Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

, Spencer Irvine, 11 Comments

climate change photoCraig Idso, Robert Carter and S. Fred Singer tackled climate change alarmism in the book, “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus,” published by the Heartland Institute.

As much as the liberal media, liberal academics and pundits tell Americans that the earth is too warm and human beings are the cause for a spike in weather and temperature changes, there is little-to-no scientific consensus to support these assertions. For example, Naomi Oreskes, who wrote one of the most-cited articles on climate change alarmism, is a science historian and is not a scientist. But, the authors pointed out that her essay was not peer-reviewed, which is a common practice for published journal articles.

What was the basis of her article? “Examining abstracts from 928 papers” and “using the key words ‘global climate change’ to make her conclusion that 75% of scientists believed in climate change. Yet, she ignored abstracts from global warming skeptics, the authors noted, and there are at least 1,350 global climate alarmism articles since her article was published in 2004, which would affect her results if she repeated the process today. Oreskes also did not specify how many of the 928 articles endorsed her conclusion of a “consensus” of scientists.

Oreskes has made a career out of her work, with her essay leading to a book entitled “Merchants of Doubt” and a movie released in 2015. Also, Oreskes’ claims are often repeated by former U.S. vice president Al Gore in both his movie and book, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Oreskes teaches at Harvard.

Remember the oft-repeated ‘97% of climate change scientists agree humans have contributed to the rising global temperatures’ line? The 2009 Doran and Zimmerman paper made that claim, but the authors disagree with the methodology behind the paper. For example, it was a two-minute online survey sent to 10,257 scientists, of which 3,146 people responded. However, these scientists were geologists, paleontologists, oceanographers and not physicists, meteorologists and those who would know the field intimately. “Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed,” the authors noted, “did not have a Ph.D., some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.” They also estimated only 5% of the respondents “self-identified as climate scientists.” There were also issues in how the questions were worded and where the 97% consensus claim came from, which apparently was from 79 respondents within that sample.

These are but two examples from the NIPCC book, but it is clear that the climate change agenda turns a blind eye to neutral and impartial studies of the subject.

Photo by Light Brigading

Photo by Light Brigading


11 Responses

  1. mememine

    April 5, 2016 10:06 am

    Science agrees smoking causes cancer and the planet isn’t flat but are only 99% sure CO2 “could” flatten the planet.

  2. jack dale

    April 5, 2016 5:31 pm

    Number of science academies that dispute the conclusions of the IPCC = 0

    Number of science academies that endorse the NIPCC report = 0

  3. DrRaeMD

    April 5, 2016 5:54 pm

    Actually, we’re only 95% certain smoking causes cancer. We’re as, or maybe more, certain that humans are causing bad global warming…

  4. polzzlop

    April 5, 2016 6:53 pm

    Mind Control does not work on those with Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
    Some in science, risk their careers and become truth tellers.

  5. Concerned

    April 5, 2016 8:10 pm

    Real scientists working in the field do not disagree with AGW. Only hacks paid by the fossil fuel industry and a few over-the-hill professors not working in the field disagree. The NIPCC and Heartland are not science organizations.

  6. Russell Cook

    April 6, 2016 1:34 pm

    “… hacks paid by the fossil fuel industry …” Indulge us: specifically provide the evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving specifically named “hacks” knowingly lie and are in a pay-for-performance arrangement with specific industry people. Spare us all-inclusive single links to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets collective site, or to the entire ICN “Exxon Knew” articles, or to Desmogblog, show us that you know what you are talking about by sharing links or verbatim text straight to the specific evidence those places rely on to make their accusations.

    Meanwhile, in case you didn’t notice it, the IPCC, Greenpeace, and Desmogblog aren’t science organizations either, and Al Gore, Naomi Oreskes, James Hoggan aren’t climate scientists. So how is your comment working out for you when it comes to convincing the public that the science is settled and that skeptics are corrupt?

  7. Concerned

    April 6, 2016 1:58 pm

    I’ll leave the evidence gathering to the 17 state Attorneys General who are investigating the fraud of science denial in the fossil fuel industry.


    For the benefit of others, not likely you, here are a few links of interest.

    Excellent 25 minute video from the National Academy of Sciences
    Climate Change: Lines of Evidence

    NASA statement on evidence

    NASA statement on consensus. The 97% is correct and conservative (see 99.9% above). All science societies and all countries worldwide agree.

  8. MrLogical

    April 8, 2016 1:05 am

    Yeah. Those 17 AGs really know what they’re doing.
    Brings to mind the old saying about grand juries and ham sandwiches.
    And in case you haven’t been paying attention, science is NEVER “settled.”

    PS: It’s the sun, stupid.

  9. James

    October 2, 2017 3:49 pm

    To keep in step…I couldn’t disagree more! LOL. Just kidding. The problem is is that we don’t have it all nailed down. There IS conflicting evidence. To deny that is to really show your bias. I am at least open minded enough to realize that the evidences can betray each side.

    – James with http://www.tdymoving.com

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published