Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘NY Times’

Consensus Science? Trade ’em to the NY Times!

Posted by greg2213 on February 11, 2010


A peer reviewed paper shows that most scientists are skeptical of alarmist claims. “Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

Read the rest on Forbes


Only in “Climate Science” does 41 out of almost 12,000 = 97%. Is it any wonder that so many consider it to be a bad joke?

The non-disclosure in Cook et al. of the number of abstracts supporting each specified level of endorsement had the effect of not making available the fact that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.8% of the 4014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the quantitative hypothesis, stated in the introduction to Cook et al. and akin to similar definitions in the literature), that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”.

Read the WUWT post: ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment


Climate hysterics hate the Petition Project, because it completely obliterates their claims of consensus. As a result they try to come up with various feeble ways to try and discredit the project (while somehow  concluding that 33% = 97%, see the 5/17 update just below,  or that 75 of 10,000 =97%.)

PopTeck debunks some of these goofy claims.


John Cook of UnskepticalScience discovers that 33% = 97%. Here’s why he has no idea of what he’s talking about and how his study is massively cherry picked. On JoNova.


  • 97.1% of scientists in 1850 believed mercury the best treatment for syphilis.
  • 97.1% of pre-Copernican scientists fervently believed the sun rotated around the earth.
  • Consensus ≠ science

Feynman on the Scientific Method, something that the consensus crowd would not be familiar with.

Update 2/18: More on the subject from IBD: Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth. Also, more on asking the right poll questions.

Update 2/15/13: More from Forbes: Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Update 7/26/12: Forbes column on that “consensus.”  More consensus debunking. The article also debunks the specific expertise of that fabled 97%, that the 97% is a global consensus, and a few other things.

Original post:

Heh. This is funny. From a July ’09 post at Climate Depot:

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”

…ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.”

Here’s the rest of the post. Lots of good quotes from outraged scientists (and other stuff:) Climate Revolt

Heh. Maybe a lot of such trades could be made. Don’t know what the Times could offer the ACS in trade, though. They’re out of money and don’t have any scientists on board…

On a related topics, Believers like to say things like this, “The scientific consensus says…”  Want to see some backtracking and redefining of “scientific consensus?” Point out the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, who are willing to state an opinion, are strongly opposed to the concept of catastrophic warming.

In addition to the ACS above, here are a few others:

  • Climate Depot: Over 130 German scientists say: ‘Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role (in climate change.)’  Their concerns were presented to in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the letter is included in the post.
  • 500 peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptic view – This is not a complete list, by any means, but it’s a great start.
  • Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change– …That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change….
    • 114 signers (scientists) present when this was presented at the New York Climate Conference in ’08.
    • 707 scientists not present.
    • 600 citizen endorsers, many with science backgrounds
  • Oregon Petition– Over 31,000 American scientists, over 9,000 of the being PhDs, say that Catastrophic Global Warming is not supported by the evidence. This is not the same thing as saying there is no warming/cooling or that said hypothetical warming is a bad thing.  The petition also states the CO2 is a beneficial gas, not a pollutant.
    • Ha! But they’re not climate scientists!! Oh really? How about 3800 climate scientists? Check this page – Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
  • US Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
  • Heidelberg Appeal with 4,000+ signers. Note that this appeal doesn’t specifically state anything about warming, but is an appeal for fact-based science and for policy that considers human interests. The latter is very contrary to the goals of most alarmists.
  • Remarks about that consensus by the Houston Chronicle.
  • Gavin Schmidt (GS) of RealClimate says the science is not settled is his critique of a WaPo article. Too bad GS doesn’t put much effort into correcting alarmist remarks about the science being settled. Now “settled science” isn’t “there’s a consensus…” but it certainly implies consensus, otherwise there is no settled science. So one might argue that GS is saying there is no consensus.
  • More remarks (from 2005) about the consensus, including how “the consensus” may have started.
  • August 19, 2008 — A major international scientific conference prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.  The International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14.
  • Canadian scientists disagree with AGW

Some say that there are 2,500 scientists in the warming consensus, others say that that number is actually closer to 25.

31,000+ opposed to 25 for… Hmmm….

Now, in reality, consensus in science is pretty meaningless. It just takes one voice, with the right idea and the right data, to break a consensus. Of course, that one voice has to get through the layers of pal-review to get his paper(s) published… Einstein say much the same thing (about consensus) in this wiki article – 100 authors against Einstein.


Title was updated to the current, just to make this post a bit easier to find.

Mike Hulme – Consensus Science – This is a post on The Air Vent discussing consensus science and what is meant by that term.

Updating my thoughts on “the consensus agrees…”  This phrase is generally used to justify Al Gore’s (and more extreme) version of Global Warming, and is, therefore, complete nonsense. The scientific consensus might actually agree that we’ve warmed a bit since the 30s (and that amount can be argued about,) but that’s not the spin that the public hears.

