Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.One of the primary criticisms is most of the studies Cook claimed to support AGW, were actually neutral on the subject (8,000 out of 12,000) or rejected it entirely (the 97% was based on a ranking system, not the actual number of studies). One researcher that critiqued the study said,
"Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others..., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it". Musings on the 97% Consensus. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. Global Warming Alarmists caught Doctoring 97% Consensus Claims/
The settled science of AGW is usually based on proxy data being fed into a computer model, or more recently "multi-proxy climate reconstructions", both rely on the often mistaken belief that proxy data is accurate enough and can be used to document past climate changes in order to predict future climate change due to global warming; both have proved problematic and elusive. The purpose of science is rarely to predict the future, but to understand current phenomena; pretty much all attempts to predict the future of any act of nature, unless it's constantly repeats like the tides, has resulted in failure. The amount of variables in the weather and climate change are so numerous, it was the impetus for Chaos Theory; "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future". In other words, until you know all the variables in minute detail of the initial condition of a process (and understand how they interact with each other), you will never be able to make an accurate prediction of the future.
Michael Mann's famous (and now discredited) hockey stick graph was based almost solely on proxy-data (and a programed for success computer model). "(Proxy data is an) indirect measurement inferred from a property more loosely related to temperature (the relationship may be less well understood or less reproducible and require more measurements and analysis before drawing a conclusion)." When one talks about proxy data, it means such things as tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments; these and other proxy data is open to interpretation and requires a huge amount of repetitive results to be even come close to being reliable. It was the tree ring scientists (dendrochronologists) that first complained about the Manns lack of cross-check tree ring record.Tree Ring Records Spur Debate. Then there is the exposé of the Phil Jones Keith Briffa/ CRU studies, showed that from hundreds of Siberian samples, Mann appeared to cherry pick only those that matched the criteria he was looking for. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies; now refereed to as "the most influential tree in the world." The Most Influential Tree in the World.
This is an IPCC graph before Michel Manns Hockey stick graph; there is still a hockey stick looking part of the graph on the right side, but it also includes the Medieval Warming period.
This is Michael Manns Graph that shows a similar "hockey stick" at the end, but ignores the the Medieval Warming period.
The limited proxy alone shows the failings of the AGW predictions. If there is any validity to Chaos theory (Choas theory is still the gold standard in the study of the behavior of dynamical systems) there is no way any amount of proxy data will ever be accurate or complete enough to know the initial conditions of the processes of global warming and climate change. Further AGW doesn't even qualify as a hypotheses or theory as by definition these must include a method to determine if the hypotheses or theory is false; if the science of human generated global warming is settled than is only scientific theory ever known to have reached this paradoxical state. Michael Manns Hockey stick graph has become a discredited object in the history of science The Hockey Schtick The Hook 97% consensus survey has already been debunked Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring Consensus Claim as has the recent Lovejoy multi-proxy climate reconstructions (who simply omitted the Medieval Warming period again to prove his case) Lovejoy Global Warming Paper 100% Wrong
Now, I would like to include a description of science to show how far from science AGW really is. Recently, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced. Discovery of Gravity Waves Questioned by Cosmologists The reason for questioning the these gravity waves is explained by the following, Science is a demanding and unforgiving business, and great discoveries are greeted not with parades and champagne but rather with questions, doubts and demands for more data. Really? So why has it been so different with AGW. The article goes on, No one is alleging an outright scientific error. It’s more of a debate about how scientists should communicate their uncertainties when presenting blockbuster findings. This is a case of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Again one has to ask, where is the extraordinary evidence for the blockbuster findings of AGW? The answer is there are none, because AGW is not empirical science, it political (within the realm of fascist) science. Big-Bang Backlash.
Finally, let's look at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). This think tank was formed prior to the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Summit. The GWPF as an enemy of US climate scientists becasue it takes the stand that it, does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled; and, Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general (AGW) and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time. Recently, Professor Bengtsson, a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and author of more than 200 papers, accepted an invitation to join the (Academic Advisory) Council (of the GWPF) less than three weeks ago. His decision significantly enhanced the credibility of the foundation, which announced that “one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists” had joined its council. Unfortunately he had to resign soon afterwards, “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable. It is a situation that reminds me [of] the time of McCarthy.” The reason? because the GWPF takes the position that the science AGW is not settled. Professor Bengtsson Blames US Climate Scientists for Witch Hunt. Professor Bengtsson said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down. Yes this is the fascist political science of AGW.. but don't pay any attention, because "these aren't the droids you're looking for".