Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[Leadeye]

Meh,

Utility companies should be free to invest in european wind mills and chinese solar shingles if they want. They can calculate how much more expensive this boutique electricity is and make it available to those who want it. People or organizations can pay the up charge and feel better about the bear on the ice cube if that's what is important to them. The free market at work. I find that regular electricity runs things just fine for me so I won't be buying the boutique variety.

Probably make a rug out of the bear and grind up the ice cube for my evening bourbon.

I'm unshameable.

 

[david890]

Let's address the quote first. He has it wrong. He is conflating anti-intellectuallism with anti-eliteism. If his complaint is that many people oppose the appointing of elite intellectuals to determine the fate of everyone else, I'm certainly guilty of that and quite proud to oppose it. Self determination is moral. Elitist intellectual tyranny is not.

I'm sure Asimov said *EXACTLY* what he meant to say. What happens when a Young Earth Creationist is appointed to a state School Board? You get requirements that teachers must "teach the controversy" instead of the facts; that YEC and Intelligent Design *somehow* deserve the same intellectual treatment as evolutionary biology.

So, on to the climate argument. Are you a climate scientist? I'm happy to admit that I'm not. My opinions about it are formed from my observations about human behavior and the quality of their arguments. I will accept the advice of experts, if experts behave like they're not trying to hide something. I'll accept the advice of experts when they've established that their warnings are accurate. I'm not going to argue the science of it, because, frankly, I don't think you're a climate scientist either. So if we start arguing the science of it, we'd just be throwing "experts" at each other. So no. That's not productive. Instead I'm going to argue on the basis of the quality and tactics of the message from alarmists. I've said many times that if you (rhetorically "you") act like you're hiding something, you're probably hiding something.

Except that I could throw 97% of "experts" at you, while you can throw just 3% at me. If 97% of doctors said you have cancer, would you go with the 3% who said you did not? After all, those sneaky docs and their insurance companies have a pretty strong profit motive, and cancer treatment is expensive....

I tend to be skeptical about it because of the tactics used to stifle dissent, and the politics, and not to mention, the green industrial complex. Maybe there is something to it, but whatever it is, it's doubtful that it is worth the hysteria. Act like you're hiding something, I'll believe you're hiding something. Act like you're lying, I'll believe you're lying. Show me there's money to be made, and I'll suspect it's about the money.

Americans are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of tens of billions per year, but let's worry about the "green industrial complex"? Really? BTW, has it occurred to you that once solar panels and windmills are in place, the only revenue stream for the "green" industry is in maintenance (and a fraction of replacement)? Not so with oil; they have to drill repeatedly, and they seem to get paid even when the well is dry. At the very least, they pass on the cost of their failures to you and I through higher fuel prices. How much are you willing to pay for a kWh or a gallon of gas?

I tend to be skeptical on the pessimistic side. It seems far too many in this forum fall on the optimistic side (at least on this issue), which is strange to me. Many here carry concealed out of a concern of *possible* threats, no matter how remote the risk of such threats. Yet they deny the science on something that is not only an existential threat to them, but also to every one of their descendants. A crook ain't gonna rob your grandkids, but the rise in CO2 (faster than any time we've been able to measure; faster than any amount of plants or seawater can absorb as they did in the past) could very well doom them to a *very* poor quality of life.

Leaded gas was deemed harmful, so we got rid of it. We redesigned engines to run on unleaded, and now we have cars with 4-6X the efficiency of cars in the 1970s. CFCs were determined to be causing a hole in the ozone layer, so we got rid of most of them and the hole is closing. The scientists were right on many things, so why not this?

 

[david890]

I find that regular electricity runs things just fine for me so I won't be buying the boutique variety.

There's no true free market at work in the fossil fuel industry; you can't compete with them. Install some solar cells and you can cut them off.

So long as the price for coal-, oil- or nuke-produced electricity remains below prices for renewable energy, you're happy. What will you do when they're higher than *boutique* sources? BTW, if you installed solar cells, you could sell power back to the utility on days that you produce more than you use (that's the law; they can't refuse it). Can't say that about gas or oil.

