97% Global Warming Consensus

The “97 percent of all scientists agree global warming is real and man-made” lie is heard often even though it has been exposed many times.  We documented it in our book "Vapor Tiger," on sale at Amazon.com and so successful it has over 1,000 reviews with many by paid political/academic assassins that we counter with answers that are more interesting reading than the book, but then "Nothing is more interesting than two scorpions in a brandy sniffer," according the great philosopher Barry Farber, mentor and friend. 

Nonetheless, if you dare say, "CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and not a very good absorber of infrared, heat, radiation," you will be hit with, “You disagree with 97 percent of all scientists?” and claims you are a "Neanderthal Ignoramous Deplorable," followed by several expletives we will here not repeat.

The 97 percent figure was used by the Obama administration to bolster their case for phasing out fossil fuels for windmills and solar panels, neither of which produces power 24 hours per day, which unfortunately is the way we need it. 

President Barack Obama used the "97%" figure often.  NASA and NOAA cite studies purported to show unanimous support, but never include any basic science or demonstrations as none exist.  CO2 does not heat the atmosphere as we plainly show in "CO2 Is Innocent" at https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com with a demo that costs a few Dollars to do, nothing like the $1 trillion socialists have wasted on this fraud by employing 30,000 Ph.D. scientists since 1988, 30 years!

More recently, Newsweek included the "97%" figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence secondary school science curricula.  The author claimed “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity,” which has never been true.

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming in their quest for more political power.  After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But, how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlies such a popular talking point to say nothing of a simple demo experiment they could do for a few Dollars. How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical conclusion committed by a corrupt statistician who put all "no opinion" authors in the "Believer" group.  In truth 93% of the "no opinion" people were avoiding the issue as they know it is political and false!

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Bear in mind these were all written by people who were hired or paid by grants to prove this case!  Grants defined by politicians who are ever looking for way to assume more control over anything that will expand their power to tax.

John Cook stated the papers taking a position on global warming, 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.  For peer-reviewed papers the “97 percent consensus” is really only “32.6 percent consensus” and all people whose income depends on professing that belief.

John Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 queries to authors to rate their papers and only 1,189 authors, 14%, endorsed 2,142 papers. 86% would not endorse their own papers on this issue!

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.  This is a confidence shattering "master" analysis, large scale or "global" analysis which is the "gold standard" of academia.

All of these people were hired to, or took grants for promoting this concept.  So, John Cook concluded 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it!

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempt to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a seven to 100 percent among climate experts.  Which is such a wild range any legitimate statistician would declare the question itself "a fraud."

Cook’s paper is the most widely cited and has been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets and by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a committee of 2,500 diplomats that have never had more than 12 scientists in their ranks.  

We are in the LinkedIn System for professional scientists and have sent our 12 page paper "CO2 Is Innocent" to 5,500 atmospheric scientists around the world, in every country.  We include all physics, chemistry and stoichiometry plus a $5 demo anyone can do with household items, no lab requiried and not one has raised an objection, question or offered a criticism, but many have thanked us in spite of the fact their livelihoods depend on continuing the myth.



The sad fact is that CO2 does not heat the atmosphere in the concentrations we have or any possible over the next thousand years.  We show this very clearly in an inexpensive demo-experiment you can read, clip-copy and authenticate with any physical scientist or teacher of Chemistry or Physics. See the paper at: https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com  "CO2 Is Innocent."

The only conclusion is that this issue, handled politically with payoffs topping $1 trillion have forever poisoned physical science applied to the atmosphere and this could well destroy us at some point in the future.

Adrian Vance