Thursday, October 27, 2016
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Secretary of State John Kerry recently warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, 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.”
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images
seedy unscientific reality behind the trillion-dollar global warming industry has been exposed a little more after one of the world's leading climate change research centers was caught reportedly stealing millions of taxpayer dollars for fraudulent research.
The prestigious London School of Economics recently bagged about $11 million from UK taxpayers in research grant money for its Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), an entity that has raised some $37 million since 2008. But after a little closer scrutiny, it appears that the research for which the center was awarded the massive infusion of dollars was actually not even conducted by CCCEP. Instead, it was allegedly "stolen" from rival researchers and some of it was conducted before the taxpayer money was handed over.
Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP," the Daily Caller explains. "The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were 'taken on trust,' according to the report."
The fraud was exposed by The Daily Mail, who spoke with one climate economics expert from Sussex University whose work was allegedly plagiarized by CCCEP.
"It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I've never come across anything like it before. It stinks," Professor Richard Tol told The Daily Mail. "Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP. At the time, the CCCEP did not exist, and it only came into existence after the paper was published. Fraud means deception for financial gain. That is what this is."
Several other damning realities of the climate change research funding racket are highlighted by the case, including the predetermined nature of the studies and the fact that as much as half of public sector funding depends on getting positive results. In other words, researchers have overwhelming financial incentive to "prove" their politically-charged, predetermined premises. As TheDC highlights, another particularly troubling aspect of research receiving public funds is that researchers do not have to disclose any ethical conflicts of interest.
Al Gore New Claim: Air Pollution Linked To Blood Vessel Damage In Healthy Young Adult, No CRACK COCAINE Can Cause Permanent Damage To Blood Vessels Of Ear And Brain, High Blood Pressure, Leading Up Heart Attacks, Strokes And Death; So No Air Pollution Is Not Cause Of Blood Vessel Damage, It's Smoking CRACK COCAINE Claim Debunked:
Al Gore New Claim: Air Pollution Linked To Blood Vessel Damage In Healthy Young Adult: Researchers Discover Root Cause Of Blood Vessel Damage In Diabetes? So No Air Pollution Is Not Cause Of Blood Vessel Damage, It Diabetes Claim Debunked:
A key mechanism that appears to contribute to blood vessel damage in people with diabetes has been identified by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
Blood vessel problems are a common diabetes complication. Many of the nearly 26 million Americans with the disease face the prospect of amputations, heart attack, stroke and vision loss because of damaged vessels.
Reporting in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the Washington University researchers say studies in mice show that the damage appears to involve two enzymes, fatty acid synthase (FAS) and nitric oxide synthase (NOS), that interact in the cells that line blood vessel walls.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooling'
THE Earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop by up to 60 per cent in the next 15 years.
May 2015 Coffee Catastrophe Beckons As Global Warming. Threatens Arabica Plant Study: Fungus That Devastated Coffee Crops Not Caused by Global Warming.
Cultivation of the arabica coffee plant, staple of daily caffeine fixes and economic lifeline for millions of small farmers, is under threat from climate change as rising temperatures and new rainfall patterns limit the areas where it can be grown, researchers have warned.
Arabica, which has long been prized for its delicate and aromatic flavour, accounts for 70% of the global coffee market share. But it is particularly sensitive to temperature increases, which reduce its growth, flowering and fruiting and make it more susceptible to coffee pests.
With global temperatures forecast to increase by 2C-2.5C over the next few decades, a report predicts that some of the major coffee producing countries will suffer serious losses, reducing supplies and driving up prices
A study published Monday in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B debunked reports that climate change is responsible for a plant fungus that devastated coffee crops in Colombia.
“Media reports have linked coffee leaf rust — also known as CLR or roya — with climate change, but the new research finds ‘no evidence’ for this,” an article published Monday in the Science Magazine stated.
The study titled, “Modelling coffee leaf rust risk in Colombia with climate reanalysis data,” stated: “We focus particularly on Colombia, one of the world's largest coffee producers with around one million hectares under cultivation, primarily of the high-value species. CLR is endemic to the centre of origin of coffee in Ethiopia, but has spread to all coffee-growing regions, reaching Brazil by 1970, and Colombia by 1983.
“Since then, CLR damage has varied among countries and from year to year. Mean annual production in Colombia is around 60 000 tonnes, which declined by around 40% from 2008 to 2011, increasing again thereafter,” the study stated.
Researchers tested the hypotheses “that (i) the weather was responsible for a recent outbreak of CLR in Colombia and (ii) that climate change increased the probability of weather conditions favourable to CLR.”
“While CLR infection risk was elevated in 2008–2011 in coffee-growing regions of Colombia, we found no compelling evidence for a large increase in predicted infection risk over the period in which the CLR outbreak is reported to have been most severe, and no long-term trend in risk from 1990 to 2015,” the study concluded.
“Therefore, we conclude that while weather conditions in 2008–2011 may have slightly increased the predicted risk of CLR infection, long-term climate change is unlikely to have increased disease risk,” it added.
“We found a decline in mean daily LWD from around 2012–2015 and a resulting decline in daily CLR risk, suggesting that weather conditions have become less favourable for CLR in recent years. It is possible that this drying helped to bring the epidemic to a close,” the study found.