You aren't going to drill your own oil well; some company may already own the resources beneath you.

 

[david890]

Overwhelming evidence.

You know, like..
Flat earth
Sun revolves around the earth
Faster than sound flight is impossible
Flight is impossible
Transatlantic flight is impossible

Facts can change; of that there's no doubt. The facts you listed above were *mostly* based on the best evidence they had at the time. Some of those were just speculations by folks with little or no knowledge of the science involved. BTW, there are people who still insist on a flat Earth, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but you don't take them seriously, do you? Would you give them equal time in a debate?

We rely on evidence to support our assumptions; if the evidence doesn't, we change the assumptions. What evidence do you have that climate change (i.e., that our climate is becoming more chaotic and that CO2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than any other time we can measure) is *not* occurring?

 

[Leadeye]

I've been around a while and remember the 70s energy "crisis", watching cars change, people using tax credits putting heat exchangers on the roof, and no less than the POTUS solemnly telling us on on national TV that the world would be out of oil in 2012. All we have to show for that today is the DOE, a large bureaucracy. There were skeptics then and there are skeptics now, as there should be.

 

[jamil]

I'm sure Asimov said *EXACTLY* what he meant to say. What happens when a Young Earth Creationist is appointed to a state School Board? You get requirements that teachers must "teach the controversy" instead of the facts; that YEC and Intelligent Design *somehow* deserve the same intellectual treatment as evolutionary biology.

Why is there a state school board? Why did you want it to have such power? Why do you want it to wield the power only when it suits you? If it were up to me, if I were the grand poohbah of the US, there would be no department of education. I guess I don't mind requiring communities to educate their kids, but I'd tend to let the communities do it then. If that means they teach "creation science", well, that community will reap whatever consequences there are. If those consequences are negative, I guess we know the results of that. If they're not negative, I suppose I have nothing to complain about.

Except that I could throw 97% of "experts" at you, while you can throw just 3% at me. If 97% of doctors said you have cancer, would you go with the 3% who said you did not? After all, those sneaky docs and their insurance companies have a pretty strong profit motive, and cancer treatment is expensive....

It depends how I'm being told that 97% of doctors say I have cancer, and what the supposed 97% of doctors actually mean when they "say" I have it, and whether those doctors are actually cancer specialists, or just agree with the few cancer specialists because they're colleagues, and part of the association. I suppose if they showed me a hockey stick graph representing the future of my condition, and the hockey stick broke, I might be a bit more skeptical of their abilities to predict my future, than if their predictions seemed to follow the graph more precisely.

Americans are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of tens of billions per year, but let's worry about the "green industrial complex"? Really? BTW, has it occurred to you that once solar panels and windmills are in place, the only revenue stream for the "green" industry is in maintenance (and a fraction of replacement)? Not so with oil; they have to drill repeatedly, and they seem to get paid even when the well is dry. At the very least, they pass on the cost of their failures to you and I through higher fuel prices. How much are you willing to pay for a kWh or a gallon of gas?

Are you saying we shouldn't worry about the Green Industrial Complex at all? Really?

So you're going with moral equivalence of subsidies? Okay. Let's go there. What percentage of the "green" industry must be propped up by my tax dollars compared with fossil fuels? Hmm? Which of the two industries cannot sustain itself without subsidies? If your'e trying to make the argument that I'm being inconsistent, that's just not going to do it, especially since you're just fine with propping up an entire industry on the backs of tax payers. You know damn well that green energy cannot compete with fossil fuels--yet. We're nowhere even in the same order of magnitude. It is not the equivalent.

And that's not the only reason it's not the equivalent. It does bother me that we subsidize any business. If oil & gas industry can't be profitable without my confiscated tax dollars, I'd rather it fail. If Green energy can't be profitable on its own, let it fail. Of course, the oil and gas industry can be quite profitable without confiscating my money to subsidize it, and definitely I want those subsidies ended. I want all subsidies ended. I want crony capitalism ended.

