# Where does the "97% agree with GW" number come from? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 20, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265 "2012-03-20T00:16:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/41 "2012-03-23T20:13:50Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > And I think you are purposely ignoring the manipulation of peer review and access to journals that has been well documented by the “Climategate emails”. (And this is another example of where if you just look a little further, it all goes bad.) > > Many publications cover this - here is one quote: > "But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the “peer review” process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing. You don’t appear to have understood what I wrote. We’re not talking about people who have published articles on GW, we’re talking about people who have published articles in the area of climate science. Are you contending that somehow doubters were excluded before the subject even came up? Are you contending that someone who is a doubter is being excluded from publishing in other areas? Your quote sounds just like some made by creationists, pissed at supposedly being excluded from biology journals. It turns out they never actually submitted much. I’ve written hundreds of reviews and have read thousands. Being human, we sometimes laugh at particularly bad papers. I’ve been given papers to review apologetically, with the editor knowing full well the thing is a piece of crap. I’ve mostly resisted being snarky in reviews but sometimes not in the confidential notes to the editor/program chair. If you are going up against what 97% of qualified experts believe, you have to do a better job. I’ve actually published a paper going up against what was then a very popular technique. I was careful to do a good job - and I discovered that more people were doubters than expected. I am sure that a well evidenced-well reasoned doubting paper would get published, but unsupported badly reasoned papers won’t be - and might get laughed at. And that’s okay with me. But the supposed bar to publication has nothing to do with the validity of the poll. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/42 "2012-03-23T23:39:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Keep showing all how an ignorant you are of how surveys work, there is no reason to assume that those levels of consensus are not there, specially when others did check too. “There is no reason to belieive…” isn’t science. The paper is science and it is clear. 97% is only from 80 out of 1300. For the rest it is low-90s%. Still you resist the MOST IMPORTANT POINT I’m making, agaon, is that even if the consensus is 100% it’s about: a) Temperatures have increased from 1800 b) Humans have played a significant role (I wholeheartedly agree with both) But ir isn’t about: a) ammount of temperature rise past, present, and future b) possible damages/benefits for temperature increase c) accepting the levels of forcings or its sign d) how to prevent damage/ increase benefit e) cost-benefit analyses of what, if any, to do. 97% is not about IPCC4. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/43 "2012-03-23T23:48:43Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “There is no reason to belieive…” isn’t science. And that is why it was checked and confirmed, there is no need to believe, the fact of the super majority is based on the science of polls and statistics. BTW the “MOST IMPORTANT” point you are making is not important for the question at hand, that was answered and confirmed, so stop relying on ad nauseam points. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/44 "2012-03-25T03:06:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is why it was checked and confirmed, there is no need to believe, the fact of the super majority is based on the science of polls and statistics. > > BTW the “MOST IMPORTANT” point you are making is not important for the question at hand, that was answered and confirmed, so stop relying on ad nauseam points. It is, because it’s a lie to say “97% of climate scientists agree with IPCC4”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/45 "2012-03-25T03:49:12Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > But ir isn’t about: > a) ammount of temperature rise past, present, and future > b) possible damages/benefits for temperature increase > c) accepting the levels of forcings or its sign > d) how to prevent damage/ increase benefit > e) cost-benefit analyses of what, if any, to do. > > 97% is not about IPCC4. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The name alone should be a clue. It is not itself science. It is a series of policy recommendations. One hopes that policy recommendations would be based on the best available scientific consensus, but policy is policy, not science. Confusing the two is what is called a category error. > [@](#): > > It is, because it’s a lie to say “97% of climate scientists agree with IPCC4”. And that’s why this statement is wrong, because as Askance noted in post #4, the claim is that the leading experts in the field affirm the underlying tenets of the science on which future change would be based, not that they agree with every policy recommendation. The difference is absolutely fundamental to this argument. ---
**Author:** ![Woodenspoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bc79bd/32.png) [@Woodenspoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Woodenspoon)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/46 "2012-03-25T13:53:40Z")
The way I see it, none of it matters because 100% of them have no viable solution. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/47 "2012-03-25T15:20:55Z")
