The 97% Consensus Claim Is In Fact 97% Bogus

Though the following video was posted 4 years ago, and has since amassed 1 million views, it clearly explains why John Cook’s paper is 97% bogus.

It’s good to remind people of this video every now and then.

7 responses to “The 977 Consensus Claim Is In Fact 977 Bogus”

  1. richard

    That experiment in the past that indicated CO2 causes warming-

    The same experiment was repeated by Tufts University using Argon, not a greenhouse gas. The results were the same as CO2 though the warming was slightly more with Argon.

    1. The Damned Nitpicking VooDude

      Bell 2019: “With the light on to warm the surfaces, Carbon dioxide is substituted for air in one container, and its temperature is observed to increase. The warming is assumed to be caused by infrared (IR) radiation energy being absorbed by the vibrational motions of Carbon dioxide molecules and transferred by collisions to their neighbors. Further, this assumed trapping of IR radiation energy (and increase in temperature) is generally then equated to how IR radiation from the Earth directly causes atmospheric warming. These inferences, drawn from the demonstration results, are incorrect; it is best not to use these demonstrations.”

      Bell 2019: “The warming effect has little to do with IR radiation but is mainly due to the denser gas in the container preventing convective exchange with the surrounding air.”

      Bell 2019: “:An IR-absorbing gas is not necessary to cause the warming effect in this demonstration. As in the more elaborate studies, the denser gases prevent convection from outside the cup and are responsible for “trapping” energy within it. The warming effect in the common demonstration, with only Carbon dioxide compared to air, has generally been taken as (indirect) evidence for the IR-absorbing property of Carbon dioxide.”

      Bell, J 2019. “Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available.” Journal of Chemical Education

    2. The Damned Nitpicking VooDude

      To reinforce your mention of Wagoner:

      Wagoner, Liu & Tobin 2010: “Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of Carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of Carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air.”

      “Typically, a larger temperature rise is observed with Carbon dioxide and the difference is attributed, explicitly or implicitly, [but, incorrectly] to the physical phenomena responsible for the climate change. … Several such demonstrations have been described¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵.”

      Wagoner, Liu & Tobin 2010: ”… for the case of the demonstration described by Lueddecke¹, the results arise, primarily, from processes related to convective heat transport, that plays no role in climate change.”

      S. B. Lueddecke, N. Pinter, and S. A. McManus 2000. “Greenhouse effect in the classroom: A project- and laboratory-based curriculum.” J. Geosci. Educ.

      T. Lister 1996. “Classic Chemistry Demonstrations.” Royal Chemical Society, London “Demonstrate the greenhouse effect.” Royal Meteorological Society

      R. M. Fuller 1973. “Greenhouse effect study apparatus.” Am. J. Phys

      C. F. Keating 2007. ”5. A simple experiment to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases.” 5. Phys. Teach

      Wagoner, Liu & Tobin 2010: ”Our results demonstrate that the temperature rise observed in a popular classroom demonstration1 arises not from the radiative greenhouse effect responsible for global warming but primarily from the suppression of convective heat transport between CO₂ and air due to the density difference between the two. This density difference, much like the roof of a real greenhouse, suppresses gas mixing at the CO₂-air interface and therefore inhibits heat transfer.”

      Wagoner, Liu & Tobin 2010: “The magnitude of the radiative effect is more than an and is difficult to demonstrate convincingly.”

      Wagoner, Paul, Chunhua Liu, and R. G. Tobin 2010. “Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics.” American Journal of Physics

  2. The Damn Nitpicking VooDude

    Alas, as lamented by Entman 2014: “Humans are an ultrasocial species, and dissent is far costlier than assent, to a perceived majority.”

    I suppose there is a consensus of OPINION, especially among “climate” scientists, but, the blatant statements in the scientific literature show that there can be no consensus (that 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏kind’s CO₂ emissions are the cause of “Global Warming”) because so many key factors have no consensus values. If it is really about 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏kind’s CO₂ emissions, then we have to have a consensus on the CARBON CYCLE of the planet, right?

    The consensus among scientists, as summarized by Hutchinson 1948, (also Slocum 1955, Fonselius 1956, Revelle & Suess 1958) was that the Carbon cycle was inherently self-regulating.

    Oh well, that’s the past.