I tend to be skeptical on the pessimistic side. It seems far too many in this forum fall on the optimistic side (at least on this issue), which is strange to me. Many here carry concealed out of a concern of *possible* threats, no matter how remote the risk of such threats. Yet they deny the science on something that is not only an existential threat to them, but also to every one of their descendants. A crook ain't gonna rob your grandkids, but the rise in CO2 (faster than any time we've been able to measure; faster than any amount of plants or seawater can absorb as they did in the past) could very well doom them to a *very* poor quality of life.

Leaded gas was deemed harmful, so we got rid of it. We redesigned engines to run on unleaded, and now we have cars with 4-6X the efficiency of cars in the 1970s. CFCs were determined to be causing a hole in the ozone layer, so we got rid of most of them and the hole is closing. The scientists were right on many things, so why not this?

Okay, possible threats: Cost. You're leaving out cost. This is an individual decision with individual burdens and responsibilities at a relatively low cost for preventative measures. It's a very remote possibility that I'll have a flat tire. I don't think I've needed the spare in probably 10 or 15 years. But I think it's prudent to carry a spare in my car, as long as the cost is low enough for the risk. Spare tires are cheap enough, and also ubiquitous. They come standard on every vehicle. The cost of carrying a firearm for protection is relatively cheap too. If the cost of carrying a spare tire or a firearm were suddenly made orders of magnitude more expensive, and made more difficult to acquire, and then required hundreds of billions of tax dollars in subsidies, I'd rethink the cost vs benefit, given the relatively low risk for either.

What's the green industrial complex price tag?

Look what we're being asked to do for "global warming", with the high cost and the aforementioned issues with their chicken little routine. Yes, we have people telling us that 97% of scientists say the sky is falling. What question did they actually agree to? Is that what those 97% are actually saying? The sky is falling? Or is that what media and politicians are saying they're saying?

Do 97% of scientists agree that it's as dire a situation as John Kerry says it is? I'd bet no. I've heard some scientists speak out on it, and though they all seem to think we're heating up, and that it's "man" that's causing it, when it comes to how bad is it, and what we should do about it, they're no where near 97% in agreement.

But the green industrial complex and the cronies who support it don't have the intellectual honestly to admit that. No, they say stupid **** like Jihad is caused by global warming. I mean, don't you think to yourself, wow. John Kerry is really full of ****. Or, because he's on your side, do you think, wow, John Kerry is really looking out for us.

I also wonder, of the atmospheric scientists who are of the chicken little variety, how many of them get their sustenance from the green industrial complex? I've heard so many times that the skeptics are funded by the oil industrial complex. Well, why doesn't that argument work for green? Especially since the green industrial complex is way more dependent upon tax payers propping up their "industry".

 

[jamil]

There's no true free market at work in the fossil fuel industry; you can't compete with them. Install some solar cells and you can cut them off.

So long as the price for coal-, oil- or nuke-produced electricity remains below prices for renewable energy, you're happy. What will you do when they're higher than *boutique* sources? BTW, if you installed solar cells, you could sell power back to the utility on days that you produce more than you use (that's the law; they can't refuse it). Can't say that about gas or oil.

You aren't going to drill your own oil well; some company may already own the resources beneath you.

Well, that depends how one got higher and one got lower.

One thing first, as I said above, oil subsidies are such a tiny part of their revenue, and that only makes it slightly more absurd that they get it at all.

If the costs of producing *boutique* energy sources are brought down by advancements from research and development--not paid for by taxpayers--then green energy would no longer be *boutique*, and it would become the default source. I'd be fine with that as long as that cost for the R&D isn't footed by tax payers. And I'd be fine with it if government didn't make the current cost of "green" more attractive through unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the fossil fuel industries. That is simply immoral.

 

[jamil]

I've been around a while and remember the 70s energy "crisis", watching cars change, people using tax credits putting heat exchangers on the roof, and no less than the POTUS solemnly telling us on on national TV that the world would be out of oil in 2012. All we have to show for that today is the DOE, a large bureaucracy. There were skeptics then and there are skeptics now, as there should be.

Not just a DOE and large bureaucracy were created from all that, but the current system of crony capitalism that exchanges winners and losers with new administrations. Buy a democrat to put in the WH and you get a green industrial complex. Buy a Republican to put in the WH and you get an oil industrial complex. Either way is crony capitalism.

