Consensus? What Consensus!

Not PC and Forbes

Global warming catastrophists like to claim that 98% of the worlds scientists “agree” that climate change is going to kill us all unless we do “something”. Turns out that consensus figure is a complete joke.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Jimmie

    Consensus eh?

    Once upon a time it was the scientific consensus that the earth was flat

    Also that the sun revolved around the earth

    Also that bleeding a sick person was wonderful for their health.

    Also that blood was continuously manufactured by the body and then dispersed.

    That a doctor with much blood on his white coat was the a sign of a good doctor.

    That in a post mortem if a body’s organs were structured differently to what the ancients had described, the body was wrong and the ancients were right.

    I’m sure this list could be added to muchly……

    Or in NZ that farmers that dosed cows with zinc would not prevent facial excema

    What you don’t hear of a lot is this:
    A scientist announced today surprising scientific findings into a particular problem.
    This finding means that the same said scientist does not need any more funding to do further research into this problem and that the same scientist says that he is packing his bags and is off to find a job in the private sector.

    I haven’t heard too many stories like this at all – I wonder why?

    • Phar Lap

       Brilliant !

    • Neil

      Thanks Jimmie – saved me some typing……love your work!!!

  • Horace the Grump

    Hmmm…  hear what Aristotle has to say about the fallacy of consensus…  just because a lot of people are saying it doesn’t make it true…   in other words good scientific process is not a popularity contest, which is what the so called consensus over ‘global warming’ has defended into.

    Sometimes I just hate people.

    • Mediaan

      Horace, great to offer you membership in the soon to be formed People Haters” Club.

      Membership so far is one, me.

      Kindly person last night – on hearing I hated people – asked why I didn’t join a People Haters’ Club.

  • Isumbras

    See also The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World’s top climate Scientist, by Donna Laframboise…. 

    she explodes the consensus myth as well as zeroing in on the bed wetters at the IPCC… If you’re thinking Einstein looking dudes who have been around a lab for 50 years… think again… a disturbing number of these so called lead authors consist of lefty ideologues – but I repeat myself – finishing off their doctorates, still doing grad work or fairly recently having collected a PhD. And there are not that many of them cooking all this up.There is some window dressing, but you’ll be surprised at how many are hipster douchbag types…

  • Glenn

    Significant it is, that nearly 8000 of those polled saw this for the  shite it is and didn’t respond.  Those that weren’t so astute filled it in and sent it back…

    • Liberty

      “that weren’t so astute”

      Then you get a really
      bright spark like Nick Smith.  One of NZ
      best MPs being  sucked in with this twaddle. 

      • parorchestia

         Politicians have to have a trusting relationship with their officials, and since NIWA believes in GW then it is obvious why they believe. Nicky Wagner is also a believer.
        The jury is still out as there are major discrepancies between the different ways of measuring the effects. Eg, satellite sea level measurements give mean sea level as having risen significantly, up to 1.5 m (which is preposterous) but ground/sea level measures show there has been no rise in sea level at all.
        I have tried to convince our politicians that we should be cautious followers, not naive leaders in such an issue that is likely to deeply damage our economy. But they counter with saying we must preserve our clean and green image. What crap! We have one of the grubbiest countries on earth with one of the most disfunctional tourist industries. It can’t get any worse!

  • Polishpride – V

    That the thing with statistics – what they don’t show is often more important than what they do show.
    Whether you subscribe to the existence of man made climate change or not, the whole exercise has been good for forcing people to think about the impacts of actions on the environment and look at are there better ways of doing things. It has also empowered the individual as a consumer to make choices around products they do and don’t buy and has forced many corporates to rethink their practices to meet the demands of the conscientious consumer. Cadbury was a stunnIng example of this.

    • Dublej

      Its called “the market”….its been doing that like…..forever….

      • Polishpride

        queue applause…

    • Magoo.

      The whole exercise has been good for extorting money from hard working people and flushing it down the toilet for no reason whatsoever. Nothing good has come of this fraud, especially when the UN ends up handing out other peoples money.

      • Neil

        That’s my biggest bitch about this – raiders so fast to see a way to make shitloads of money for their own pockets from nothing……

  • Steve and Monique

    Consensus=All the global warming scare tactics are bullshit ??.

  • AnonWgtn

    Isn’t NIWA being questioned about their starting database being adjusted upwards to show a greater downward trend ?
    It would appear that the NIWA ex employee Jim Salinger may have had a hand in this – and the media still go to him for comment.

  • Graeme

    Take the money out of the equation and see the whole farce disappear