Only 0.3%, not 97%, of climate papers agreed on AWG
A peer reviewed paper finds that there was only 0.3%, not 97%, consensus regarding AGW, by the original John Cook paper’s own methods (*1):
Is “97%” a marketing lie?
Droves of scientists have come out saying John Cook misrepresented their papers: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
NOTE: Be advised when reading any debunking of this or anything else, that the “skepticalscience” site you might be familiar with, has, on the Team page, John Cook — the author of the discredited 97% trope — so be cautious when reading any “debunking” on that site.
NOTE: Wikipedia changed & then locked the page “recession” in 2022 to protect politicians. Wikipedia similarly does not allow more than a one-sided discussion on this controversial topic. One must seek out the best arguments of all sides more directly, for themselves.
A re-rebuttal paper by John Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics:
The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been REJECTED by Earth System Dynamics, citing mere “opinions” and, essentially, non-science.
Excerpts from the WUWT summary:
“The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication.
Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
Are government science agencies more trust worthy than the CIA?
NASA has changed climate data from the warm 1940s. Tony Heller argues it is to make later temperature appear to be rising. NASA doesn’t deny changing this data. It simply defends changing the data in other ways.
NOTE: when searching Tony Heller on YouTube, they’ll give you 10s of videos of low quality “debunkers” which barely address his data, but rather just make blanket statements. Heller put out “debunking the debunker” to address some of these many videos.
Some argue that it is rather government funded science, and the peer reviewed journals on controversial political topics in which they publish, as “circle jerks” where these scientists, funded by the same bosses — global governmental agencies (like the IPCC), either provide what their bosses want, or lose funding, jobs, and their reputations.
These agencies, like the IPCC, have charters, not set out to find supporting data from any climate causes, but rather only to find AGW & AGCC — human caused climate change. Governments around the world use this topic like terrorism — to politically unite people in a never ending war against a phantom menace.
What’s the cost of War on CO2? Who Benefits?
Globally, the CO2 fear industry is $1.5 trillion per year. This is more than enough money to end hunger, homelessness, and clean pollution & the oceans many times over, every year.
Western fear tactics and lies from the climate cult amount to child abuse.
China now emits more greenhouse gases than the US an EU combined, and communist China, unlike many countries, doesn’t listen to its citizens about reducing pollution from energy production methods., like more free enterprise companies in countries in the West have, even before government intervention. China continues to grow its economy without pollution concerns while the West destroys itself denying itself from far cleaner fossil fuels energy than China uses. China’s authoritarian government (that locked down 26M people in their homes in Shanghai for over 6 weeks) benefits at the cost of liberal democracies around the world.
Higher fossil fuels usage & access, by society, is strongly correlated to wealth, reduced poverty, and low pollution. As societies get wealthier (via the use of more fossils energy), it not long after is able to use this energy to keep the environment much less polluted than old dirty biofuels techniques like burning wood for energy, as now done in Germany, where solar panels and wind farms are disastrously insufficient for Germany’s cooling and heating needs in summer and winter, respectively.
Human flourishing is harmed by restricting low energy fossil fuels energy production, especially after vastly reducing pollution from production methods. CO2 is invisible plant food, vital to greening & supporting life on Earth. The anti human cult-like anti-CO2 ideology specifically targets the poorest people in all countries, and the poorest countries the most. Alex Epstein’s books like Fossil Future cover this well. Here’s a 17 point summary: https://energynow.com/2022/02/17-surprising-facts-from-fossil-future-alex-epstein/
For a more surprising, recent & comprehensive analysis, read this:
Climate *Causes* CO2 Change — recall how warm beer releases CO2.
The article covers how, over the decades, climate change & cult concerns have been cyclical, from freezing to burning, over and over again, and the science behind it.
This article also discusses how Corals also blossom in over 17x higher CO2:
Here’s a summary debunking the CO2 climate cult:
1. CO2 is the real Green Energy.
Calling anti-CO2 schemes Green is a backwards misnomer reminiscent of 1984 double-speak.
CO2 is essential for life on earth & for humans to dig up & pump out as much as possible, bc after billions of years of it getting buried with trees & fossils, we were dangerously low & near where plants can’t grow anymore.
Earth greened over 25% from 1982–2015 from CO2, NASA satellites show.
Earth greens more where “human activity” (CO2) is booming, ofc. NASA.
Removing CO2 from the atmophere would literally reduce the green seen from space.
Plants need at 150+ ppm CO2 to survive. Plants thrive with more CO2.
2. CO2 follows temp, doesn’t lead it.
We know why. It’s like warm beer release CO2 *after* heating. That’s like the oceans.
We have 400,000 years data showing this.
Water Vapor (WV) & clouds aren’t even fully accounted for in climate models.
H2O rather has the primary & stronger positive feedback loop as it responds to heat much quicker than lagging CO2
CO2 has just 1/2 the radiative forcing of Water Vapor (WV) per volume, at only 1/100 the volume, and its UV frequency response is even masked by WV & thus made 1/200 or weaker than WV.
3. Sea level rise rate is stable as seen in e.g. NY Battery.
4. Heat & number of extreme hot days & storms are actually down in the last 100 years in USA. Global temp records didn’t even exist elsewhere at the time (data was made up — interpolated from areas very far away).
5. Coral life bounced back in Great Barrier Reef & such calcifying animals blossomed in 17x higher CO2 during the Cambrian Era when all life blossomed, and in controlled experiments.
6. 1960–70s govt scientists & news scared us about freezing, bc 1930–40s were very hot (hotter than now, before govt changed numbers as seen in climategate emails, NASA, NCAR, IPCC records).
7. Govt agencies like IPCC have charters to find AGCC or lose funding.
8. AGCC is a $trillions per year corporatist / socialist scam funded by your taxes & govt fiat money to global corp/govt friends in WEF and the like.
9. The consensus on AGW wasn’t 97% of climate papers in John Cook’s cooked up 2013 meta study, but 0.3%.
(*1): “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change”: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9