Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

However, this slogan has been challenged by a number of prominent scientists over the years. Esteemed physicist and 2022 Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser recently stated he does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. Scientist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman also championed his belief that “there is no significant man-made global warming” before his death in 2018.

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.” Scientists who study man-made global warming are more likely to be quoted in popular culture while receiving celebrity-like status and lucrative grants from the federal government.

This has created “climate hysteria” among the general public, it but isn’t believed by scientists like Curry.


Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.
There is no scientific consensus.
There is no climate crisis.
Wiki:

"Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33][/ize]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]



en.wikipedia.org





Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

 
Fudge and Fraud do not help the science invalid parrots explain a map of the Arctic, which they STILL cannot do...
 
Fudge and Fraud do not help the science invalid parrots explain a map of the Arctic, which they STILL cannot do...
You haven't made a single valid or helpful comment since you first arrived here. Not once. Not one.
 
You haven't made a single valid or helpful comment since you first arrived here. Not once. Not one.


This from someone still unable to explain a map of the Arctic....


Tell us, what is the EVIDENCE of "warming" on Hawaii given the Hawaiian temp data shows NONE???
 
Reading the OPs of each of these is a must if you really want to understand Earth climate change, which is real, and Co2 has absolutely nothing to do with it...






Neat --thanks!

Climate change is obviously real. Like 4 billion years ago the earth's surface was molten rock and the sky was raining comets. 1 billion years from now the oceans will boil off. So we're not sure about is the degree increase since the industrial revolution but we all agree that CO2 had nothing to do w/ 4billion years ago and 1 billion in the future...
 
Neat --thanks!

Climate change is obviously real. Like 4 billion years ago the earth's surface was molten rock and the sky was raining comets. 1 billion years from now the oceans will boil off. So we're not sure about is the degree increase since the industrial revolution but we all agree that CO2 had nothing to do w/ 4billion years ago and 1 billion in the future...



ALL of their "warming" is Urban Heat Sink Effect. Every other claim of "warming" is fudged fraud. They have warming from the surface of growing urban areas, that's it.
 
ALL of their "warming" is Urban Heat Sink Effect. Every other claim of "warming" is fudged fraud. They have warming from the surface of growing urban areas, that's it.
We may be beginning to differ here, it's not my habit to vilify all those w/ whom I disagree, in fact I can learn so much more from folks I disagree w/ than I can w/ those who take my side.

My experience is that there are a lot of really good people who back AGW, but so far they've all been unable or unwilling to present their beliefs in what I consider to be a scientific manner. At the same time I've never found any even willing to explore the topic. My working theory is that science is being set aside w/ those I've met in favor of a partisan orthodoxy, but like I said there are a lot of good people w/ differing beliefs.
 
there are a lot of really good people who back AGW

There were a lot of "really good people" 2000 years ago who thought Earth was flat...

Who is a "really good person?" Name some....




science is being set aside w/ those I've met in favor of a partisan orthodoxy


"Science" as we know it in America is dead. Covid and the Co2 FRAUD prove it. But true science outs the truth of Earth climate change, and Co2 has nothing to do with it. It is 99% about the position of land near the poles.
 
There were a lot of "really good people" 2000 years ago who thought Earth was flat...

Who is a "really good person?" Name some....
Actually, everyone knew --even back then-- that the earth was round. The ancient Greek Eratosthenes calculated the earth's diameter to a fairly good accuracy.

It's not healthy to be arrogantly dismissive of those we consider stupid. There's a lot of good we can learn from even stupid people. There are a number of reasons to listen and consider what a stupid person says:
  • They see things from a different angle.
  • They are human beings and deserve a hearing.
  • They views can stimulate our thoughts.
  • Every once in a while they're actually right.
My understanding is that your reaction will probably be to dismiss the idea, that will not be the best choice.
"Science" as we know it in America is dead. Covid and the Co2 FRAUD prove it. But true science outs the truth of Earth climate change, and Co2 has nothing to do with it. It is 99% about the position of land near the poles.
What I'm getting is that our ice ages are from earth/sun orbit variations --many factors. Science as a method of inquiry is alive and well, our tech advances prove it.
 
