Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim (companies, dollars, politicians)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The AGW alarmists will do anything to convince their lemmings (Including Obama) that all scientists support their hoax.
--------------------
Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.
“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”
Lindzen disagreed with politicians who cite Cook’s paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it’s part of a political machine that’s used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.
“If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and the response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?” Lindzen said.
Billions of dollars are changing hands through solar, wind and other green energy companies. Climate scientists funding is dependent upon keeping AGW front and center, and when conflicting data appears either throw it out or find excuses for it. And there is another huge pile of money to be made in everything from carbon credits to reusable grocery bags. They've successfully managed to panic the public enough to get away with pretty much whatever they want. If AGW hysteria isn't motivated by greed, explain this:
Al Gore's net worth in 2000: $1.7 million
Al Gore's net worth in 2013:
$200 million
And this is someone whose home (one of them, at least. He has several) has a bigger carbon footprint than my entire neighborhood. And would someone so convinced that rising sea levels are an imminent threat invest in beachfront property? He's a snake oil salesman who has bamboozled enough people to not only earn a huge amount of money, but he's also been awarded an Oscar, a Grammy and a Nobel Prize.
Yeah, there's a ton of money to be made exploiting AGW hysteria. And these alarmists have found a perfect industry to milk for billions of dollars -- as any criticism directed at them is quickly dismissed because its such a "noble" cause, not much different than CEOs of charities that take multi-million dollar salaries. They've found a way to exploit an issue and be completely protected from any criticism since its for the good of the earth. After all, climate change is bigger threat than global terrorism.
So, rich Al Gore = double plus good. Rich Donald Trump = Hitler.
And, for the love of Pete, you should read your own articles from time to time;
"While the 2000 electoral loss marked the end of Gore's political career, it proved to be the start of a remarkably lucrative rise as a businessman. Most visibly associated with environmental issues that culminated with sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize"
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 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. 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. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
64% of those articles expressed no position on AGW. Take them out, and what do you have left? 32.6% endorsed AGW. Of those (32.6%) 97% endorsed the consensus. So, it's actually only 97% consensus of the 32.6% of the papers that endorsed AGW. Meaning;
11,944 climate abstracts. 66.4% expressed no position on AGW=and we're left with 7,930 papers that expressed NO POSITION ON AGW. That leaves, 32.6% of 11,944 or 3,894 papers that DO express an opinion on AGW. Of those 3,894, 97% support AGW. Therefore the actual percentage of climate scientists that support AGW is 3,777. That means that of the 11,944 climate abstracts, 31.6% support AGW.
Not exactly the consensus of 97% we keep hearing over and over and over and over again.
It's worse than that.
If you read the article, the 32.6% say that man made CO2 has SOME IMPACT on climate. Some of those contended that it caused cooling, not warming. Secondly, the majority of those suggested that the impact was very small. Of those noting a significant impact FOR WARMING it was .3%!!!!!
.3%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals, as always, are on the opposite side of science and attempt to warp and distort science to thier political agenda.
The CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE is refuting the null hypothesis. This, at a minimum, needs to be demonstrated to embrace a hypothesis. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN AGW- NEVER. Thus anyone who supports AGW is opposing the basic demands of true science.
Fortunately for libs, cults do not have such rigorous requirments. Therefore the cult of AGW is just fine.
Well, he does acknowledge that the globe is warming, and that human CO2 emissions are at least partly responsible for this.
That's a lot more than can be said for the average poster in these threads.
Most failed to read that part
Quote:
"To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent”
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions....",
So the 97% is still valid. To what degree that it effects the planet we don't know.
But some would rather be more concerned about the future of their children's money, rather then if they will have a planet to live on.
And I quoted from your article how he did become wealthy promoting AGW.
By the way, I love visiting Victoria its a stunning place. And...skied in many of your wonderful ski areas throughout Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan
Trump certainly is mine...as are all American citizens...good and bad. Even Presidents I did not vote for are "mine".
You misread the article in that case....He sold Current TV, netting 70 to 100 million, In 2001, he became vice chairman of financial services holding company Metropolitan West Financial. He co-founded Generation Investment Management, a U.K.-based investment management firm, in 2004. As of last fall, it had $3.6 billion in funds.
In 2003 he became a director at Apple and that came with tens of millions in stock. He has been a senior adviser to Google since 2001 and that came with a bunch of pre-public stock options.
In 2006 he released the film "An Inconvenient Truth", the proceeds of which he gave to charity....The only portion of his income that is derived from his stance on AGW are his speaking fees, which are small potatoes compared to the above.
AGW may have put him in the public eye, but it has always been just a minor part of his wealth accumulation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
