for sure.
Andre Jute
To the devil with all the hysterics, apocalyptics and catastrophe-creators lurking
PS When I was a kid, I had a 1911 Britannica. Also a single volume illustrated book of science I won as a select-it-yourself prize at school; the headmaster took it away after I blew up a wing of the school.
avag...@gmail.com
Nov 27, 2015, 9:54:56 PM11/27/15
to
In self interest, a common if not universal strategy, there's fluorine folic acid penicillin...universal education...dental floss...
0 new messages