Just about everyone on the alarmist side of the climate debate, from President Obama down, repeats the mantra “97% of scientists agree with the IPCC position”. Some say “97% of scientists can’t be wrong” (which defies the whole history of scientific research and discovery, by the way). My critics on social media sneer “So you know better than 97% of scientists, do you? Are you a climate scientist?”.
Of course the “research” that established the “97% of scientists” claim has been comprehensively debunked, not least by Christopher Monckton, whose guest blog on the subject I published in 2014. See also here and here. It was a reprehensible piece of work apparently designed as propaganda, not science.
Now a new study, by the Dutch Government’s PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, no less, finds that fewer than half of climate scientists support the IPCC claim that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. That conclusion remains true even when “don’t knows” are excluded. The agency invited 6550 scientists who were working in climate and related fields for their views. 1868 replied (over 28%). There is of course always a possibility of bias (either way) based on who chose to respond. Nonetheless the overall figures are striking, and difficult to dispute. Only 43% agreed with the IPCC position, a figure that rose to 47% with the exclusion of “don’t knows”.
Breitbart covers this story in more detail. Worth a read:
So let’s hear no more of the 97% nonsense.
There will be those who say that if even 40+% of scientists believe that the IPCC may be right, then we should be pursuing climate mitigation as an “insurance policy”. No we should not. First, because the cost of the premium is higher than the risk (at least in most studies other than Stern); second because the vastly expensive policies we are putting in place cannot possibly have a significant effect of the trajectory of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature (even if you accept the IPCC position); and third, because by driving energy-intensive businesses to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, we not only undermine our own economies, but arguably increase global CO2 emissions.
Roger Helmer MEP 
Ah yes:
Not really..if you look at the Global Warming Petition Project (USA). And of course little like that exists here in UK.
( http://www.petitionproject.org )
Anyway. it really is meaningless when the contributors to the IPCC had no say in the final policy. Except those saying the right things…sort of?
Ah yes:
Not really..if you look at the Global Warming Petition Project (USA). And of course little like that exists here in UK.
http://www DOT petitionproject DOT org
Anyway, it really is meaningless when the contributors to the IPCC had no say in the final policy. Except those saying the right things…sort of?
Ah yes:
Not really..if you look at the Global Warming Petition Project (USA). And of course little like that exists here in UK.
www DOT petitionproject DOT org
Anyway, it really is meaningless when the contributors to the IPCC had no say in the final policy. Except those saying the right things…sort of?
Power Corrupts: Selfishness Threatens the Survival of Humanity
There is no limit on lies the most powerful humans tell to avoid admitting Copernicus discovered an even more powerful fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system in 1543:
1. Five hundred years ago the Pope, the most powerful human on Earth, tried
2. Now, world tyrants with publicly-funded, 97%-consensus “scientists” also try
to hide the powerful pulsar at the core of the Sun that
3. Made our chemical elements
4. Birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago
5. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.5 Ga ago, and
6. Still controls every atom, life and planet in the entire solar system today
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
I.e., the SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION was:
1. Almost aborted 500 years ago
2. Effectively aborted 70 years ago
3. Given a second chance 6 years ago by release of the Climategate emails!
Anything from the pen of a person who believes that the UK should invade France because of his perception that the French are not doing enough to alleviate the so called migrant crisis must surely be questionable.
Go away FFS !
You cannot make this up.
With all the money being “thrown” at this subject I would not have been amazed if the IPCC had come up with 99.9%.
The things people will do to stay on the gravy train.
All these computer generated facts and figures keep people in jobs.
Eventually the truth will out. Then watch them run and hide.
It is the same with our politicians and membership of the EU. Any sane person would conclude that The EU is destroying Europe and turning it into an economic basket case but still the politicos want to remain in whatever the cost.
maybe one day the truth will out and we will be able to see what CMD and the like are really playing at.
It looks like Hinckley C may be postponed or cancelled because of the ridiculous feed in price for the power and the challenges from various groups.
You know we never hear anyone saying that mankind had nothing to do with the formation of the Universe; that it was through the natural process of the evolution of the planet that mankind eventually arrived; that mankind has evolved as the planet evolved and has contributed NOTHING to such evolution; that the planet and its natural environment of gasses, and movement within its sphere of activity, has created climate, geography, eco-systems and EVERYTHING that we have learned about ourselves and the Galaxy wherein we exist. All this has brought ice ages, warm ages, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, changes to the overall Earth environment that have been mind-blowingly fantastic, and mankind has had not one jot to do with any of this for Billions of years.
Now, a group of scientists hell-bent on obtaining funding for their never ending ‘research’ have suggested that some excess carbon dioxide created by mankind’s endeavours will cause a warming effect that will result in the end of the Earth as it is known to us. This theory which had been named Global Warming came to an end when the computer models they had set up were proved wrong when warming ended two decades ago. So they had a quick look round and saw some climatic changes occurring and changed their alarm to Climate Change.
Warming was still occurring but had all somehow gone into the deep ocean, which their original modeling had not projected but we need to trust they are as correct in this as they were about the warming continuity.
Of course the climate is changing! It has been changing ever since the atmosphere on the planet began to establish itself. it has changed dramatically and dangerously, as with the ice ages, and benignly, as with the Medieval Warming Period. Nature (the Planet) has always baffled mankind with its vaguiaries throughout the long and troubled existence of the Planet itself.
The World will warm, and it will freeze, whenever the dictates of its complicated and unpredictable atmospheric and geological nature require it to do so. A little extra carbon dioxide may contribute to an earlier, or later, excess of whatever the Planet decides it needs to do. No scientist scratching for additional funds is going to prevent this. Whatever the Planet elects to do, it WILL do. There is not a thing puny mankind can do to slow, accelerate, or prevent this.
So why don’t we just get on with making the best of what we have, and enjoy it while we can? Who knows when it all may suddenly end?
Bill in Oz
Pingback: The idiots! | Roger Helmer MEP