    Mohammed 2021: “Despite great efforts over the last decade to assess … the global Carbon budget … is still subject to uncertainty and lacks consensus.”

    In the recent “Global Carbon Budget” diagrams, published by the same group, in the same journal, from 2020’s version, to the 2021 version, 10GtC moved from oceanic cycling, to land cycling. 1,000GtC just DISAPPEARED from the ocean’s inventory. … obviously no “consensus” there.

    The planet’s “Carbon Cycle” is affected by the amount of direct sunshine reaching the surface, and also, the amount of diffuse sunshine, such as sunshine seen through overcast skies, clouds, or aerosols. These affect plant photosynthesis, which is a key component of the Carbon cycle. Entwined in this, is the ENSO (El Niño) cycle, which has the largest impact on climate, that we witness, many times in one lifetime. ENSO affects the amount of cloud, which impacts the Carbon cycle.

    Alton 2008: “There is still no consensus on the impact of cloud on terrestrial Carbon sequestration.”

    Then, there is this paper:
    Chylek, Petr, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2018. “The Carbon cycle response to two El Niño types: an observational study.” Environmental Research Letters

    Chylek 2018: There is no consensus on whether El Niños will become more frequent under global warming (e.g. Taschetto 2014, Xu 2017).”

    Cai 2016: “The issue has challenged scientists for decades but there has been no consensus on how ENSO amplitude and frequency may change¹⁶ ¹⁷ ¹⁸.”

    Milkov 2004 tells us that the Carbon cycle is insufficiently known, so there can’t be a concensus: “It appears that the widely cited and used ‘consensus value’ … may represent a consensus, only for the estimates made in the late 1980s to early 1990s, …”

    Frank 2010: “But the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global Carbon cycle … is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections … Approximately 40% of the uncertainty related to projected warming … stems from the unknown behaviour of the Carbon cycle, … “

    Ahn 2012: Understanding the Carbon cycle is thus very important for accurately predicting, managing and adapting to future climate. The relationship between climate and the Carbon cycle remains incompletely understood, however.”

    There is NO CONSENSUS on the future sign, or magnitude, of the land Carbon cycle!

    Friedlingstein 2014: “The future of the landCarbon cycle is significantly more uncertain, even for a given RCP scenario. There is no overall agreement across models on the sign of the land Carbon sink by the end of the 21ˢᵀ Century, …”

    Goto 2017: “… our current understanding of the … global Carbon cycle, is still insufficient [e.g., Le Quéré., 2016].”

    Barker 2021: “The global atmospheric emission budgets of both CH₄ and CO₂ still remain uncertain, with the balance between total anthropogenic and biospheric sources and sinks yet to be fully understood and accounted for.”

  3. Charlie

    What explodes here multiple times is not a Pershing 2 missile, but a so-called “electric car”. This life-threatening moving pyre on four wheels, which is supposedly good for the environment, has made Elon Musk the richest man in the world.

    But the battery manufacturing process itself also involves considerable risks.

  4. soundos

    very good content!!!!!!!!