Actually, everyone knew --even back then-- that the earth was round. The ancient Greek Eratosthenes calculated the earth's diameter to a fairly good accuracy.

It's not healthy to be arrogantly dismissive of those we consider stupid. There's a lot of good we can learn from even stupid people. There are a number of reasons to listen and consider what a stupid person says:
  • They see things from a different angle.
  • They are human beings and deserve a hearing.
  • They views can stimulate our thoughts.
  • Every once in a while they're actually right.
My understanding is that your reaction will probably be to dismiss the idea, that will not be the best choice.

What I'm getting is that our ice ages are from earth/sun orbit variations --many factors. Science as a method of inquiry is alive and well, our tech advances prove it.

Yeah, but you can't get elected or make a ton of money trying to scare people into fighting earth/sun orbit variations and other factors unrelated to human activity.
 
My experience is that there are a lot of really good people who back AGW, but so far they've all been unable or unwilling to present their beliefs in what I consider to be a scientific manner.
The real telling sign is that they refuse to discuss the issue publicly with experts who dissent. That adds even more doubt to the AGW theory and agenda.
 
Yeah, but you can't get elected or make a ton of money trying to scare people into fighting earth/sun orbit variations and other factors unrelated to human activity.
Economic pressures are insidious, that folks can honestly start w/ one opinion and if they find a huge economic advantage to changing their views that start saying "well we have to consider both sides here...".
 
The real telling sign is that they refuse to discuss the issue publicly with experts who dissent. That adds even more doubt to the AGW theory and agenda.
That may contaminate the issue but imho it proves nothing. It's possible or a bunch of liars and reprobates to all agree on something that's true.
 
My understanding is that your reaction will probably be to dismiss the idea, that will not be the best choice


You were asked to ID one single "good person" who pushes the Co2 FRAUD, and instead of doing that, you went on a pathetic "lecture" of bullshit to avoid answering the question...


What I'm getting is that our ice ages are from earth/sun orbit variations --many factors


You are parroting something called "Milankovich Cycles" aka McBullshit which has been destroyed here already...



 
Not when they’re being funded by governments.
Maybe it's a matter of separating the scientific question from the political orthodoxy. I see the issues as separate, and you appear to keep them bound together. Of course real life is a mix, life always has many factors. I'm in logic/reason where I artificially sort things out.

Bottom line, both approaches are right.
 
Not when they’re being funded by governments.
The assumption that government research funding proves conclusions false is itself unsupported and unsupportable. The right wing always seem to accept it, but that's just another indication that it's not their political positions that lead them to these conclusions but their ignorance.
 
Last edited:
The assumption that government research funding proves conclusions false is itself unsupported and unsupportable. The right wing always seem to accept it, but that's just another indication that it's not their political positions that lead them to these conclusions, it's their ignorance.

Ummm...."unsupported and unsupportable".....

Know where that is mattering? On community messageboards and some pockets of social media.......nowhere else. :bye1: In the real world, its no more material than having a debate on boobs. Prefer big ones or the little ones? dUh

Shit dude.....youre going to go to your box never getting that who's not winning is the only thing that matters are the end of the day.

You make about 25,000 posts/year in here........and what has changed on the energy landscape?

dick

:spinner:
 
You haven't made a single valid or helpful comment since you first arrived here. Not once. Not one.

Hate to break it to you but nobody cares about the opinion of a climate nutter residing in Scratchmyassville USA.

Everything you post is nothing more than conjecture about how things ought to be......an exercise in futility.

The energy policymakers are not impressed at all with your take on things. If they are, show us the evidence.

dOy
 
Hate to break it to you but nobody cares about the opinion of a climate nutter residing in Scratchmyassville USA.

Everything you post is nothing more than conjecture about how things ought to be......an exercise in futility.

The energy policymakers are not impressed at all with your take on things. If they are, show us the evidence.

dOy
And, as is always the case with you and your posts, you don't care what reality might be. You continue to demonstrate the validity of my charge that "You haven't made a single valid or helpful comment since you first arrived here. Not once. Not one."
 

Forum List

Back
Top