 

[david890]

Why is there a state school board? Why did you want it to have such power? Why do you want it to wield the power only when it suits you? If it were up to me, if I were the grand poohbah of the US, there would be no department of education. I guess I don't mind requiring communities to educate their kids, but I'd tend to let the communities do it then. If that means they teach "creation science", well, that community will reap whatever consequences there are. If those consequences are negative, I guess we know the results of that. If they're not negative, I suppose I have nothing to complain about.

Why is there a state school board? Because, as pointed out here repeatedly, powers not delegated to the federal government by the states remain with the states. I suspect each state has one to ensure a measure of comparison among the various districts. In KY, the state board has no real power; each district (about 140 in total) makes its won rules. As for what the district requires be taught, those kids won't remain in that town. The effects will spread out, having far-reaching impact. As such, we should teach the best info out there, and that ain't creationism.

It depends how I'm being told that 97% of doctors say I have cancer, and what the supposed 97% of doctors actually mean when they "say" I have it, and whether those doctors are actually cancer specialists, or just agree with the few cancer specialists because they're colleagues, and part of the association. I suppose if they showed me a hockey stick graph representing the future of my condition, and the hockey stick broke, I might be a bit more skeptical of their abilities to predict my future, than if their predictions seemed to follow the graph more precisely.

What they mean when they "say" you have cancer?? Well, I'd imagine they mean YOU HAVE CANCER. I don't think there are that many docs who would make such a diagnosis lightly. Also, it probably doesn't take an oncologist to be able to read a CT scan or MRI; I'm sure all docs get some level of diagnostics training in med school.

Are you saying we shouldn't worry about the Green Industrial Complex at all? Really?

Nope. Not saying that. I'm saying the subsidies for the GIC wouldn't even be close to the $20B that goes to Big Oil.

So you're going with moral equivalence of subsidies? Okay. Let's go there. What percentage of the "green" industry must be propped up by my tax dollars compared with fossil fuels? Hmm? Which of the two industries cannot sustain itself without subsidies? If your'e trying to make the argument that I'm being inconsistent, that's just not going to do it, especially since you're just fine with propping up an entire industry on the backs of tax payers. You know damn well that green energy cannot compete with fossil fuels--yet. We're nowhere even in the same order of magnitude. It is not the equivalent.

MORAL equivalent?? How do morals play into this??

And that's not the only reason it's not the equivalent. It does bother me that we subsidize any business. If oil & gas industry can't be profitable without my confiscated tax dollars, I'd rather it fail. If Green energy can't be profitable on its own, let it fail. Of course, the oil and gas industry can be quite profitable without confiscating my money to subsidize it, and definitely I want those subsidies ended. I want all subsidies ended. I want crony capitalism ended.

So, all farm subsidies are gone? I doubt a lot of small farmers would be happy with that...

Okay, possible threats: Cost. You're leaving out cost. This is an individual decision with individual burdens and responsibilities at a relatively low cost for preventative measures. It's a very remote possibility that I'll have a flat tire. I don't think I've needed the spare in probably 10 or 15 years. But I think it's prudent to carry a spare in my car, as long as the cost is low enough for the risk. Spare tires are cheap enough, and also ubiquitous. They come standard on every vehicle. The cost of carrying a firearm for protection is relatively cheap too. If the cost of carrying a spare tire or a firearm were suddenly made orders of magnitude more expensive, and made more difficult to acquire, and then required hundreds of billions of tax dollars in subsidies, I'd rethink the cost vs benefit, given the relatively low risk for either.

How much gas have you burned carrying that spare around for 10--15 years??? Now, multiply that by the number of cars currently on the road. That's a pretty big cost, one you didn't mention.

What's the green industrial complex price tag?

Dunno, but probably not as much as Big Oil.

Look what we're being asked to do for "global warming", with the high cost and the aforementioned issues with their chicken little routine. Yes, we have people telling us that 97% of scientists say the sky is falling. What question did they actually agree to? Is that what those 97% are actually saying? The sky is falling? Or is that what media and politicians are saying they're saying?

