Quote of the Day: "over-bloated overconfidence" of consensus

Quote of the Day

Judith Curry, writing at her blog Climate Etc, comments on an article in which warmists attempt to “explain away” the apparent lack of warming over the past decade or so, and concede that more research is required before such lack of warming can be fully explained (my emphasis):

“Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming.  A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling.  The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years.  Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change.”

Hear, hear [said very loudly].

Comments

  1. Just another reason why the debate has changed from “global cooling” to “global warming” to “climate change” to “carbon pollution/clean energy future”.

    How do you argue the point when politicians keep changing the argument to suit themselves?

  2. Andrew McRae says:

    We can keep pointing out that the emperor is scantily clad but the message doesn’t seem to get through to the powers that be.
    Your inequitable criminal trial analogy from this morning’s post and this flimsy exaggerated consensus are both points I covered briefly in my 12 page submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Clean Energy Future legislation. In particular the origin of the “97%” figure for consensus of “qualified climate scientists” has to be questioned for the reason I outlined.

    Not that this public comment period did us much good in the Lower House.

    The Senate and a High Court challenge are the only options remaining.

    • val majkus says:

      Andrew that’s a great submission
      Did you see this article at WUWT about the 97% consensus
      However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 76 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/

      • Andrew McRae says:

        Val,
        Thanks, I only had 3 days notice about the comment period but I still wish I could have done better in the time frame.

        Thanks for the “97%” link, I had not heard of this poll before. I’m fairly sure the warmist site I was reading had cited Schneider’s survey as the source for the figure. But even a poll of 1500 scientists is no match for several thousand weather balloons and the Argo fleet!

  3. Let me guess what is at play here ; Need a few More Billion dollars to top up the parasites Bank accounts , so their excesses in Living standards can be achieved; Christ knows what would happen to them if , heaven forbid, If they Actual had to Earn a living for themselves ; But wait a moment , You need some skills for that , No skills needed to be a parasite . Not even a conscious or and I Q.
    Global Looting Alert.

  4. The real message here:
    More research required – grant us another truck load of money – never mind the result.

  5. Aert Driessen says:

    Oh Dear. And this after the world has already spent hundreds of billions of $s, on what? No wonder the poor are getting poorer and that poverty reigns.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,731 other followers

%d bloggers like this: