Today I would like to debunk the claim that we have to act now because there’s a “97% consensus”.
In debates I keep hearing the claim that “97% of scientists agree” on global warming science and thus, with such an overwhelming consensus, taking action is a no-brainer. For example Hollywood actor and college dropout George Clooney recently parroted the argument that if 97 of 100 doctors recommend a procedure and 3% don’t who are you going to listen to?
Would you listen to the 97 if you knew they had been wrong for 16 years and the remaining 3 had been right all along?
First of all, this “97%” of all climate scientists agree on global warming is bogus to begin with, and is based on a faulty paper by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. read here and here.
So in climate science and policy, should we listen to the “97%” and act now? Or should we listen to the outlier 3% fringe group? The answer to that question is: Don’t listen to the winner of the popular vote, rather listen to the group that is right. And it turns out that the “97%” have been wrong for the last 16 years and the 3% minority have been right.
97% have been wrong for 16 years
Let’s look at the models coming from the “97% consensus” and see how they are doing compared to the real observed data. Here’s a plot by Dr. Roy Spencer:
Source: www.drroyspencer.com/
Almost all the models from the “97%” have been flat out wrong.
But isn’t Dr. Roy Spencer one of those deniers? Don’t we need to look at a really objective source like the IPCC? Next is a chart from an early, untampered draft of the IPCC 5AR, with additional information from Dr. Ira Glickstein:
Source: wattsupwiththat.com/. “IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 with animated central Global Warming predictions from FAR (1990), SAR (1996), TAR (2001), and AR5 (2007).” Graphic by Dr. Ira Glickstein.
Once again we see the models from the “97%” have all been wrong.
There are other charts out there, and they all tell us the same story: The models have been wrong from the first day.
Observed data show that the 3% are right
Even the IPCC’s own chart shows that the models from the 97%” have all overstated future warming.
The next time someone uses the consensus argument, ask him/her if we should believe the 97% who are wrong, or the 3% who are proven right.
Science is not decided by a show hands. If that’s how science had been done in the past, then man would still be walking on four limbs. Science moves by one voice showing the consensus is wrong.
Must read Nature article..
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
quotable gems such as:
“An analysis of historical data buttressed these conclusions, showing that the cool phase of the PDO coincided with a few decades of cooler temperatures after the Second World War (see ‘The Pacific’s global reach’), ”
“and that the warm phase lined up with the sharp spike seen in global temperatures between 1976 and 1998”
As to the 97% – reminds me of Sturgeon’s Law – “90% of everything is crap” (his retort when asked why 90% of SF stories are crap)
Looks like Sturgeon was an optimist.
On the doctor analogy i have kept a comment form bulldust on the jonova website:
‘ That’s what I’d council: patience.
If someone’s been advised they have cancer and are denying it, I’m not going to argue with them.
Time will tell one way or the other. If their denial turns out to work as a strategy to make the cancer go away, great!
In the meantime, my house insurance bill has just gone up by 40% in one year. Do the insurance companies know something the climate change deniers don’t?
I shall make the assumption that you are not intentionally trying to be rude. You do realise that every time you use the word denier, you are associating people who do not kowtow to the IPCC with people who deny the Holocaust happened…
A more appropriate term would be AGW skeptics or something along those lines.
I find it hard to believe that rational Australians have now been reduced to name-calling, tribal cliques, but this appears to be a side effect of the issue becoming politicised.
As to your poor example… in the case of AGW the “doctor” has run a computer model that barely represents a fraction of your body’s biochemistry, and has forecast that you may have cancer in 50 years. You can prevent this cancer, however, by tithing 10% of your income to the “doctor”… there I fixed your analogy. ‘
Hey, over 99% of geophysicists were wrong about continental mobility (continental drift).
S.J. Gould told us that when PhD candidates wanted to talk about moving continents they had to do it on the back stairs where the professors could not overhear the heresy.
My own professor told me that if I accepted continental movement I would never be able to get tenure at a North American University. Fifteen years later the discovery of spreading of the ocean floor in the mid-Atlantic proved the geophysicists were wrong and the geographers were right.
So why not 97% wrong for AGW?
For another approach, here’s my evidence to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s inquiry re the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Review:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191
See section 3 in particular.
Ironic:
• 97% of climate scientists are wrong; 3% are right.
…and what did those who were wrong miss?
• 3% of all CO2 is from human activity; 97% is from natural sources.
Amazing!
Golden comments, thanks guys!
I am crawling around in the dust at the feet of genius.
Don’t get any on you!
97% of a drug companies scientists agree that pill A is good for you. 3% warn that it will kill you. What would you do???
Typo spelling:
…..97% of a drug company’s scientist…
It would appear , Science is an Inexact Science ! lol