Meteorologist Anthony Watts responds to Dana Nuccitelli: Watts: ‘Nuccitelli thinks that a Carbon Tax is the solution. In a hilariously swivel-eyed op-ed he managed to get published at the Sacramento Bee,Viewpoints: Climate debate is settled; carbon tax is vital where the editorial board didn’t take note of the slow motion discrediting of his claims about the so called 97% scientific consensus, Nuccitelli beams: ‘One of the most effective solutions – a revenue-neutral carbon tax’ — The only thing a Carbon Tax will command in California, is a mass exodus of business.’
Background on the fallacy of the new 97% ‘Consensus’ study:
Retraction Watch: Warmist John Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them — ‘When asked about the categorizations of Cook et al, – ‘It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming’
Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, “It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming”: ‘Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as ‘endorsing AGW’, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors’
‘The 97% consensus claim – a lie of epic proportions’ – Warmist John Cook’s study exposed
Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed by Hackers
Forbes Mag.: Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims
Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed by Hackers — ‘In a forum thread titled, “Introduction to TCP” (2012-01-19) John Cook layed out the game plan for the 97% consensus study, Cook et al. (2013)…Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers – and make regular announcements like ‘hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes’ — Ari Jokimaki responded to Cook, ‘I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).’ – Ari Jokimäki
1970: 97% Of Experts Agreed That We Would All Be Starving By The Year 2000 — ‘Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.’ — Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Tol statistically deconstructs Cook’s the 97% Consensus study — Calls study’s ‘sampling strategy a load of nonsense’ — Tol: ‘Including ‘global’ before ‘climate change’, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution…Including ‘global’ before ‘climate change’, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.’ — ‘Including “global” before ‘climate change’, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers’
Forbes Mag.: Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims
Warmist turns on UN IPCC, accuses IPCC lead author of ‘behaving like’ Marc Morano: Warmist Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol over that alleged ’97% consensus’ paper — Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981: @richardabetts ‘@richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper’
The Cook ‘97% consensus’ study comes further
Barack Obama: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’ (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)
Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming — But Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’ — ‘What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process…New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable’ — ‘The number of papers is a proxy for funding’: ‘As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned’
Nonsensus: Warmists proclaim bogus survey proves 97% ‘consensus’ — ‘It truly is a CONsensus’
Media ignores fatal flaw of study: ‘‘There were almost 12,000 studies — two-thirds of which (i.e, 8,000) expressed no opinion. What consensus?‘
What Consensus? Two-thirds of climate studies (8,000) from 1991-2011 take no position on cause of global warming — ‘An inconvenient fact from a new study attempting to bolster the 97% consensus myth’
