The 52% Consensus

The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers.

The only study which actually asked the scientists was done by the American Meteorological Society in 2013. It showed that only 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was “mostly human.” Among professional forecasters, the number was closer to 38%.  No group came anywhere close to 97%.



About Tony Heller

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

38 Responses to The 52% Consensus

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Tony, you are a voice of reason!

    52%? Just wait until the CAGW enthusiasts “adjust” the poll for time of observation and urban heat island effect. ” Wow! 143%! Highest percentage evah!”

  2. R Shearer says:

    I’m a member of the American Chemical Society, which wouldn’t dare ask for fear of the same result.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I WAS a member of the American Chemical Society for close to forty years. When they came out with their endorsement of CAGW WITHOUT asking the membership I quit.

  3. Menicholas says:

    Where the hell is Martin to spew a pack of lies? I am overdue for my daily dose of troll mocking.

      • gator69 says:

        I’m not normally a fan of banning, but when you have a troll that is a serial liar (like Drewski and Marty), it really is best to squash the noise. Debate is good, lying is intolerable.

        • DD More says:

          And here I was thinking he was just out getting his ID# 10t input controller error on the computer keyboard fixed.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Tony, I don’t blame you at all. Martin is an odd case. You have posted an extraordinary amount of information that supports the idea that the temperature records are not only being changed, but they are being changed in a fraudulent fashion. I could understand if Martin’s response had been, “I see what you have posted, but I still do not think it is adequate documentation for the serious nature of the charges” or, even better, “there is a flaw in chart such and such…” Instead his constant claims of “You have posted NO EVIDENCE…” shows an utter lack of either mental ability, or of personal ethics. My opinion? Lack of ethics.

        • gator69 says:

          … an utter lack of either mental ability, or of personal ethics. My opinion? Lack of ethics.

          Mental health experts call it “lying”.

        • Glacierman says:

          I think trolls like that are not doing what they do as a hobby. I think it is their assignment from whatever “organization” they are working for. Who has time to try to post a response to every comment they see that they disagree with? There has to be more to it.

        • Menicholas says:

          I agree that he was unlikely to be simply a concerned reader.
          I notice we seem to have a few replacements already.
          Having a new person with a similar modus operandi would be further evidence that someone is assigning others to disrupt the blog with a steady stream of obfuscation.

      • I expected it to happen. I thought his lying was useful for a while, highlighting the alarmist contradictions but it became increasingly bizarre.

        I was joking here that he “must have studied climate science under Richard ‘Racehorse’ Haynes” but I was still amazed when he later came up with arguments like from the legendary lawyer’s lectures. *)

        Martin claimed here that I quoted him out of context and in the same post he seems to have argued that he never said it in the first place.

        I think the American legal doctrine calls it “alternative pleading” and a good attorney should have consecutive backup positions to argue for his client when the original ones become untenable but I’d hate to have a dimwit for a defender who tries to argue all of them at the same time.

        Good riddance.

        Haynes loves discussing his cases to teach young lawyers about trial practice. In 1978, he told attendees at an ABA meeting in New York City that attorneys too often limit their strategic defense options in court. When evidence inevitably surfaces that contradicts the defense’s position, lawyers need to have a backup plan.

        “Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you,” he told the audience. “Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit.”

        His final defense, he said, would be: “I don’t have a dog.”

      • Gary Laptosh says:

        I’m going to miss Gail’s long and detailed rebuttals to his behavior. I’ve learned nearly as much from her as I’ve learned from this blog. Her patience with that gadfly was quite admirable, too.

  4. yatinkiteasy says:

    This is what the AMS said in their Discussion of the survey..” Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009) : 93% of active publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of climate experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change, 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change…”

    I agree the “97% of Climate Scientists ” claim is false, but their conclusion above is interesting, in that they have taken a result that clearly shows that only 52% of all respondents to the survey believe that humans are responsible for climate change, but they are only concerned with those in the survey who are actively publishing on climate change.
    Its amazing how they can take their own survey and state something different to the result, as their conclusion.

