There may or may not be a Consensus among climate scientists on a climate Assertion (Hypothesis).
An interesting consensus on Climate change would be a climate assertion with some bite. Something that might be an unpleasant truth requiring some action to mitigate. Tough, but not impossibly tough, to accomplish. Here are only a few of the candidate assertions about climate change.
Assertion (Hypothesis):
1. Human activity is causing some effect on average global surface temperatures , but it might well be overwhelmed by a more major consideration, say, involving the sun or running out of fossil fuels. OR:
2. Human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming. (Therefore we call it anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). OR:
3. There is a greenhouse effect; our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases enhance it; and some consequent warming may be expected. OR:
4. ‘human activity is very likely causing some of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) . OR:
5. There is a global temperature hockey stick leading to average global surface temperatures that man cannot live in -- caused by radiative forcing by manmade CO2 or other things man might be able to control. OR:
6. our human enhancement of the greenhouse effect will be dangerous enough to be ‘catastrophic’. OR:
7. We should endorse KYOTO.[1] OR:
8. and on and on …………………
Any study to prove a consensus should use exactly one Assertion (Hypothesis) on which Consensus is to be measured, and the vast majority of climate scientists and lay people believe that by far the most interesting assertion at the start of the 21st century is number 2, above.
The references below focus on the May 15, 2013 paper by Cook, Nuccitelli, et al..
Because of this paper, it is very widely believed that Climate assertion 2, above, is endorsed by 97% of all practicing climate scientists.
But a willing non climate scientist can determine that, while the Cook paper led to that belief, what it actually demonstrates fall shockingly short of that. The willing can make the determination without an inordinate time commitment by inspecting the following documents, probably in the order given.
To begin with, the Cook, Nuccitelli “Consensus” paper offered reviewers of abstracts and authors seven (!) assertion/hypotheses “pick one!” in a supposedly meaningful and useful ordering from 1 (Most Endorsing) to 7 (Most Rejecting) of AGW!
They tended, though not consistently, to generate “results” – in particular the 97.1% result – by smishing assertion/hypothesis 1 through 3 together and redefining the lot as ENDORSE AGW. They smished assertion/hypothesis 5,6, &7 together and redefined that lot as DENY AGW.
Note: It may be best to save any of the below, a pdf in particular, to your local storage before reading it. It's a little more iffy to try to have your browser play intermediary and pretend it's a pdf reader program.
Their conclusion is “Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
“AGW” is nowhere defined! From dictionaries and other sources one infers that AGW means something rather like Assertion 2 in the list above.
I've commented these pdf s using Acrobat Reader DC (15.016.20039). And I presume earlier versions won't barf on these files
Please now read Persuader.pdf.
|
Persuader (pdf) |
Table lets you see exactly where / how Cook went off and oversold the Consensus on AGW. |
|
20130830 Legates.etal, Climate Concensus.Rejoinder ++++ (pdf) |
Consensus proven? Legates: no. Cook: yes. |
|
Relatively brief but you will hesitate to dismiss this author as simply an ideological disbeliever. |
|
|
19610117 Eisenhower Farewell Radio & TV Adddress – Commented++++ (docx) |
Most of us know about the Eisenhower militaryindustrial complex. Now go read about the scientific-technological elite. And think about the possibility of something similar involving anything of the sort in geoengineering. Will take no more than 10 minutes plus ponder time! |
|
This is the core paper by Cook, Nuccitelli, et al. about which everybody has been yelling, for years! |
|
|
A smart layperson thinks for himself. |
[1] Very interesting. See FRAMES concept of Lefsrud and Mayer on p 310 in Legates et al.