Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.
"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."
According to the CEI complaint , NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled " Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature " and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.
The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.
The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.
So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.
Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.
See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).
But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research .
The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.
He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.
"That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.
Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."
Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.
The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
Georgia Tech Climatologist Chooses 'Career Suicide' to Keep Her 'Scientific Integrity'
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
The 97% consensus on global warming - Skeptical Science
'97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming
So, of the climate scientists who weighed in on whether their data pointed to anthropogenic climate change, 97% of them did in fact agree that man is having a measured effect on climate change. There were 8,000 other papers not included because they did not draw any conclusion either way. That is not taking a "neutral" position, it's simply not drawing a conclusion and just presenting data.
So all that needs to be corrected is the wording of NASA's statement which should rightly say that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists who drew conclusion's on mans effect on climate agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
This attempt by the right to obfuscate the obvious truth shouldn't really surprise anyone anymore. They regularly defend the most corrupt ignorant self admitted sexual predator as President so trying to pretend humans aren't having an effect on the environment is just icing on their already rotted cake.
That would be a much more honest representation of reality IMO. Their "97%" wording is unfortunate and very misleading. People automatically gravitate to thinking 97 out of 100 experts in climate believe man is the only/main cause of global warming when nothing could be further from the truth.
The question in my mind isn't "if" man is causing global warming but rather "how much" man is causing it. That's likely one very large reason why so many of the papers don't draw that conclusion.
Or it could be their data was inconclusive because what they were measuring or recording wasn't something that would be able to show mans influence on the climate.
Sure, that could be it as well.
Regardless, the fact remains 97% is a misleading number when it comes to all scientists thinking man is the main cause of GW.
Since it does appear to be a clear majority, why be disingenuous about what the actual percentage is?
The fact remains that the vast majority of those working in the climate science fields who have studied the data have concluded that man is having a measurable impact on the relatively rapid changes in climate.
I agree, the debate really should be on how much mankind is effecting the climate and what are the possible reasonable remedies if any instead of this stupid back and forth as to whether we have any effect or not.
It would seem reasonable to move towards renewable energy simply because its renewable, non-renewables will eventually run out even if they weren't causing such rapid warming. And sure, the earth has experienced carbon spikes and global warming and rapid climate change before, it just usually took a super volcano or meteor impact to cause them. In our case, the majority of climate scientists agree its our rapid extraction and burning of fossil fuels combined with deforestation that have been the prime human causes. And regardless of whether it's been a small impact or a large one, eventually we will need to transition to clean energy. A few decades ago trying to convince everyone to put prohibitively expensive solar panels on your roof was not financially possible. But today those costs have been cut by 75% as new materials and new technology has created better more efficient solar systems providing us with long term reliable renewable energy for our homes. Eventually anyone not using renewables will be paying double the cost for dirty power for no reason like an idiot. Even the Coal Museum installed a solar panel system to cut operating costs, eventually even the brain dead cave men grunting about how they'd never go green will be driving an electric car and have solar panels on their roof.
I'm all for a common sense approach to clean energy goals. I'm absolutely against crushing entire industries via over regulation and simple shut downs. Coal for example can be phased out without destroying everything and everyone involved in the industry. The government serves its constituency much better by providing incentives to move clean energy. Not ultimatums to kill dirty energy. Phasing into renewable power isn't going to happen overnight.
All the feel good nonsense about achieving 100% renewable energy quickly is just that. Nonsense. The standby power alone required to meet peak electrical demands more or less excludes that possibility until (if and when) someone perfects a quickly build-able, clean source like Cold Fusion.
Few people like AOC really understand how our electrical power grid actually works but to hear them talk they've been power generation engineers for years. Ridiculous!
Meanwhile people like Al Gore get rich off of it.
Where is the outrage over that?
IMO, those that go to the NASA website aren't easily lead astray. The NASA website links the study and quotes it as follows:
I don't know how NASA could be more transparent about the origin of the 97% statistic.
Right, because THEORIES are so unreliable, like the theory of gravity.
Transparent perhaps but how is it being used? How its used by others certainly isn't NASA fault but you and i both know it's being used in the media and elsewhere in a disingenuous manner.
They (the mass media that is) want people to think that 97% of ALL scientists agree that man is the main cause of global warming when nothing could be further from the truth. No doubt about that.
For example, i could say that 97% of ALL coffee drinkers, who expressed an opinion about Starbucks coffee, agreed that it's good coffee but that doesn't mean 97% of ALL coffee drinkers think Starbucks is good coffee because not ALL of them expressed an opinion about it.
