23 thoughts on “But…97%!”

  1. That much derided 97% actually is accurate; 97% of the scientists the AGW supporters chose to ask approved. I’m just amazed they didn’t go for 100%, or even higher. 🙂

    I very much hope that Trump withdraws from both the UN climate change agency and the Paris accords.

  2. Should it surprise us that ‘the science is settled’ is fake news?

    It is the religion of the left to define the truth and be outraged by any blasphemy. Observation and reason are heresy to be destroyed. Free speech doesn’t allow ‘hate speech’ (which is anything they say it is.)

    They have a label for everyone regardless of reality.

  3. Where’s the list of names? Going on past experience, I’d bet no more than 30 are involved in climate research and about half will not have qualifications in science or be involved in scientific research of any kind.

  4. Yep, as expected the list of 300 “scientists” includes “physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more.” (From WUWT)

    It even includes at least one retired scientist that used to do research related to climate science.

    2. Yeah.

      I mean, how could a meteorologist, a physicist, an environmental scientist, geologists, or the like know anything at all that might make them doubtful?

      It’s not like those fields are in any way related to climate or climate data, right?

      (I’ll give you immunology, but note that anyone can get an informed, indeed expert opinion on a scientific matter without working in the field.

      Indeed, since you can’t (can you?) work in “climate research” as a skeptic, one must assume all scientific skepticism must come from people who never have or no longer work in that field, until it stops being a monoculture.

      I leave out “or until the science really is settled”, because we aren’t gonna live to see that, at this rate. It will necessarily happen, given that the natural world is understandable, and that climate is not some supernatural thing.

      But we’re, to all appearances, about as good at understanding how the world’s climate works, at this level of predictive detail, as we are at modeling the details of human biology as a throughly integrated system. Not remotely.)

      1. “anyone can get an informed, indeed expert opinion on a scientific matter without working in the field.”

        Fine, so 300 of the 5,000,000,000 adults on the planet have signed the letter. So instead of 0.001% of people qualified to express an opinion, you’ve just dragged it down to 0.000006% of those qualified as having an “expert opinion” have sign the letter.

        Well done.

        1. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field and AGW advocates argue for broadening the people who participate in it because they think an economist or sociologist speaking out helps them build support.

          It is only when people from disparate fields contradict the dogma that suddenly you have to be in a narrowly tailored set of fields to have a legitimate view.

  5. So it’s no exaggeration to say that only 0.001% of the global population that meets the qualification requirements to be on the list actually are on the list.

    1. Really having trouble deciphering your gibberish today, Andrew. Since when did they appoint you the arbiter of who’s qualified to be on any list at all?

      1. I’m not making any claims as to who should qualify, I’m just pointing out that there are tens of millions of people around the world with qualifications equivalent to those listed, and of those tens of millions only 300 have signed on.

    2. “Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.

      That bolded part is what really gets you cranked isn’t it Andrew. Pointing out the truth that the trillions you want spent won’t have any effect whatsoever on global warming or climate is so inconvenient. “It doesn’t matter you fools, it FEELS good so just do it and shut up” used to work so well, but now people are starting to push back. So unfair.

    3. Well, now…..that’s the question, …isn’t it? Did they select the right qualifications, and what do selecting qualifications have to do with science?

      They started with over 2,800 people who returned their survey. Then they looked among those for people who had published in Journals that only published research work paid for by the government since the WH OSTP took up the AGW cause in 1993, and peer reviewed by people approved by folks like Michael Mann and his buds.

      This left 77 people. Of those 77 people, 75 agreed with the idea of AGW being truth unsullied by doubt. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!!

      The original motto of the Royal Society, one of the first scientific societies, was Nullis in Verbum, …Nothing by Authority (nothing by the mere word of same). More recently, one quote from Richard Feynman was, “Science is the organized belief in the ignorance of experts”. This sort of “qualifications” scam is the reason why Feynman was saying that.

    4. So who would qualify? Scientists who specialize in climate change studies? Who by and large literally live on money granted for studies into climate change? Whoses very livelihood is dependant upon those grant monies continuing to flow in their direction? Money flow which is dependant upon their being hysteria about climate change? Those scientists?

      Yeah, they have no agenda at all. Absolutely unbiased and pure as the wind driven snow.

      1. In science you are qualified by being able to produce verifiable independent reproducible results. Credentials only matter to non scientists.

  6. Everybody knows the way to win with a political agenda is to tell everyone who doesn’t have the exact preferred credential of the tiny fraction of the population that supports the agenda, to shut up and obey.

Comments are closed.