Showing posts with label Climatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climatism. Show all posts

3.04.2019

Disabusing the 97% claim




Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Excerpt:

The 97% figure has been disputed and vigorously defended, with emotional arguments and counterarguments published in a number of papers. Although the degree of consensus is only one of several arguments for anthropogenic climate change – the statements of professional societies and evidence presented in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are others – there is data to suggest that support is lower. In this post, I attempt to determine whether the 97% consensus is fact or fiction.

The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.

In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.

The most influential and most debated article was the 2013 paper by Cook, et al., which popularized the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content. I do not intend to reopen the debate over this paper. Instead, let’s consider it along with some of the numerous other surveys available.

Reviews of published surveys were published in 2016 by Cook and his collaborators and by Richard S. J. Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex. The 2016 Cook paper, which reviews 14 published analyses and includes among its authors Oreskes and several authors of the papers shown in the chart below, concludes that the scientific consensus “is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.” The chart shows the post-2000 opinions summarized in Table 1 of the paper. Dates given are those of the survey, not the publication date. I’ve added a 2016 survey of meteorologists from George Mason University and omitted the Oreskes article.

... Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent.

Comment: It's repeated so much ...

From 1989:








Posted by Jim Peet at 3/04/2019 05:28:00 PM 1 comments

Labels: , , , , ,

4.01.2018

The Star Tribune's "Climate Change" Mania







Climate change in Minnesota creates septic tank headaches



Excerpt:

Frozen septic systems are emerging as an unexpected consequence of climate change in Minnesota — one that is bedeviling homeowners across the state and could soon cost taxpayers more for the repair and maintenance of fragile rural roads. The cause is a dramatic long-term decline in insulating snow early in November and December. Combined with still-freezing conditions, that drives the frost line deep underground — well below septic pipes and drain fields. As a result, thousands of the half-million Minnesotans whose homes, cabins or businesses rely on underground septic tanks are facing a costly solution: pump their tanks more often and use their showers, washing machines, dishwashers and toilets less. And this year isn’t the worst in a recent history of freeze-ups, septic haulers say. The problem grows especially acute in March and April because Minnesota imposes local road weight restrictions for heavy trucks like the massive septic “honey wagons.” That can leave homeowners stranded as they watch their septic tanks fill up with nowhere for the liquid to go. Except back in the house.
High water opens sinkholes, shifts foundations in south Minneapolis



Excerpt:

Jerry Mullin, who presented Wednesday night on behalf of the Lake Hiawatha area, said the problems there are similar to those around Nokomis. He cited sinkholes, settling houses and streets that stay flooded for days. “The common thread is that we have serious groundwater high-water table issues in this part of the watershed,” he said. “And it’s not well understood as to why these problems have arisen in the last five years.” In a letter to the DNR, Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, said heavy rains will become more common due to climate change. She also highlighted a number of infrastructure changes affecting the water flow. “I’ve represented this area for a long time,” Wagenius said. “People are telling me this has never happened before. And I’ve never heard of it before, either. So I trust what I’m hearing.”
Duluth's hidden creeks, under buildings and roads, increasing cause for worry



Excerpt:

Greys Creek is one of 44 named streams trickling and sometimes gushing their way down Duluth’s steep hill toward the great lake. Early developers who valued land in the heart of the city simply built tunnels over parts of the streams, covering them up so they could erect buildings over them. “It was all about usable space and property a long time ago,” explained Todd Carlson, program coordinator in the city’s engineering department. But age and greater water flow caused by climate change and development up the hill have increasingly turned the tunnels into a maintenance worry for city utilities staff. If the wrong section fails during a storm, it can back up streams and cause flooding or undermine roads and create sinkholes. It’s a prominent issue during spring snow melt and heavy summer rains.
Comments: Image top is the cover of Steve Goreham's The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism. The Star Tribune takes every opportunity to blame Climate Change! As Captain Renault famously stated Round up the usual suspects.

Posted by Jim Peet at 4/01/2018 10:15:00 AM 0 comments

Labels: , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)