> [@Woodenspoon](#): > > The way I see it, none of it matters because 100% of them have no viable solution. And that is because that is not their job. They report on what they find and the overwhelming evidence is that humans are the main contributor to the recent warming, as pointed out before we should be concentrating on what to do as the experts have basically stopped to discuss about the basics, but that is anathema to many, so deniers double down on attempting to claim that there is a huge controversy among the scientists or that we have to wait. We should then concentrate on what to do and for viability one should then consult policy makers and economists, like William D. Nordhaus that was smeared by a recent opinion at the WSJ from 16 skeptical “experts” that decided to mislead people not only on the basics of the issue, but also by misrepresenting what he had actually said. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results. > > The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs). > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. > > One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change. > > The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/48 "2012-03-25T23:28:27Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The name alone should be a clue. It is not itself science. It is a series of policy recommendations. One hopes that policy recommendations would be based on the best available scientific consensus, but policy is policy, not science. Confusing the two is what is called a category error. > > And that’s why this statement is wrong, because as Askance noted in post #4, the claim is that the leading experts in the field affirm the underlying tenets of the science on which future change would be based, not that they agree with every policy recommendation. > > The difference is absolutely fundamental to this argument. Of course it is fundamental. However, you can never be too careful. “Agreeing with temperature increase since 1800” is normally tranformed, by policy makers and other interested people, into “science is behind all our reccomendation”. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is because that is not their job. > > They report on what they find and **the overwhelming evidence is that humans are the main contributor to the recent warming,** as pointed out before we should be concentrating on what to do as the experts have basically stopped to discuss about the basics, but that is anathema to many, so deniers double down on attempting to claim that there is a huge controversy among the scientists or that we have to wait. > > We should then concentrate on what to do and for viability one should then consult policy makers and economists, like William D. Nordhaus that was smeared by a recent opinion at the WSJ from 16 skeptical “experts” that decided to mislead people not only on the basics of the issue, but also by misrepresenting what he had actually said. > > [Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/) (my bolding) It is incorrect. Your very own cite says “significant”, not “the main”. ---
**Author:** ![Zagzigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Zagzigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagzigger)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/49 "2012-03-25T23:40:17Z")
As it’s only supposed to be 3% of scientists who don’t believe all this hooey, the 97% seem to be very concerned about it. See here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List\_of\_scientists\_opposing\_the\_mainstream\_scientific\_assessment\_of\_global\_warming&oldid=483653240#Beginning\_of\_the\_graphic\_now\_being\_discussed](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&oldid=483653240#Beginning_of_the_graphic_now_being_discussed) Shakespeare’s Hamlet: "“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/50 "2012-03-25T23:47:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Of course it is fundamental. However, you can never be too careful. > “Agreeing with temperature increase since 1800” is normally tranformed, by policy makers and other interested people, into “science is behind all our reccomendation”. > > (my bolding) > It is incorrect. Your very own cite says “significant”, not “the main”. And that was not the point there, the point was that even on policy one should not rely on the blind leading the blind, deniers (the blind in this case) of the basics should be ignored now. And regardless of your useless nitpick, the economist is still recommending that we should do something, history and evidence shows us already that the interested people are the ones spending a lot of money and resources to fund the creation of misleading information so then nothing will be done. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/51 "2012-03-25T23:55:43Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > As it’s only supposed to be 3% of scientists who don’t believe all this hooey, the 97% seem to be very concerned about it. See here: > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List\_of\_scientists\_opposing\_the\_mainstream\_scientific\_assessment\_of\_global\_warming&oldid=483653240#Beginning\_of\_the\_graphic\_now\_being\_discussed](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&oldid=483653240#Beginning_of_the_graphic_now_being_discussed) > > Shakespeare’s Hamlet: "“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind. The image used now: > **[File:Climate science opinion2.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png)** > > This 2012 chart created by user Dragons flight was based on data from 2011. There are more recent studies including Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012) > Summary of the opinions from climate / earth scientists regarding climate change. > The Doran & Zimmerman 2009 study archive copy at the Wayback Machine was done for a master's thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that follo... With Doran included, as mentioned before, super majorities as the eye can see. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/52 "2012-03-26T00:19:17Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > As it’s only supposed to be 3% of scientists who don’t believe all this hooey, the 97% seem to be very concerned about it. See here: > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List\_of\_scientists\_opposing\_the\_mainstream\_scientific\_assessment\_of\_global\_warming&oldid=483653240#Beginning\_of\_the\_graphic\_now\_being\_discussed](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&oldid=483653240#Beginning_of_the_graphic_now_being_discussed) > > Shakespeare’s Hamlet: "“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind. The Straight Dope, fighting ignorance since 1973. No. That’s wrong. Ignorance should never be fought. If you try, you’re the problem. Besides, what the difference? No harm could ever come from allowing ignorance to flourish. Nope. Impossible. Couldn’t happen. