Arctic Continues Its Deranged Behavior, Refusing To Listen To “The Overwhelming Judgment” Of 97% Of Scientists

Posted on July 27, 2014 by Tony Heller

President Obama says that the overwhelming judgment of science agrees with his mindless BS about the climate. The Arctic disagrees.

ScreenHunter_1363 Jul. 27 05.23 COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Arctic Continues Its Deranged Behavior, Refusing To Listen To “The Overwhelming Judgment” Of 97% Of Scientists

    • gator69 says:
      July 27, 2014 at 12:50 pm

      It reads just like a NYT article. Alarmist rhetoric has become so ridiculous, that not even The Onion can top it.

      Reply
    • Latitude says:
      July 27, 2014 at 6:52 pm

      Tony, I posted the same thing at WUWT….if I had seen this first, I would have given you credit….you beat me to it!

      Reply
    • MrX says:
      July 27, 2014 at 7:07 pm

      The funny part is not the joke, but the irony. I had to check if it was the onion only because you had mentioned “LMFAO”, otherwise, it’s indistinguishable from an AGW alarmist article.

      Reply
  2. Smokey says:
    July 27, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    So who are you gonna believe?

    Obama?

    Or Planet Earth?

    Because they can’t both be right.

    Reply
  3. Eric Simpson says:
    July 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Maybe the Arctic ice has gone rotten and the way of WalMart ice cream sandwiches: http://www.weather.com/video/ice-cream-sandwiches-dont-melt-51610?

    Reply
  4. BallBounces says:
    July 27, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    “Hide the decline” now gives way to “disguise the rise”.

    Reply
    • Phil Jones says:
      July 27, 2014 at 6:39 pm

      No headlines about the recovered Arctic Ice or freezing cold winter/Spring in the USA as it relates to failure of the Global Warming Theory…

      It’s all about the CA Drought and nonexistent wildfires which are at very low levels nationwide…

      Reply
      • Chewer says:
        July 28, 2014 at 12:30 am

        Theory implies the pinnacle of human knowledge as in “Scientific Theory”, whereas AGW is simply a “Working Hypothesis” and has zero chance of ever becoming scientific theory!

        Reply
    • Cornelius says:
      July 28, 2014 at 12:40 am

      Clever one, Mr. Top Flite. I’m going to start using that phrase.

      Reply
  5. Phil Jones says:
    July 27, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    That 97% figure has been debunked… still… time and time again folks on the Alarmist side cite this number. .. and the ‘consensus’ as proof!!

    Perhaps people on our side need to do the same… I read about a study of Meteorologists where 70% polled agrees that CO2 based Global Warming Theory is grossly exaggerated or nonexistent. .. In addition we have the Oregon Paper where 30,000+ people with advanced degrees say the same…

    Reply
    • mjc says:
      July 27, 2014 at 8:42 pm

      The one thing that I haven’t seen in all the 97% hoopla is exactly how many individual people that number supposedly represents.

      Number of Papers does NOT represent any given number of individuals, unless you add up all the authors of each and every paper…and then remove them from the count of every other paper in the sample.

      So, not only does it NOT represent an actual consensus at 97% of Papers, due to all sorts of semantic trickery. It represents an even lower percentage of real, individual people, simply due to the fact that most papers do not have a single author.

      Reply
      • Phil Jones says:
        July 27, 2014 at 11:14 pm

        You don’t get published if you don’t promote Global Warming…

        Basically it was anecdotal evidence gathered from within those who already believe… excluding those who dont.

        Reply
        • mjc says:
          July 28, 2014 at 1:00 am

          What I’m getting at is if you authored 10 papers and were co-author on 15 others, you get 25 ‘votes’ for warming, not 1. Which means that when translating a consensus of papers into the number of people you end up way over counting, inflating the so called consensus.

      • Gail Combs says:
        July 30, 2014 at 11:28 am

        There are TWO 97% Consensus lies floating around. The “97% Consensus” is a small subset of the actual number.

        COOKS:

        IOP Institure of Physics 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW,

        John Cook said: “Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.

        In March 2012, the researchers used the ISI Web of Science database to search for peer-reviewed academic articles published between 1991 and 2011 using two topic searches: “global warming” and “global climate change”. [Dr Tol shows how adding “Global” to the searches causes bias HERE }

        After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals….

        The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the “myth-busting” website skepticalscience.com… [ROTFLMAO]

        From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

        Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: “We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.”…… WTF!!!!

        So the REAL NUMBER IS “32.6 per cent endorsed AGW”!!!!

        The earlier study is just as bad:

        An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim
        ….In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

        For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article, all but 79 of the respondents were excluded…..

        My nagging question was, why did different numbers of people (79 vs. 77) answer the two questions? What happened to the other two respondents?

        Do you see it? If a respondent answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, then he wasn’t asked the second question!

        That’s obviously why only 77 answers were reported to the second question. Two of their 79 top climate specialists had answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, and those two were not asked the second question, and were not included in the calculation of the supposed 97.4% agreement.

        That means only 75 of 79 (94.9%) of their “most specialized and knowledgeable respondents” actually gave them the answers they wanted to both of their questions.….

        What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say? is well worth the read for the belly laughs and good ammo.

        “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

        “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

        “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

        Reply
  6. Sparks says:
    July 27, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    100% of scientists agree with each-other on a lot of issues, Climate isn’t one of these.. the 97% meme is just another propaganda failure.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *