Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Mentality of Religious Fanaticism

From Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser  at The Wall Street Journal, Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate;

To put it bluntly, climate change and its likely impact are proving slower and less harmful than we feared, while decarbonization of the economy is proving more painful and costly than we hoped. The mood in Paris will be one of furious pessimism among the well-funded NGOs that will attend the summit in large numbers: Decarbonization, on which they have set their hearts, is not happening, and they dare not mention the reassuring news from science lest it threaten their budgets.

Casting around for somebody to blame, they have fastened on foot-dragging fossil-fuel companies and those who make skeptical observations, however well-founded, about the likelihood of dangerous climate change. Scientific skeptics are now routinely censored, or threatened with prosecution. One recent survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that 27% of Democrats in the U.S. are in favor of prosecuting climate skeptics. This is the mentality of religious fanaticism, not scientific debate.

Print This Post Print This Post

The 97% Fraud- Part Deux


A closer look at the climate-change consensus. From National Review by Josh Gelernter

For starters, though, Reuters and the president are wrong about what Cook’s study claims. It does not claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. What it claims is that 97.1 percent of the relevant scientific literature agrees with the much more conservative claim that humans are contributing to global warming in an unspecified amount.

But even in making that considerably more anodyne assertion, the “consensus” is on shaky footing. According to the abstract for Cook’s paper, 66.4 percent of the abstracts Cook and his team looked at neither supported nor opposed the position that man causes global warming. Which gives you not a 97.1 percent consensus, but 97.1 percent of the remainder, which is 32.6 percent. That is, 32.6 percent of peer-reviewed global-warming literature agrees that global warming is man-made. That’s not overwhelming.

And even that number is highly suspect; many scientists have objected to their papers having been categorized as supporting Cook’s position. A number of avowed man-made-warming skeptics were evidently surprised to find their papers included in Cook’s 97 percent monolith. According to a paper written by University of Delaware professor David Legates, et al., for the journal Science & Education, just 0.3 percent — not 97 — of the papers Cook examined explicitly endorsed his position.

Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex published a rebuttal of Cook’s paper in the journal Energy Policy. According to Tol, the 97 percent claim, “frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. . . . [Cook’s] sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook’s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so the key results cannot be reproduced or tested

.”Read more at:

Print This Post Print This Post

Antarctic Ice Sheets Growing


NASA study: Net gains for Antarctic ice sheets

GREENBELT, Md., Oct. 31 (UPI) – According to a new NASA study, ice sheet gains outweigh losses on the Antarctic continent. The findings conflict with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2013 suggested gains were not keeping up with losses.

The new study, published in the Journal of Glaciology, doesn’t totally undermine the handful of studies showing significant glacier, ice sheet and sea ice shrinkage. Instead, if offers evidence of previously unaccounted gains.

The new tallies reveal an annual net gain of 112 billion tons between 1992 and 2001. Annual gains of 82 billion tons were observed between 2003 and 2008.

Print This Post Print This Post

David Siegal’s Climate Summary


From David Siegal,  What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. Theyhave more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
  9. No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.
  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.


Read the whole link and the embedded links as well.

Print This Post Print This Post

Authoritarianism Masquerading as Science


from The 97 Percent Solution by Ian Tuttle at National Review:

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Also from National Review from Jonah Goldberg, The 97 Percent ‘Statistic’ — Is There Nothing It Can’t Do?:

Jonah Quotes from Bast and Spencer on the origin of the 97%.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

Jonah continues:

They go on, but I don’t want to reprint the whole article here. Besides the more important point is that consensus — manufactured or otherwise — is not how science is done. “Settled science” — another concept Mair invokes — is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is to unsettle what we know at any given moment. Personally, I am more open to the claim that global warming is happening and is a potential problem than some of my friends on the right (my views line up pretty well with Matt Ridley’s for what that’s worth). But when I listen to people like Mair invoke the Union of Concerned Scientists and deny objective facts by hiding behind the skirts of a bogus statistic, it gives me no confidence that these are the kinds of people who should have anything to do with formulating public policy.


From any objective mind this 97% was deeply suspect, just given the nature of the issue. Upon any minimal examination this 97% number is absolutely bogus. It is absolutely media malpractice to even use it. Yet it has been repeated by the President, the Secretary of State, and it was repeated like a mentally disturbed robot in the Cruz / Sierra interview. Winston Churchill noted that a lie can make its way around the world several times before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

This is not the first time such tactics have been used to push a policy by exaggerating the problem. During the health insurance debate the number of uninsured  people was listed at 46 million.  It was also a bogus exaggerated number but it was successful in helping the pass the monstrous ACA.  I noted that when the president signed his signature bill he announced that now 30 million uninsured people would be covered.  No one grasped the magic of 15 million fewer uninsured he accomplished at the stroke of  pen.  After 5 years about 8 million net uninsured gained coverage.  This is getting closer to the actual number to begin with.  Ironically if they had used the more accurate 10-13 million uninsured it would have made the results look better, but it would have seemed like less of a crisis and maybe the bill would not have been passed. But to many ends justify the means.

Those of us who are accused of being anti-science for ever doubting this consensus understand the difference between science and authoritarianism masquerading as science. When this 97% becomes discredited then the proponents discount the actual number and  simply say that there is still a majority support.  This may be the case, but when the proponents and skeptics actually know so little about the science itself and we are harped upon by our leaders and policy makers to accept a consensus that is so easy to totally discredit, then one has to question what else are they exaggerating.  This not only discredits those seeking a realistic  view of policy but it discredits the scientists themselves and the public’s faith in our scientific institutions.  Scientists and the public deserve much better treatment.