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Woodenspoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bc79bd/32.png) [@Woodenspoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Woodenspoon)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/53 "2012-03-26T01:05:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is because that is not their job. > > They report on what they find and the overwhelming evidence is that humans are the main contributor to the recent warming, as pointed out before we should be concentrating on what to do as the experts have basically stopped to discuss about the basics, but that is anathema to many, so deniers double down on attempting to claim that there is a huge controversy among the scientists or that we have to wait. > > We should then concentrate on what to do and for viability one should then consult policy makers and economists, like William D. Nordhaus that was smeared by a recent opinion at the WSJ from 16 skeptical “experts” that decided to mislead people not only on the basics of the issue, but also by misrepresenting what he had actually said. > > [Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/) Net benefits assumes unlimited cash pretty much. Fact is the scientists are responsible for coming up with viable solutions, because the ones screaming about it tend to be using the excuse of gw to push their preexisting ideological agendas in the first place which undermines their credibility. Look at the example of germany, they spent 130+ billion on solar, to forestall global warming by a whole 23 hours. This is unaffordable by most countries and thus it is not a viable solution, but “net benefits” means they did 23 hours and thats better than nothing, thus its justified even if they bankrupt themselves for almost nothing. Failing to look at the net result is the problem of net benefit, if the world can’t afford it doesn’t matter, a rich person can buy as many solar panels for his house as he wants, its gw, not local warming. Buying roof jewelry is something you can pat yourself on the back for, but it does nothing at all for the problem. Anyways net benefit calculations can lead to perverse conclusions, I’m sure it would be better for you to spend your childs college fun on feeding 3rd world children for instance. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/54 "2012-03-26T01:11:48Z")
> [@Woodenspoon](#): > > Net benefits assumes unlimited cash pretty much. Fact is the scientists are responsible for coming up with viable solutions, because the ones screaming about it tend to be using the excuse of gw to push their preexisting ideological agendas in the first place which undermines their credibility. Scientists report on the facts, the facts say that we can not use the atmosphere as a sewer and expect that nothing will happen. Now what to do about it? That is then the terrain of policy makers, economists and technologists that apply those reports to propose and deploy solutions, but you would remain an ignorant if you suggest that the same scientist that studies the atmosphere would be the same policy maker, economist and technologist. > [@Woodenspoon](#): > > Look at the example of germany, they spent 130+ billion on solar, to forestall global warming by a whole 23 hours. This is unaffordable by most countries and thus it is not a viable solution, but “net benefits” means they did 23 hours and thats better than nothing, thus its justified even if they bankrupt themselves for almost nothing. Failing to look at the net result is the problem of net benefit, if the world can’t afford it doesn’t matter, a rich person can buy as many solar panels for his house as he wants, but its gw, not local warming. Buying roof jewelry is something you can pat yourself on the back for, but it does nothing at all for the problem. And as the quoted economist would tell you, your items here are nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Woodenspoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bc79bd/32.png) [@Woodenspoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Woodenspoon)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/55 "2012-03-26T01:48:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Scientists report on the facts, the facts say that we can not use the atmosphere as a sewer and expect that nothing will happen. > > Now what to do about it? That is then the terrain of policy makers, economists and technologists that apply those reports to propose and deploy solutions, but you would remain an ignorant if you suggest that the same scientist that studies the atmosphere would be the same policy maker, economist and technologist. > And as the quoted economist would tell you, your items here are nonsense. Very few report just the facts, the do anything absolutely anything at all hysteria is part of the narrative of most climate reports. Very few scientists atleast those that appear on the media admit they have no viable solution, most claim you should do something regardless of whether it makes sense. As the quoted economist tells me? Sorry no, my items make perfect sense, and that is the problem with the discussion, the willful blindness when it comes to the inconvenient facts involved. Germany scrapped its solar program for the reasons stated. But even they took an even further step back when their own greens forced them to close their nuclear plants, thus increasing the carbon output they already aren’t dealing with. That is the level of inconsistent and irrational behavior that undermines credibility behind gw. You cry emergency, then increase your net carbon output by closing your nuke plants.. [http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/20/solardammerung-the-twilight-of-germanys-green-energy-subsidies/](http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/20/solardammerung-the-twilight-of-germanys-green-energy-subsidies/) ---
