Andre Jute asks: "Who says global warming is settled scienceagreed to by 97% of scientists?"

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:14:37 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough

This is the third crow of the cock but as yet, two weeks later, we have heard nothing from the global warmie faithful. I think we can conclude they're cowardly as well as thick.

Andre Jute
Empathy is defined as feeling sorry for even the thicker global warmies, who surely did it to themselves from the weakness of their characters, their lust to posture as morally superior, their salivating craving to practice their control freakery on everyone else, which are the most powerful motivators of the whole global warming scam among the scientifically ignorant masses.

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:24:43 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:14:37 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough

This is the third crow of the cock but as yet, two weeks later, we have heard nothing from the global warmie faithful. I think we can conclude they're cowardly as well as thick.

Andre Jute
Empathy is defined as feeling sorry for even the thicker global warmies, who surely did it to themselves from the weakness of their characters, their lust to posture as morally superior, their salivating craving to practice their control freakery on everyone else, which are the most powerful motivators of the whole global warming scam among the scientifically ignorant masses.

I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.

-- The Man.

On 11/21/2015 8:28 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.

I am helping OJ look for the killers.

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:28:16 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:24:43 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:14:37 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world..

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough

This is the third crow of the cock but as yet, two weeks later, we have heard nothing from the global warmie faithful. I think we can conclude they're cowardly as well as thick.

Andre Jute
Empathy is defined as feeling sorry for even the thicker global warmies, who surely did it to themselves from the weakness of their characters, their lust to posture as morally superior, their salivating craving to practice their control freakery on everyone else, which are the most powerful motivators of the whole global warming scam among the scientifically ignorant masses.

I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.

-- The Man.

I really don't know if I should be seen talking to you, Beattie; you haven't even been paid off by Exxon.

Not signed for fear of being recognized

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:28:16 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:24:43 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:14:37 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world..

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough

This is the third crow of the cock but as yet, two weeks later, we have heard nothing from the global warmie faithful. I think we can conclude they're cowardly as well as thick.

Andre Jute
Empathy is defined as feeling sorry for even the thicker global warmies, who surely did it to themselves from the weakness of their characters, their lust to posture as morally superior, their salivating craving to practice their control freakery on everyone else, which are the most powerful motivators of the whole global warming scam among the scientifically ignorant masses.

I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.

-- The Man.

how's the ambulance pension coming ?

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:57:50 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:28:16 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:24:43 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 5:14:37 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
We often hear the dumber global warmies and the thicker pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare, say that "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming". 99.999999% can't name the statistical study this claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmermann as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole of global warming wobbles like an upside down pyramid.

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmermann, The Consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimme...-17391505.html

Zimmermann's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample. In addition ***California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.***

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are particularly stupid, let's ask what sort of questions Zimmermann asked them.

Zimmerman carefully chose two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including those who doubted climate change was in any way manmade.

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

97% of a sample of only 75 "scientists" pre-selected (from an already extremely biased larger sample) for their inclination to agree to manmade warming...

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Zimmermann invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents. Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So what have we here? A 67 per cent consensus from The Consensus on the Consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"? But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

Zimmermann, despite cooking the statistics to toe the party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmermann.

Of course Zimmermann's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world on the subject of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

The global warmies either lied, or were gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

Andre Jute
Thorough

This is the third crow of the cock but as yet, two weeks later, we have heard nothing from the global warmie faithful. I think we can conclude they're cowardly as well as thick.

Andre Jute
Empathy is defined as feeling sorry for even the thicker global warmies, who surely did it to themselves from the weakness of their characters, their lust to posture as morally superior, their salivating craving to practice their control freakery on everyone else, which are the most powerful motivators of the whole global warming scam among the scientifically ignorant masses.

I would have responded, but I've been so busy with other conspiracies. You would not believe the amount of meetings I have to attend with the Illuminati, ZOG, Trilateralists, Knights Templar, Global Warmies, etc., etc. Al Gore is texting me all the time . . . warming this, warming that. I'm exhausted. And I've got a dozen voice-mails from the orbiting death-ray satellite guys. I should never have agreed to that Kennedy thing so many years ago. You do one conspiracy, and they want you to do a 100 more.

-- The Man.

how's the ambulance pension coming ?

Pension? I still have an Ideal 2002 saddle on my commuter bike that I bought with my earnings in 1976.

-- Jay Beattie.

California went bankrupt while the pensioners took their million n fled to zPortland n Monterey ...

I herd Brown made off with 35 .

incroyable ...

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
California went bankrupt while the pensioners took their million n fled to zPortland n Monterey ...

I herd Brown made off with 35 .

incroyable ...

El Nino Moloki

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current...4.38,23.44,256

8:27MST