The IoP on Climategate: Physicists Weigh in on Climategate


  • Ooooo… ouch! The 97% “Consensus” is only 76 Self-Selected Climatologists
  • More on the 97% – it’s 97% of the 80 or so who fit the right criteria after the poll was sent to 10,000 scientists. So the real number might be 0.73% or thereabouts.
  • More remarks on the 97% and this comment was from the same page, “Having done survey research for 20 years I can tell you for certain that the wording of the questions, the sample technique, sample size, the interview method (personal, telephone, mail), question type (true/false, multiple choice, rating scale, open ended, etc.) and even the positioning of the questions relative to each other will effect outcome. Of course, cherry picking is best for obtaining the result one wants.”

Posted in Consensus | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Time Mag Announces Approaching Ice Age

Posted by greg2213 on January 15, 2010

And more…

I’ll just drop them in as I come across them. Most recent are at the top of the list.

  • In 1971, the world’s top climate scientists Schneider, Hansen and Rasool predicted that burning fossil fuels would trigger an ice age. They also determined that CO2 was nothing to worry about. Here.
  • The End Holocene – a discussion of abrupt climate change leading to an ice age. Includes clips from the 70s of scientists warning Nixon of exactly that. Also see Glacial Inception and the prior articles linked to from these two posts.
  • U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming


PopTech added a comment noting that the list of cooling alarmism is his. Here’s his page: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism. (It’s also linked to, below.) The comment below, from Newsbusters, is also his.

Thank you, PopTech!


The 1970s Ice Age Scare

Lots more here

Update 3/1/13:  Similar list from WUWT, but longer, and one from PopTech.

Update 7/4: More debunking of the “cooling scare deniers:”  The CIA documents the global cooling research of the 1970’s

Update 2/7: Some wags claim that the 70s ice age scare has been discredited. Unfortunately for their argument and their meme of “Doom!”, they’re wrong. As usual.

Deniers from the hockey team tell us that the 1970s ice age scare never happened, or that scientists were not behind it. They are as well informed as holocaust deniers. Below is overwhelming evidence that the 1970s were colder than earlier in the century.

Here’s the rest and the excerpts, lots of excerpts: Liars And Deniers In The Midst

update 12/17: ClimateDepot has a writeup on the subject:

Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.

Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970’s.

here’s the rest: Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims

NoFreeWind discusses this Time article, from 1975. Links to the article and more info are on that site.  The Cooling World

Science News had a similar article, here: (Here’s a local copy in case the above link disappears.)

Headlines from the New York Times

The print version: Newsbusters has 150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times

PDFs on Cooling and other hysteria

Fire and Ice

More media reports of warming and cooling. This is the Fire and Ice PDF and details science and media hysteria over the last century. Here’s a web page version.

Science News 1975: The Chilling Possibilities

More Links

The following selection of links is from Newsbusters, and was posted in the comments section: (5/27/13 – this list was posted on Newsbusters by PopTech.)

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 – Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 – U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 – New Ice Age Coming – It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 – British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 – Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 – Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 – Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 – Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 – Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 – Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 – The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 – The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 – Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 – In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 – Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 – The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 – The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 – The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of – TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Read the whole Newsbusters article here: 100 Years of Headlines About Catastrophic Climate Change (The video above is an updated version of the one on the Newsbusters page, provided by one of their commenters, and is much easier to watch.)

Lies? Truths?

The alarmists say that the warnings of cooling in the 70s are a skeptic lie. Yeah, well, somebody was feeding those stories to the media. Maybe it was a noisy Al Gore type or maybe the media made it all up, much like they do today. Maybe it’s the alarmists who are lying, given the hysteria that their side is pushing.

Either way, the media is relevant, since that’s where most people get their info. The media IS the voice of science for most people. Perhaps the alarmists should be concerned about modern reporting on climate?

Update – more links to articles of Doom!:

In a few years will the media be telling us, again, of the approaching ice age? Will the fear-mongering crowd (Al Gore crowd) be telling us that “scientists were not warming of Global Warming in the 90s and early 2000s?”

Update 2/18/11:

References to related stuff on Amazon:

Light Reading on Amazon:

  • The World in Winter (Alpha Books) – A post apocalyptic world where an ice-age has rendered much of the northern world uninhabitable. Out of print, but available used.
  • Fallen Angels – Reeling under a new ice age, the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement controls the US government. Abandoned by Earth, the space colonies replenish their air by scoop-ships diving into the atmosphere – but Alex and Gordon’s ship was hit by a missile, and they are now wanted dead or alive.

Posted in Media | Tagged: , , , , , , | 10 Comments »