It's unfortunate wording at best and intentionally misleading at worst.
How it's being used is besides the point. CEI wants a 'correction' when no 'correction' is warranted.
Yet as I said, IMHO, those that go to NASA for information aren't pushovers. Perhaps CEI could learn to knit...make themselves useful.
So since 2016.
That is exactly the point. The comment is disingenuous at best. An attempt to bias public opinion in a dishonest manner. Some of us are smart enough to not be manipulated by such slight of hand and misdirection.. Some drink it greedily like the koolaide of their preferred narrative. Scarf if up, even when that koolaide is puke flavored ..... it matters not.
Okay then, and as noted earlier, the solution is simple. All NASA has to do is clarify, clearly and concisely, that 97% of ALL climate scientists DO NOT have an opinion that global warming is mostly man made. 15 seconds to write, a couple minutes to post online. Easy peezy and it goes away. If you're so confident in being correct, i fail to see what your the problem is with that.
Argument for the sake of argument perhaps? Or perhaps it damages your preferred narrative?
How can it be transparent and disingenuous at the same time?
Opponents will bastardize data no matter how accurate it is and no matter how cogently it is presented.
"Some people may not understand it" isn't a reason that merits 'correction'.
The fact that CEI is misrepresenting the study is a reason to dismiss it.
So what you are demanding is that NASA [or I in this instance] address a strawman fallacy. Why?
I've cited facts just as NASA does. CEI has the burden of proof and since they misrepresent the study, it fails miserably.
It damages my preference for FACTS.
Yeah, you just want to argue. My comment is clear, concise and speaks for itself. Not interested in endless argument with you.
[deleted, comments about members are always off-topic.]
Actually, I asked you cogent questions based on your comments. [deleted]
My comments have addressed everything you've posed as "cogent" questions. You on the other hand have answered nothing. Nah, you just want to argue like usual.
Last comment, i'm out of this goat rodeo ....
Really Sparty? Where did you 'address' this:
Or this:
You didn't.
[deleted]
The "97% of Scientists say manmade global warming is settled science" is a MYTH
The myth of "settled science" which is a non scientific term
Settled Science? No Such Thing
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE
By Professor Steven Yates
November 7, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
The 97% myth
There's just lots of unsettling science. Unsettling for those who work for or continue to believe the dirty fossil fuel industry that doesn't give a crap about the planet but only cares for their shareholder profits. The real myth is that the fossil fuel industry has anyone's best interest at heart but their own.
"Last week, State Impact Oklahoma and the Center for Public Integrity co-published a report detailing how Oil Overlords have injected $40-million worth of pro-industry propaganda into Oklahoma classroom shales.
Apparently, it’s all part of an effort to indoctrinate… errr… educate our state’s youth about the wonders of petroleum, and all the great things it’s done for human civilization (minus the pollution, environmental destruction, and war)."
Dressed in suits, the Republican lawmakers read aloud from “Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream,” a parable in which a Bob the Builder lookalike awakens to find his toothbrush, hardhat and even the tires on his bike missing. Abandoned by the school bus, Pete walks to Petroville Elementary in his pajamas.
“It sounds like you are missing all of your petroleum by-products today!” his teacher, Mrs. Rigwell, exclaims, extolling oil’s benefits to Pete and fellow students like Sammy Shale. Before long, Pete decides that “having no petroleum is like a nightmare!”
It really is amazing how fornicatingly stupid some folk are in America, but I suppose if you really want to bamboozle them you have to start young. It's truly sad to realize that likely millions of children are being subjected to vile religious and oil indoctrination throughout the Midwest and south. How can anyone imagine these kids will turn out sane after that. No wonder we have so many right wing terrorists popping up all over America.
Wait...so God is real, not one shred of scientific proof at all...but man made global warming of which there are tons of scientific evidence, is a myth?
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Tons that the Climate is Changing anyway !
That's a no-brainer and doesn't require a STUDY. We all know the Climate Changes on this planet, and it's been doing so even before man got smart !
Try reading my comment again. SMH.
You need a study to look out the window to see if it's raining a lot or not for you ?
You need a study to tell you what the thermometer says outside ?
You need a new study, that shows that Climate really has changed over quite a few millenniums, and that it WILL change again ?
I did....
You "Think?" yet spout Bunches of meaningless words, with not much about pulling ones own Head out of the sand !