Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed
Perhaps the most common argument used when urging action on climate change is the appeal to scientific authority. Previously this was accomplished by pointing at the IPCC, but since they have lost a significant portion of their credibility recently it has become more frequent to point out the scientists themselves. The most common claim that I encounter is a variation on this claim:
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
I recently heard this claim on my own threads. I looked at the source (the study Doran and Zimmerman 2009), found some problems, and then wrote back on my threads. However, I have seen this claim so many times that I believe it would be good to make a post about it. I also e-mailed several prominent climate scientists who would be considered 'skeptics' to get their opinions on the study. Their responses are displayed at the end of the post. In this post I briefly comment on past responses to the study, then break my post into three sections. The first will focus on the flaw in the study (the second question), the second will look at the motives of the researcher, and the third will be posting responses from prominent 'skeptical' climate scientists.
Nearly 100 ‘Climate Education Programs’ funded by NASA, NOAA, NSF & EPA
Four Federal agencies are funding at least 95 'Climate education programs'. These programs are specifically designed to influence students, teachers, and the public in general about climate change. Based on their summaries (which I will share) these programs are not intended to present information and let the public decide for themselves. Instead, they are designed for two goals. One, to influence the public to accept and take action on climate change. Two, to increase the future workforce involved in climate change fields. I will take each agency in turn, look at their stated goals, then look through some of the programs they have funded.
To be very clear, these programs do not further climate research. They are not studying the atmosphere or oceans. They are not studying clouds or albedo. We know nothing more about the state of our climate from these programs. Their sole purpose is education.
I'm going to explain my own view shortly. I do believe that the climate is changing, and that humans have had a minor role in this occurring. I do not believe that the future of the planet is in jeopardy. I object to these programs for multiple reasons, but one main contention is the fact that they all make the assumption that future climate change is overwhelmingly negative and that we absolutely must take serious action now. These programs all appear to assume catastrophic warming will occur unless action is taken. Enough of what I think. Look at the programs yourselves and see what you conclude.
NASA Targets Children with ‘Climate Kids’ Website
The climate is changing as it always has. Most climate scientists are unable to conceive of any natural cause for this change, and they claim that human emissions of CO2 are the cause. The evidence of increasing temperature is abundant, the evidence that human emissions are causing this increase is weak. Climate scientists rely on modeling to support their claims. These models are incomplete and inaccurate, but they claim that if you take the average of these incomplete and inaccurate models you will get the correct climate sensitivity. Even then, when you apply this sensitivity to the past it does not work. Unless of course, you factor in aerosols, which is essentially guesswork. Bottom line is this: the reasons behind the changing climate are not well understood (by anyone).
You don't get that impression from NASA's 'Climate Kids' website.
What you must believe to be afraid of climate change
In order to fear climate change, there are several beliefs you must hold.
1. CO2 drives temperature change
This is a the central belief of the AGW theory. If you don't believe CO2 controls temperature, then the increase in mankind's emission poses no threat.
2. Strong positive feedbacks exist
Even if you believe that CO2 drives temperature change, this isn't enough. Without strong positive feedbacks the temperature increase is minimal. The fear from future climate change arises from the belief that the slight temperature increase will lead to positive feedbacks (such as water vapor) that will further increase the temperature.
3. The temperature record is reliable
The .7c degree increase over the last century is usually considered proof of the AGW theory. After all, CO2 emission have risen quite a bit in the last 50 years, so temperature should have risen as well. To use this evidence, the temperature record must be taken as valid.
4. Life on earth is not very adaptable
If you fear climate change, then you must believe that it will negatively affect life on the planet. This assumes that life will be unable to adequately adapt to the future change in temperature.
Conclusion
This isn't an exhaustive list and there may be some who fear climate change who don't hold all four of these tenets. However, if you throw out any one point then fearing climate change makes little sense. If CO2 doesn't drive temperature change, then increasing CO2 isn't a problem. If there are no positive feedbacks, then the minimal rise in temperature from CO2 isn't a threat. If you don't believe the temperature record, then there is absolutely no observational evidence for the AGW theory. If you believe that life on planet earth is sufficiently adaptable, then an increase in temperature isn't something to fear.
I would simply point out that CO2 hasn't driven temperaturesin the past, positive feedbacks are completely theoretical and very controversial, the temperature record is notoriously unreliable, and planet earth has already shown its incredible adaptivity in the past through several ice ages and other temperature fluxes.
Don't fear climate change.
IPCC reviewers pointed out wildfire mistake, ignored by authors
In a previous post I mentioned that the IPCC's claim of reduced tourism due to wildfires (section 14.2.7 of WGII) didn't match their source. They claimed there were millions of dollars in tourism losses, but their source did not make that claim. One of the reasons the claim was false was explained in their own source, a British Columbia Tourism newsletter. It said:
It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the fires is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.
More DEFRA advocacy for climate change
Back in Feb. I posted about how the UK government Agency Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had asked the UEA specifically for 'headline' socio-economic indicators linked to climate change, in order to create 'public resonance'. I noticed this emphasis on climate change again recently.
