Climate Doom Predictions

Suppose you go to your doctor, and he tells you you’re a week from an infarction that’s going to cause your heart to explode and kill you.  You do fine, with a bit of stress and tension.  Six months later he tells you you’re only three days away.  Then it’s two weeks. Then it’s nine days, then three days again, and eventually, it’s 60 years later, and he says you also have a serious liver issue and only four days to live.  And 13 years after that, 73 since he started pestering you, you’re STILL alive.

Hopefully long before then, you’d realize this “doctor” was completely full of shit and had no fucking clue what he was blathering about.

Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse

Features guest appearances by Paul Ehrlich, who apparently still thinks global mass starvation is in the cards, and lots of articles about the coming ice age.

Some Covid Links

(Don Boudreaux)

Michael Esfeld decries the abuse of science during this time of Covid-19. A slice:

We know many cases from history, in particular of the last century in Europe and especially Germany, in which coercive state measures were legitimized as absolutely necessary from a scientific point of view and had devastating consequences for the people affected. Is it different this time? Is it possible and permissible to stop the spread of a virus through central state planning with a massive intervention in people’s lives – and especially the lives of those people who do not have much time left to live – without causing great harm?

Billy Binion reports that New York State strongman Andrew Cuomo continues to muck matters up.

….

Laura Dodsworth eloquently defends skeptics of lockdowns. A slice:

Lockdown doesn’t come without regulations. Supporting lockdown necessitates the implicit support of the regulations and enforcement of them. They aren’t just the nuclear option; they are the totalitarian option. They have also never been used or recommended before. Pre-emptive disaster and recovery planner, Lucy Easthope, told me that lockdowns have never been recommended for influenza or SARS epidemics. They were never recommendedby WHO until a little update of their website this year post-introduction of lockdowns, or by the UK government.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of lockdown hypocrites. It’s long.

Source: Some Covid Links

Politics disguised as science: a 12-point checklist for when to doubt a scientific ‘consensus’

Dr. Patrick Moore wrote today on Twitter that this is an “Excellent piece on how to distinguish good science from bad politics. Don’t know how I missed it.” He’s referring to the 2017 article by Jay Richards “ Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ ” with the subtitle “Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.” Here’s a condensed version of Jay Richard’s excellent article: 1. When different claims get bundled together.

Source: Politics disguised as science: a 12-point checklist for when to doubt a scientific ‘consensus’

What we learned from the Mueller report is relevant to the climate change debate – AEI – American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise

The Mueller report shows that the US media can easily be dominated by a single false idea — in this case the notion that President Trump colluded with Russia in order to win the presidency. So it is time to examine another idee fixe of the US media that has received too little attention: the widespread acceptance of the danger of human-caused climate change and the refusal to entertain or publicize contrary information.

Source: What we learned from the Mueller report is relevant to the climate change debate – AEI – American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise

97% Agreement on what?

First heard from Dennis Prager: the climate change activists are insisting that we believe three separate things:

  1. The climate is changing;
  2. Humans are responsible for a lot of that;
  3. It’s leading to a catastrophe.

Alex Epstein says much the same in Forbes, and looks at the numbers.


If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?
Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

….

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Forbes Magazine