How about we assume the vast majority of scientists are good, moral people, and are basing their decisions and recommendations based on their education and training? A bit of respect for those folks? If you can't do that, then all the 2A folks are "psycho gun nuts". Respect goes both ways.

Do 97% of scientists agree that it's as dire a situation as John Kerry says it is? I'd bet no. I've heard some scientists speak out on it, and though they all seem to think we're heating up, and that it's "man" that's causing it, when it comes to how bad is it, and what we should do about it, they're no where near 97% in agreement.

Citations, please.

But the green industrial complex and the cronies who support it don't have the intellectual honestly to admit that. No, they say stupid **** like Jihad is caused by global warming. I mean, don't you think to yourself, wow. John Kerry is really full of ****. Or, because he's on your side, do you think, wow, John Kerry is really looking out for us.

Kerry's point was an equivalence; that climate change is as much of an existential threat - much more, in my opinion - than ISIS. Show me where he said "jihad is caused by global warming".

I also wonder, of the atmospheric scientists who are of the chicken little variety, how many of them get their sustenance from the green industrial complex? I've heard so many times that the skeptics are funded by the oil industrial complex. Well, why doesn't that argument work for green? Especially since the green industrial complex is way more dependent upon tax payers propping up their "industry".

How many of the deniers get their funding from Big Oil?? That argument goes both ways.

The green industry is more dependent on tax dollars at this moment, but R&D may boost efficiencies beyond the 34% maximum (for single-junction PV cells). If R&D boosts efficiency and can reduce production costs, that money will be recovered in energy savings. Even if efficiency and costs remain about the same, all that does is extend the payback period.

 

[Woobie]

It's late. And I don't feel like responding to all that. Many fails in there, to be sure. Looks like you've found you're religion. If it makes you happy, then don't let me hold you back. Tell Gaia I said hi.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;if-UzXIQ5vw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if-UzXIQ5vw[/video]

 

[rhino]

Very true.

On a somewhat related note, wouldn't it be cool if we could invent a gas that trees and other plants could respirate which would provide an essential element for their growth?

UN-possible! I know this because 97% of the experts who already claim so and who also chose to respond said so. Of course, they have no actual evidence and they won't release their data, but they said it was true.

Meh,

Utility companies should be free to invest in european wind mills and chinese solar shingles if they want. They can calculate how much more expensive this boutique electricity is and make it available to those who want it. People or organizations can pay the up charge and feel better about the bear on the ice cube if that's what is important to them. The free market at work. I find that regular electricity runs things just fine for me so I won't be buying the boutique variety.

Probably make a rug out of the bear and grind up the ice cube for my evening bourbon.

I'm unshameable.

That would be awesome . . . if they invested their own money. And not mine.

 

[Hohn]

Will 2016 Be the Hottest Year On Record? | Power Line

 

[pudly]

Will 2016 Be the Hottest Year On Record? | Power Line

Which is summarized here:

The keeper of the U.S. temperature records is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is paid to be on board with global warming hysteria. How does NOAA stir up alarm? By changing the historic temperature record to make the past look cooler and the present warmer.

 

[Hohn]

Question about Carbon-14 dating for those who think they are so scientific:

What evidence justifies the assumption that the fraction of Carbon-14 relative to Carbon 12 is the same in the last 50 years as it was a thousand years ago, long before nuclear testing?

Also, given that the rate of carbon fixation by plants is proportional to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, how can carbon data account for different atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide? For example, if the atmosphere was 150ppm CO2 instead of 300ppm, then the estimate of carbon would be inflated under the erroneous assumption of 300ppm. Given a half-life of 5730 years, the error of that sample would be off by about 5730 years.

How do we know what historic levels of atmospheric CO2 were? Sargasso Sea mud and Ice Cores?

 

[eldirector]

My Comments in-line

Question about Carbon-14 dating for those who think they are so scientific:

What evidence justifies the assumption that the fraction of Carbon-14 relative to Carbon 12 is the same in the last 50 years as it was a thousand years ago, long before nuclear testing? None. There is a calibration curve to account for historic differences in C14/C12 ratios.