After looking around the documents section of the CRU leak/hack, I noticed a few interesting PDFs. Both were made by (or with) DEFRA. The first is named "Your guide to Communicating Climate Change", and the second is named "Rules of the Game : Evidence base for the Climate Change Communications Strategy" They both are guides for how to communicate the dangers of climate change to others. Let's look at some excerpts, first from 'Your Guide':
Four reasons why Obama is wrong on climate change
Obama talked briefly about climate change the other day. He seemed tired, and he certainly didn't show any command of the issue. Here is the video:
- Reason 1: It isn't just conservatives
Obama starts off by saying "When the conservatives..." Yes, lots of conservatives are skeptical of climate change, but to imply that all conservatives are skeptics or that all skeptics are conservatives is false.
- Reason 2: Snow doesn't disprove climate change, but lack of snow proves climate change
Obama claims that the five feet of snow in DC shouldn't be used as evidence against climate change. He then uses the lack of snow in Vancouver as evidence for climate change. Oops
UK government asked UEA to create climate ‘headline’
In looking through more of the AR4 references, I came across an old site created by the UK's Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) about the 'Indicators of Climate Change in the UK'. The site was created in 1999, and last updated in 2003. I was wandering around the site, marveling at their outdated information, and I found an interesting document. It is entitled:
Review of UK Climate Change Indicators
Contract EPG 1/1/158
June 2003
(Revised Jan 2004)
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
It then lists the main contractors and the subcontractors. The University of East Anglia CRU is one of the subcontractors. Here is the rationale in their words for the report:
An update of the current set of UK indicators was also necessary, along with a reappraisal to assess whether :
- the original set of indicators was still appropriate;
- new indicators should be devised;
- indicators should be removed from the set
More WWF citations found in AR3, three alongside CRU
Yesterday I looked in AR3 and found more Greenpeace citations. Today, I read about the WWF being cited in AR4, so I decided to look again at AR3. I found fifteen WWF citations, and interestingly enough three of them were done together with the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia.
The first is found twice, once in section 5.2.2. Current Models of Ecosystem Change and the second in 15.2.6. Tourism and Recreation of Working Group II:
"Box 5-2. Illustration of Use and Limitation of Ecosystem Movement Models
The study by Malcolm and Markham (2000) is a good example of modeling that uses the ecosystem movement paradigm, but it also demonstrates the inherent weaknesses of the approach."
"Moreover, a global analysis of habitat change resulting from climate change found that more than 50% of the territory of seven Canadian provinces and greater than 33% of the territory in 11 U.S. states are at risk (Malcolm and Markham, 2000)."
Malcolm and Markham are referenced as such:
Malcolm, J.R. and A. Markham, 2000: Global Warming and Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline. World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, 34 pp
Osama Bin Laden: Climate change is real and the US is to blame
Osama Bin Laden is all over the news this morning, on Drudge, Yahoo, WaPo, CBS, New York Times, and other sites. What did the terrorist do to warrant such headlines?
He talked about climate change. He blamed mostly the United States, and called for a boycott of our goods. Osama Bin Laden apparently has read the IPCC reports, because he claims:
"Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact"
He said that the only way to stop climate change is to:
"bring the wheels of the American economy to a halt"
Much of what he said sounds no different than any other climate alarmist:
"He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change." - Source
Could Osama Bin Laden have possibly become less relevant? He has mentioned climate change before, but never released an entire recording about it. He waits until now to do so? I'm not sure the alarmists really need Osama Bin Laden on their side.
I do believe that this is actually very fitting for the near future of climate science. Soon only those who live in caves will believe in man-made climate change.
ClimateQuotes.com
- Background on Greenpeace/IPCC Author Sven Teske
- Biochemist Climate Skeptic in a Laundromat
- An excellent article from William Happer
- Fear of climate change is harming children
- IPCC: Half of Renewable Energy is Wood, Charcoal, and Animal Dung
- Debunking debunking
- Power Shift participant: Join our fad because it is AWESOME!
- A tour of Grist’s Earth Confessions website
- Epic Romm Romp
- Climate Scientists Answer Question: Should climate sensitivity be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly?
Recent Comments
- Evan on Biochemist Climate Skeptic in a Laundromat
- J.Doherty on Fear of climate change is harming children
- tuba on AR4 makes false claim about Bangladesh mangroves
- tuba on AR4 makes false claim about Bangladesh mangroves
- Mike Everet on Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed
Pages
- About us
- Celebrities
- Climate Scientists Answer Question: Should climate sensitivity be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly?
- Draft
- Just kidding
- Politicians
- Scientists
- The Media
Climate skeptics
- Climate Audit
- Climate Change Dispatch
- Climate Depot
- Climate Sanity
- Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr
- Climate Skeptic
- CO2 Science
- Haunting the Library
- ICECAP
- Junk Science
- The Air Vent
- Watts Up With That?