An article in the Wall Street Journal, "The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'," offers clear, scientific evidence: There is absolutely no fundamental basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. To wit:
- In 2004, a Harvard science historian, Naomi Oreskes, examined 928 abstracts of scientific journal articles and found ~75% arguing that humans were responsible for most of the observed warming of the last half-century. However, Oreskes failed to analyze articles by prominent scientists--including such notables as Richard Lindzen and John Christy--who question the "consensus" view.
- In 2009 , a University of Illinois graduate student, Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, and her master's thesis adviser, Peter Doran, also proffered the 97% claim. This "conclusion" was based upon data generated from a two-question online survey of 3,146 scientists. The trouble with the study: 1) only 79 respondents (2.5%) were experts in climate science and had published 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change; 2) the survey did not include scientists who would be most likely to understand the complex natural causes of climate change, including solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, or astronomers; and, 3) the survey didn't specify whether the human impact on global warming was large enough to constitute a problem.
- In 2013, the Australian blogger John Cook reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published in the two decades between 1991 to 2011. Cook concluded that 97% of the authors who stated their position on the subject believed that human activity was responsible for some warming. However, University of Delaware geography professor David Legates reviewed Cook's papers, finding only 41 (0.3% of all of the abstracts, and only 1% of those who expressed an opinion) believed human activity was causing most current warming.
Notice the trend? In accounting, it appears those who worship at the altar of environmentalism have been "cooking the books." Seizing upon conclusions derived from poorly conceived research, the stormy petrils have been trumpeting myths, like the whopper "97% of scientists call climate change real and man-made."
Bast and Spencer note that the Petition Project--a group of physicists and physical chemists in California--has collected 31k+ signatures from scientists who agree there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of...carbon dioxide...or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Come to think of it, perhaps going "on high alert" is too low of a defensive posture for those who wroship at the altar of environmentalism. With real science offering some real data and raising some real questions about a myth the stormy petrils have touted to lend credence to their their cherished ideology, The Motley Monk is wondering whether the stormy petrils should consider going on "Defcon 2-Code Red."
Let the discussion begin...
To read the article written by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer in the Wall Street Journal, click on the following link: