Ted Cruz Presses Sierra Club On Global Warming Pause

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/06/ted-cruz-presses-sierra-club-on-global-warming-pause-video/

 

Cruz then asked again if Mair was unwilling to answer the question. The Sierra Club chief replied, “We concur with the preponderance of the evidence — you’re asking me if we’ll take 3 percent over the 97 percent? Of course not.”

 

After a repeated back-and-forth, an exasperated Cruz concluded, “You know, Mr. Mair, I find it striking that for a policy organization that purports to focus exclusively on environmental issues, that you are not willing to tell this committee that you would issue a retraction if your testimony is objectively false under scientific data. That undermines the credibility of any organization.”

 

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/06/ted-cruz-presses-sierra-club-on-global-warming-pause-video/#ixzz3ntV3HS2s…

‘It’s All Wrong’: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol slams media for false claims about alleged 97% consensus

Climate Depot Exclusive

Convening UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol, a Professor at the University of Sussex, has been in a back and forth battle with the global warming promoting website Politifact. Tol is demanding corrections to their articles claiming that GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s debunking of the alleged 97% consensus was “false.”

Tol’s full email exchanges with the Politifact website are published in full with permission from Tol further down below.

Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano sent the below email to Politifact explaining the error of their ways on the 97% consensus.

#

Morano’s full email to Politifact: 

From: Marc Morano
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:54 PM
Subject: You need to correct your Santorum ‘false’ claim on 97% consensus!
To: [email protected]

Hi Linda,

I run the Climate Depot and will have a new theatrical climate documentary coming out this fall (Climate Hustle www.ClimateHustle.com)

I watched Santorum on Bill Maher’s HBO show and then I read your ‘false’ review of his claims.

1) First off, Santorum accurately claimed that one of the studies claiming 97% did in fact rely on only 75 scientists!

See: The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists  – http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

&

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf – The 97% consensus is 75 out of 77.

In other words, according to this study, the 97% consensus was not even 97 scientists!

Do your homework! Santorum correctly cited this study.

2) Second, Santorum accurately referred to UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol. Santorum said: “The 97 percent figure that’s thrown around, the head of the IPCC  said that number was pulled out of thin air.”

That is exactly what Dr. Tol told the U.S. Congress in testimony in 2014. See: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’

Tol’s research http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024 found  that only 64 papers (out of about 12,000) supported the alleged “consensus.” Somehow the author John Cook makes 64 papers into a 97% ‘consensus’ out  of 12,000.

So Santorum was correct again, accurately cited Tol’s comment. (Yes, You can ding Santorum for mixing up Dr. Tol’s position as “the head of IPCC”. But Tol is a UN IPCC Lead Author.)

3) Thirdly, You take Santorum to task for citing the survey of 1800 international scientists. But Santorum accurately cited the study

Survey of 1800 scientists: The ‘97% consensus’ is now 43% – ‘Less than half of climate scientists agree with UN IPCC ‘95%’ certainty’

Via: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen et al shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.

Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quotes a lot of gray literature itself, as Donna LaFramboise found.)

Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.

The IPCC AR5 Statement:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.

Climate scientists, survey, consensus, 97%, certainty,

Climate Scientists, consensus, survey, 97%, 43%, certainty

The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I daresay, would be much less likely to use the …

Clinton spoofs GOP’s ‘mad scientists’ in video

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/249309-clinton-spoofs-gops-mad-scientists

 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is out with a new video panning the Republican presidential field as “mad scientists” who deny the effects of climate change.

 

The new spot centers on the use of the phrase “I’m not a scientist” by Republican candidates when discussing climate change.

 

“Faced with the threat of climate change, Republicans repeat one chilling phrase: I am not a scientist,” the spot says, before running down instances where former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), and Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) all said the line.

 

“Feel the terror as they deny established science,” the video continues, as video of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), and Donald Trump all push back against the idea that humans cause global warming or that there’s action that can be taken to prevent it.

 

“And the scariest part? One of these mad (not a) scientists could be president,” the ad closes.

 …

‘Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported’

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/claim-that-97-of-scientists-support-climate-alarm-cannot-be-supported
Cook, being a PhD student in psychology with a background in communication studies, is hardly in a position to dismiss the membership of the American Meteorological Society as “fake experts.” As to fakery, I would refer readers to the analysis of Cook’s work by social psychologist Jose Duarte, noting that the word “fraud” appears 21 times in that essay alone, and it is not even the harshest of Duarte’s essays on Cook’s discredited methods. Economist Richard Tol has also published detailed excoriations of Cook’s work at as well as in the peer-reviewed literature, as have others.…