**Author:** ![Zagzigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Zagzigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagzigger)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/56 "2012-03-26T02:10:16Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No. You were trying to score a rhetorical point and you got found out. > > The parallels are clear because of the remarks you’ve made in this thread. That the earth has been cooling since 1998 (1998 was an unusually high blip in an upward sawtooth graph that has since been exceeded anyway); that by using graphs with arbitrary start dates the warming effect vanishes (see the [same graph using 1930 as a start date](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1930/plot/gistemp/from:1930)); that a letter to the editor trumps\*\* a peer-reviewed paper\*\* (as far as I can tell nobody has even bothered to respond to Bodenstein, possibly because as a pediatrician who backs up none of his claims he is not a credible information source); that “Climategate” proved … well anything at all (multiple independent investigations have vindicated the scientists involved). > As with tomh4040 it’s clear that you’ve merely switched from adhering to one side of an argument that you don’t understand to another side of the argument that you don’t understand. That’s clear because facts have meaning only in context. It is a fact that a letter to the editor was written and that a cut-off graph gives certain data. They are at best half-truths, and half-truths are deprecated because they serve no purpose except to further a cause by deliberately ripping a fact out of its context and presenting it as the full answer. > > What neither of you seem to understand is that there may be a proper argument for aether theory or climate denial that you aren’t even approaching because neither of you knows enough about either science or these particular subjects to form a credible case. Individual facts are sufficient to refute theories, true, but only in a full context. Take the recent kerfluffle about faster-than-light neutrinos. That claim - properly presented as a possible if fascinating finding that needed more investigation - received the investigation. Scientists from all over the world tore into it trying to determine both whether the experiment had been run correctly and whether these results could fit into the large and deep body of previous findings. As it stands there is just enough evidence that tiny flaws in the apparatus that no outsider could possibly have known about were the cause of this anomaly that no scientist in the field will use them in the future. I’ll bet large sums of money that people who want relativity to be wrong will quote them forever, though. > > If you don’t know when not to use a fact, then you don’t know enough about the argument to convince anyone. And that’s why science will survive your assault with its authority intact. Have a look at how Peer Review is regarded by these leading scientists (from the Climategate emails): “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” That, my friend, is an activist talking - not a scientist. Richard Feynman must be spinning in his grave As for end-points of graphs - I agree; that’s why it was so important to disappear the Medieval Warm period from previous IPCC charts. They were growing grapes in York in Chaucer’s time. Who are you going to believe, Chaucer or an activist analysing tree Arctic region rings from 700 years ago. There are many examples of the Medieval Warm period being World-wide. For example Greenland - the graves there are beneath the permafrost; it was warmer then than now. So, plotted from then, we’re on a downward slope. And if that’s the case - well the warming can’t be CO2 can it? Lastly, I recommend you investigate the Roman Warm Period - chronicled no doubt by evil deniers who pretended it was warmer then than now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/57 "2012-03-26T02:23:40Z")
> [@Woodenspoon](#): > > Very few report just the facts You need a better cite than Hot Air. And those solutions are not the ones recommended by scientists but by hysteria against nuclear power (guess who are in favor of nuclear power, more often than not it is the scientists), and stopping subsidies for industry like solar does not mean that solar is not becoming cheaper and more viable. > **[Germany to cut solar power subsidies](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/02/germany-cuts-solar-power-subsidies)** > > Government plans to reduce subsidies by up to 30% as high consumer demand leaves it unable to support green energy And incidentally items like that are a reason why Lomborg is not being taken seriously. Except by the ones pushing Hot Air. 🙂 [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so\_whats\_wrong\_with\_lomborg.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so_whats_wrong_with_lomborg.php) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/58 "2012-03-26T02:31:28Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > Have a look at how Peer Review is regarded by these leading scientists (from the Climategate emails): > “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” > That, my friend, is an activist talking - not a scientist. > Richard Feynman must be spinning in his grave > > As for end-points of graphs - I agree; that’s why it was so important to disappear the Medieval Warm period from previous IPCC charts. They were growing grapes in York in Chaucer’s time. Who are you going to believe, Chaucer or an activist analysing tree Arctic region rings from 700 years ago. There are many examples of the Medieval Warm period being World-wide. > For example Greenland - the graves there are beneath the permafrost; it was warmer then than now. > So, plotted from then, we’re on a downward slope. > And if that’s the case - well the warming can’t be CO2 can it? > > Lastly, I