Reprised: Who says global warming is settled science agreed to by97% of scientists?

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:17:27 AM UTC-8, 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

So WHO benefited from this farce? The GOVERNMENT. They gained more power and more money. They gained FAR more support from the Warmies who understood absolutely NONE of the science.

Science itself has been gravely damaged because all science has lost credibility and hence future support because those who knew better remained quiet.. Not because they didn't know better but because as scientists you need irrefutable evidence to criticize the work of others. The warmists took this as agreement. But stupid is as stupid does.

Remember when Frank made the comment about people questioning evolution and I said that there is irrefutable evidence? Dinosaurs all had a variety of numbers of neck vertebrae. Today's fish and birds and reptiles all have numbers that equate to the uses for which they use their necks.

But all mammals have (from memory) seven neck vertebrae the mouse, the man, the hippopotamus, the kangaroo, the giraffe and the tiger. There can be no question that mammals all came from the original small warm blooded creature rapidly crawling around trying to not be stepped upon by the Dinosaurs. Warm blooded because he had to have enough energy to keep warm in the winters without tons of surrounding fat and able to run at great speed to reach the protection of his hole when smaller Theropods saw a nice snack. And evolution has not seen fit to change this as of yet.

So science in this case remains silent on evolution to avoid threatening other's religious beliefs. But in the case of AGM there was the threat of having all of their funding pulled by the power crazed government and scientists have to eat too.

The corruption of the last three Presidents will go down in history as the most repulsive in history. We can only hope that with a total outsider that things will improve. But that remains to be seen.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:31:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:17:27 AM UTC-8, 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

So WHO benefited from this farce? The GOVERNMENT. They gained more power and more money. They gained FAR more support from the Warmies who understood absolutely NONE of the science.

Science itself has been gravely damaged because all science has lost credibility and hence future support because those who knew better remained quiet. Not because they didn't know better but because as scientists you need irrefutable evidence to criticize the work of others. The warmists took this as agreement. But stupid is as stupid does.

Remember when Frank made the comment about people questioning evolution and I said that there is irrefutable evidence? Dinosaurs all had a variety of numbers of neck vertebrae. Today's fish and birds and reptiles all have numbers that equate to the uses for which they use their necks.

But all mammals have (from memory) seven neck vertebrae the mouse, the man, the hippopotamus, the kangaroo, the giraffe and the tiger. There can be no question that mammals all came from the original small warm blooded creature rapidly crawling around trying to not be stepped upon by the Dinosaurs.. Warm blooded because he had to have enough energy to keep warm in the winters without tons of surrounding fat and able to run at great speed to reach the protection of his hole when smaller Theropods saw a nice snack. And evolution has not seen fit to change this as of yet.

So science in this case remains silent on evolution to avoid threatening other's religious beliefs. But in the case of AGM there was the threat of having all of their funding pulled by the power crazed government and scientists have to eat too.

The corruption of the last three Presidents will go down in history as the most repulsive in history. We can only hope that with a total outsider that things will improve. But that remains to be seen.

Ah, but it's widely accepted now by scientists that dinosaurs too were warm blooded and also that many dinosaurs had feathers not scales as previously believed.

Cheers

On 11-29-2016 12:31, wrote:
So science in this case remains silent on evolution to avoid threatening
other's religious beliefs.

Silent?!? The arguments between creationists and evolutionists are MUCH
louder than the climate change arguments!

--
Wes Groleau

Tom wants to know
So WHO benefited from this farce [the Global Warming hoax]? The GOVERNMENT. They gained more power and more money. They gained FAR more support from the Warmies who understood absolutely NONE of the science.

The global warming hoax was a production brought to you by the Club of Rome, one of whose executive directors, Maurice Strong, founded UNEPA, the controlling agency of the IPCC. The motivating force of the Club of Rome is ZPG, zero population growth; they have some real genocidal maniacs in there, like Jacques Cousteau, who once said we'd have to kill 350,000 people a month to bring the population in balance, and people like Ted Turner who's on record as reckoning that the right population for the earth is 100,000 to half a million...

But it wasn't a conspiracy, at least not in the sense that a conspiracy implies a hidden plan. They did it right out in the open, announcing the invention of global warming as a substitute for guilt-inducing religion in the new godless age in a book, The Limits of Growth, half a century ago.

Andre Jute
"So bizarre, it's probably all true." -- London Evening News on Andre Jute

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 6:31:58 PM UTC, wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:17:27 AM UTC-8, 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

So WHO benefited from this farce? The GOVERNMENT. They gained more power and more money. They gained FAR more support from the Warmies who understood absolutely NONE of the science.

Science itself has been gravely damaged because all science has lost credibility and hence future support because those who knew better remained quiet. Not because they didn't know better but because as scientists you need irrefutable evidence to criticize the work of others. The warmists took this as agreement. But stupid is as stupid does.