Also, given that the rate of carbon fixation by plants is proportional to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, how can carbon data account for different atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide? For example, if the atmosphere was 150ppm CO2 instead of 300ppm, then the estimate of carbon would be inflated under the erroneous assumption of 300ppm. Given a half-life of 5730 years, the error of that sample would be off by about 5730 years.
See the above calibration curve comment. Also remember, we are talking about ratios of isotopes, not the actual amount of carbon.

How do we know what historic levels of atmospheric CO2 were? Sargasso Sea mud and Ice Cores?
Essentially, yes. Take data that strongly correlate with known C14/C12 ratios and extrapolate from there.

Radiocarbon dating is a pretty cheap and easy way to get within 80 years or so of something that really isn't all that old (geologically speaking).

 

[Hohn]

My Comments in-line



Radiocarbon dating is a pretty cheap and easy way to get within 80 years or so of something that really isn't all that old (geologically speaking).

Don't you see how circular that reasoning is? You can't say the sargasso sea mud and ice cores are valid examples of CO2 levels because of known C12/14 ratios because those ratios are what we are trying to validate via mud and ice.

The simple reality is that we have no historical measurement of ancient C12/14 ratios using comparable equipment as today.

And radiocarbon dating is not viable for anything past 20,000 years or so. The quantity of remaining C14 is too small to distinguish from other sources of beta radiation.

 

[eldirector]

Not circular at all. Use one set of data (let's assume your Sargasso sea mud would be relevant) to plot a line. Date the points along that line using ANOTHER dating method. Then, take a measurement of the C14:C12 ratio in your non-mud sample. See where it falls on the line you just made.

Yeah, that is really over simplified. Not all that for off from what actually happens, though.

And yes, radiocarbon dating is only good for a relatively small swath of time. Useful to tell how old a piece of human history might be. Pretty useless for anything pre-historic. Depending on what you are trying to date, there might be better techniques. If you REALLY want to pin something down, you would use several techniques on several samples.

 

[printcraft]

...
Kerry's point was an equivalence; that climate change is as much of an existential threat - much more, in my opinion - than ISIS. Show me where he said "jihad is caused by global warming"

No, is was that "climate change" creates conditions that allow jihad to flourish..... "yep, boy, sure is a hot one today!" "A good way to cool off is to kill some infidels!"

Besides, everybody knows that jihad is caused by lack of jobs.

 

[Hohn]

Let's address the 97% baloney that so many parrot. That number from a meta-analysis has been so tortured and distorted to mean something it does not mean.

The origin of the 97% fiction is of course the Cook et al paper that surveyed nearly 12,000 abstracts from climate-science relevant papers.

From that paper's abstract:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW[Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Now, how did that 97.1% determination come about? And what counts as “endorsing AGW” and “expressing on opinion”?

Cook et al evaluated the papers on a seven-level scale-- see page 3

Those papers said to “support the consensus” however vary from “Human are the primary cause of global warming after 1950” (level 1) to “humans contribute in some way.” (level 2) or the tepid "implies some human contribution to warming" (level 3). Cook counted them all as “endorsement” of AGW using an algorithm.

What about this algorithm?

We turn to Anthony Watt’s excellent page on this paper:

The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.
Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.
In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% – and not 97.1% – had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.
Now that we have the results of the Heartland Conference survey, the full extent of the usual suspects’ evasiveness about climate “consensus” can be revealed.
Cook et al. had lumped together the 96.8% who, like all 100% of us at ICCC9, had endorsed the proposition that we cause some warming with the 0.3% who had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
In defiance of the evidence recorded in their own data file, they had then explicitly stated, both in their article and in a subsequent article, that 97.1% had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition.

Now, in a recent gathering of 600 climate change SKEPTICS, all 600 agreed with the idea that humans are contributing to warming in at least some way. Everyone answered yes to these questions:
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?


It’s as if someone had done a survey asking people if they would rather eat Mexican food or starve, only to publish that “study finds vast majority of people prefer Mexican food!”

So no, there is is NOTHING like 97% consensus that mankind is ruining the planet. It’s actually less than one percent. ONE PERCENT!