recommend you investigate the Roman Warm Period - chronicled no doubt by evil deniers who pretended it was warmer then than now. We already debunked these items before. > **[Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC](https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic-scientists-ipcc.htm)** > > \The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions as IPCC authors. Official records, Review Editors, and even the emails themselves suggest the CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of the IPCC... > [@](#): > > The Review asked Jones about the MM2004 allegations. He stated that the “keep them out” email was “sent on the spur of the moment and quickly forgotten”, but there were good scientific reasons for his intention to exclude MM2004. (Namely, it did not account for signals like El Niño; and in any case its conclusions about the land temperature record are at odds with the independent lines of evidence provided by the ocean and satellite records.) Jones also denied having written the paragraph in question, saying the inclusion of MM2004 was a collective decision by the Chapter 3 writing team. IPCC records confirm that MM2004 was discussed by the group. > > The inquiry also took evidence from one of the three Review Editors for Chapter 3, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins. He “was very impressed by Jones’ attention to detail, and the rigour of the Chapter 3 process.” He pointed out the writing group had joint responsibility for the text and it was unlikely for one voice to have dominated. > > The Review found the rebuttal of MM2004 does not appear to have been “invented”. Instead there has been “a consistence of view amongst those who disagree with MM2004 that has been sustained over the last 6 years”. Overall, the Review found no more than “mere speculation” that MM2004 was unfairly excluded: > > > [@](#): > > > > We conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue. [9.3.6] > **[How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?](https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)** > > \While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.\ > [@](#): > > While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions. Hence the overall point that most of the basics and misleading points were already dealt with, it is time to find ways to deal with the issue and ignore the ones pushing FUD as they did in California, Australia and most of Europe and many other nations. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/59 "2012-03-26T02:41:52Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > Have a look at how Peer Review is regarded by these leading scientists (from the Climategate emails): Dude, I told you. You really need to learn when not to quote. [‘Climategate’ Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html) > [@](#): > > Last year, the hacked emails of climate scientists from the University of East Anglia spawned what has hitherto become known as "Climategate – a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam. There was never a whole lot to hang a scandal on, but that didn’t stop the frenzy that pushed “Climategate” onto front pages and network news shows. > > Of course, since then, the grownups have stepped back to the fore, and five independent investigations have, as Steve Benen points out, “concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound” and that the “deniers’ arguments were debunked.” Darn those grownups. Party-poopers. ---
**Author:** ![Woodenspoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bc79bd/32.png) [@Woodenspoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Woodenspoon)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/60 "2012-03-26T02:50:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You need a better cite than Hot Air. > > And those solutions are not the ones recommended by scientists but by hysteria against nuclear power (guess who are in favor of nuclear power, more often than not it is the scientists), and stopping subsidies for industry like solar does not mean that solar is not becoming cheaper and more viable. > > [Germany to cut solar power subsidies | Solar power | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/02/germany-cuts-solar-power-subsidies) > > And incidentally items like that are a reason why Lomborg is not being taken seriously. Except by the ones pushing Hot Air. 🙂 > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so\_whats\_wrong\_with\_lomborg.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so_whats_wrong_with_lomborg.php) You have to go back to 2008 to find an article on lomborg? The fact is when they try to poke holes they fail, and generally they tend to resort to attacking his character instead of the inconvenient points he brings up. Yes germany is cutting subsidies because its too expensive and because demand is high, but that tells you all you need to know, the guardian piece is about as slanted as it gets. You can rig any market to have perverse incentives as the germans have done, but the real test is whether it makes sense at all without the subsidies…and it doesn’t. Even with the subsidies where folks in germany were “solar farming” their way into profits the net result of that massive tax investment was 23 hours forstalling of global warming…that is just the fact that undermines an entire article worth of trying to dodge the issue. You can pay people to do really stupid things, and create incredible demand for things that don’t make sense, for instance the subsidies and mandates funding ethanol from corn farming in the united states. So yes, you can take a piss at hot airs website name, but the fact is its argument has more validity than the silly one pushed by yours which is essentially claiming that popularity justifies itself. You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe germans are investing in renewables out of the goodness of their hearts. If you had actually looked at whats driving the demand, its nothing but perverse incentive after perverse incentive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265.md?page=4)