Remember when Frank made the comment about people questioning evolution and I said that there is irrefutable evidence? Dinosaurs all had a variety of numbers of neck vertebrae. Today's fish and birds and reptiles all have numbers that equate to the uses for which they use their necks.

But all mammals have (from memory) seven neck vertebrae the mouse, the man, the hippopotamus, the kangaroo, the giraffe and the tiger. There can be no question that mammals all came from the original small warm blooded creature rapidly crawling around trying to not be stepped upon by the Dinosaurs.. Warm blooded because he had to have enough energy to keep warm in the winters without tons of surrounding fat and able to run at great speed to reach the protection of his hole when smaller Theropods saw a nice snack. And evolution has not seen fit to change this as of yet.

So science in this case remains silent on evolution to avoid threatening other's religious beliefs. But in the case of AGM there was the threat of having all of their funding pulled by the power crazed government and scientists have to eat too.

The corruption of the last three Presidents will go down in history as the most repulsive in history. We can only hope that with a total outsider that things will improve. But that remains to be seen.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 2:03:59 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:31:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:17:27 AM UTC-8, 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

So WHO benefited from this farce? The GOVERNMENT. They gained more power and more money. They gained FAR more support from the Warmies who understood absolutely NONE of the science.

Science itself has been gravely damaged because all science has lost credibility and hence future support because those who knew better remained quiet. Not because they didn't know better but because as scientists you need irrefutable evidence to criticize the work of others. The warmists took this as agreement. But stupid is as stupid does.

Remember when Frank made the comment about people questioning evolution and I said that there is irrefutable evidence? Dinosaurs all had a variety of numbers of neck vertebrae. Today's fish and birds and reptiles all have numbers that equate to the uses for which they use their necks.

But all mammals have (from memory) seven neck vertebrae the mouse, the man, the hippopotamus, the kangaroo, the giraffe and the tiger. There can be no question that mammals all came from the original small warm blooded creature rapidly crawling around trying to not be stepped upon by the Dinosaurs. Warm blooded because he had to have enough energy to keep warm in the winters without tons of surrounding fat and able to run at great speed to reach the protection of his hole when smaller Theropods saw a nice snack. And evolution has not seen fit to change this as of yet.

So science in this case remains silent on evolution to avoid threatening other's religious beliefs. But in the case of AGM there was the threat of having all of their funding pulled by the power crazed government and scientists have to eat too.

The corruption of the last three Presidents will go down in history as the most repulsive in history. We can only hope that with a total outsider that things will improve. But that remains to be seen.

Ah, but it's widely accepted now by scientists that dinosaurs too were warm blooded and also that many dinosaurs had feathers not scales as previously believed.

Sorry but as a paleontologist you lose out on veracity. While some small dinosaurs may have been starting to have warm blood the dinosaurs that are considered when speaking of them were FAR too large to be able to eat enough and gain enough energy from the sort of forage available to live and yet warm a body of as much as 50 tons. Simply STANDING took as much energy as they could forage in 20 hours a day.

The questions surrounding flying reptiles are still not agreed upon with the strongest arguments for ground based leaping into the air to avoid capture and slowly evolving into bird-like creatures. Saying that they all had "feathers" only avoids 30 million years of evolution.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:41:25 PM UTC-8, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 11-29-2016 12:31, wrote:
So science in this case remains silent on evolution to avoid threatening
other's religious beliefs.

Silent?!? The arguments between creationists and evolutionists are MUCH
louder than the climate change arguments!

--
Wes Groleau

Where would these arguments be Wes? For the most part each side has decided to live and let live as far as I know. Evolution does NOT negate creation. It only questions the accuracy of the Bible. Considering that the Old Testament was originally written in a language that cannot be interpreted save in general those insisting that the Bible is 100% accurate don't have a strong leg to stand upon save faith alone.

On 11-30-2016 11:03, wrote:
Where would these arguments be Wes? For the most part each side has decided
to live and let live as far as I know. Evolution does NOT negate creation.
It only questions the accuracy of the Bible. Considering that the Old Testament
was originally written in a language that cannot be interpreted save in general
those insisting that the Bible is 100% accurate don't have a strong leg
to stand
upon save faith alone.

Well, in a sense you are right. The loudest screamers on both sides are
those who don't have a clue what they're parroting. But there are some
who do know better (again on both sides) who, just like in "climate
change" think the issue is important enough to lie about.

--
Wes Groleau

goo.gl/Xinh5K\

US stats on believers of Biblical truth and Creationism are run high look it up.

However this morning we read poll sez 3 of 4 support Ocare.

As with the TM, Beliefs and logic go unconnected, the right hand no not what the left is doin'

If your large income derives from an oil field then frankly the family can believe in flying saucers n what the hell would it matter ?