  5. willys36 says:

    You guys are applying you own internal moral compass to the scammers. Marxism is an amoral philosophy; they totally reject the concept of moral absolutes. They are incapable of telling an untruth since whatever they are saying at the time is the truth by definition. In their twisted minds, Bill and Hillary have never told an untruth and I believe they go to bed each night with a clear conscience.

    • gator69 says:

      That is why it is important for the sane to point out the lies, and the liars. Right and wrong exist.

      Bill Clinton shifted our national view of deceit. His well publicised lies, and his ability to dismiss all critism of his actions while holding the highest office in the land, sent a clear message to future generations. It is up to us to teach the young that his behaviour is not acceptable.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey gator, “Right and wrong exist.”

        Yes. Of course we all know that some situations are grey — but far too many people seem to have reached the conclusion that since some situations are grey, then they must ALL be grey. Well, no. Not all things are grey. Perhaps there is such a thing as “ethical color blindness”, where everything is a shade of grey. If there is, that is not the sort of society I would want to live in. That is also not a society that will last very long before it self destructs.

  6. Jason says:

    Why haven’t the DMI arctic ice extent graphs been updated since January 8th?

  7. Of 12,000 papers studied, only 65 had explicit endorsement that >50% warming caused by man. That is 0.54%. Which, when homogenized per standard Climate Industrial Complex methods and procedures, equals 97%.

  8. Leon Brozyna says:

    97% ?? Reminds me of election results in the old Soviet Union … ever notice how statist tyrants have to have near unanimous approval to show the world the justice of their position?

    I don’t trust anything over 75% for anything but the most common and basic truisms, e.g. if you did a survey and found that 98% of people agreed that “water is wet,” I’d trust that survey.

    Other “truisms” are a bit trickier … ask the folk at Barrow, Alaska on 21 Jun if the sun rises in the east … the results should be interesting.

    True science is tricky and anyone claiming huge numbers to prove the validity of their position is engaging in something disreputable.

  9. Hifast says:

    American Meteorological Society just commissioned George Mason Univ to conduct another survey of AMS members. Email went out this week. Here’s a link to see the meat of the 2016 survey:

    • Gail Combs says:

      George Mason Univ???

      Are they using Jagadish Shukla? I would think he is to busy shredding documents, scrubbing e-mails, packing up his millions and scrambling to get out of the USA before his is detained on RICO charges.

      Jagadish Shukla, a climate scientist at George Mason University in Virginia, received notice Oct. 1 that the non-profit research organization he runs, the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), will soon be investigated by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology for suspected misuse of federal funding.

      Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who chairs the House committee, requested that Shukla and IGES “preserve all e-mail, electronic documents, and data (‘electronic records’) created since January 1, 2009,” according to the notice….

      …It turns out Shukla reaped tens of millions in climate-related grants from U.S. taxpayers in addition to his university salary.

      Shukla, 71, is the founder and president of the Rockville, Md.-based Institute of Global Environment and Society, a nonprofit that received $63 million in taxpayer funds since 2001, according to financial data compiled by the Washington Free Beacon. A copy of Shukla’s letter to Obama has been taken down from the institute’s Web site.

      The $63 million accounts for over 98 percent of his environmental institute’s revenue in that time. By double-dipping between his university salary and his nonprofit, critics say, Shukla appears to have violated George Mason University’s conflict of interest stipulations and rules that federal grant recipients who work for universities are expected to observe.

      Steve McIntyre, a statistician noted for challenging the data and methodology used in United Nations climate reports, writes the Climate Audit blog. McIntyre offers a detailed analysis of Shukla’s compensation and how it squares with university and government policies….

      Steve McIntyre’s detailed analysis of Shukla’s OOPs

  10. OrganicFool says:

    Isn’t there some expression about putting lipstick on a pig?

Leave a Reply

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