  5. Steven Cook

    It is true, the 97% consensus on climate change, which asserts that humans and animals, mainly humans, but animals too as we humans are actually animals too as we are mammals, are the primary cause of climate change here on our planet of Earth, is bogus. It’s been a bogus claim for years, even decades, possibly even longer. True, climate change is real. It is. I mean, are you kidding me?! Of course climate change is real. Climate change alarmists like to say that climate change deniers or skeptics deny the existence of climate change. That is not true and it is misleading. Climate change deniers or skeptics, such as myself, we don’t deny the existence of climate change. We just deny the fact that climate change is human-induced or animal-induced and that we believe that natural forces are the causes of climate change. That is what climate change denial or climate change skepticism means. Climate change is real. No doubt about it. But, it’s not because of us humans and animals here on Earth. Climate change on Earth has existed essentially since the planet was formed or created some 4.6 billion years ago(if you believe that), 6,000 years ago(if you are a Young Earth creationist Christian, which is what I am kind of), or whatever. Whatever your beliefs or religion is, climate change on Earth has existed essentially since the planet came to be. So how can we humans and animals be the causes of climate change on this planet if climate change has existed since it formed?! I don’t get it. And also, climate change exists on the trillions and trillions and trillions of other planets throughout the observable universe, including on planets with civilizations as well and animal ife and oceans too. And they too have experienced climate change since they formed too. What I am saying is that climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred since the beginning of time and will continue to occur until the end of time. Yes, we will have grand solar minimums and all that stuff too. In fact, the causes of the numerous mass extinctions that we have had on this planet Earth has not been due to global warming, but due to global cooling. Over 99% of all species, breeds, genera, families, subfamilies that have ever existed on Earth, not including the millions of them that exist today(though a lot of them are going extinct now or are endangered), but extinct ones, are now extinct, and more than half of them have been due to natural climate change, like global cooling caused by super colossal volcanic eruptions, etc. This percentage would be higher if you combine all of the other planets throughout the observable universe that have had animal life like ours, etc. The mass extinctions of the prehistoric megafauna species of animals during the last major ice age, for example, was caused by global cooling due to colossal volcanic activity, as well as a geomagnetic polar reversal known as the Gothenburg geomagnetic polar reversal, which caused more than 50% of species to go extinct. The mass extinctions of the dinosaurs is another example of this. Many say that an asteroid caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, there is concrete evidence that shows that a super colossal volcanic eruption caused the extinction of the dinosaurs too, or caused them to gradually die off. Either way, this caused more two-thirds of all species including the dinosaurs to go extinct, with the exception of all of the birds that exist today, the crocodilians, etc. So yes, climate change essentially has caused mass extinctions on Earth, including the major ones. But, it’s not global warming overall that has caused them. It’s global cooling, caused by super colossal volcanic activity or geomagnetic polar reversals or other natural phenomenon that is associated with natural climate change.

    And we do have extreme weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, etc on Earth too. Climate change alarmists assert that these extreme weather events are getting stronger or are becoming more intense or whatever their assertion maybe. However, extreme weather events of almost every kind have been in a state of decline in intensity and frequency in recent years and decades. Tornadoes, more specifically tornado activity, especially F-3 or higher, has been in a state of decline overall since the 1970s or 1950s. And this is true across the globe. Tropical cyclones, which are hurricanes, typhoons, etc, have also been declining in frequently and intensity overall globally, including in the region of Japan and surrounding areas. The Atlantic basin has seen a decline in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones since around the end of World War II to the last century or so and is still declining today. In fact, the IPCC even admitted that tropical cyclones will see a 25% decline in intensity and frequency over the rest of this century. Droughts, in particular drought intensity or severity, has also seen a decline in recent years and decades. Wildfires globally have been declining in frequently and intensity in recent years and decades too, in fact, within the last century and a half or so. Blizzards are the exception, as the rate of blizzards has increased since about 1995 across the Northern Hemisphere of Earth, which includes North America, most of Asia, much of Africa, Europe, The United States, China, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, The United Kingdom, etc, etc. And so on. It doesn’t mean that these extreme weather events that are declining in frequently and intensity are going to go away. Unfortunately, they will never go away. But, they will have a period of increasing activity and a period of decreased activity, these periods of which in certain cases would last years or decades. It’s all part of the natural phenomenon that is climate change and our planet, as well as the other planets throughout the observable universe too. This is something that climate change alarmists don’t want to talk about or even admit overall. No, they would rather much lie to you pretty much and continue to make their false climate predictions,some of which are some of the wackiest and weirdest ones that has ever came about. Like, there was this prediction that was made in 1969 or around there, by a university professor, who claimed, and I am not making this up, this is an actual prediction, that in 20 years, if we were lucky, everyone would die from a “cloud of blue steam”. I’m not kidding! This was an actual prediction that somebody at a university made in 1969 or around there! This is real. Obviously, this never happened, but it was a real prediction. I am not joking. So yeah, some of these climate predictions that they have made over the years and decades have been wacky, or weird, or just plain old wrong or even stupid. Like there’s also the prediction that they made that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas would all melt by 2035. Well, if more than 90% of all glaciers on Earth are stabilizing or are expanding and growing, like they actually are, then it would mean that none of those glaciers in the Himalayas, if not most of them, wouldn’t actually be melting right now. So yeah, climate change alarmists don’t know what they are talking about. But yet, they continue to assert their claims onto people and stuff like that. It’s ridiculous.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy