Nuccitelli brings out the Consensus Calculator


Already getting a lot of use…

I cannot believe how rapidly Dana Nuccitelli (he of Un-Sk Ps-Sc fame) has wheeled out the ACM Consensus Calculator to rubbish a study which rejects the ludicrous 97% figure that he and John Cook constantly bandy about.

When a survey reveals significantly less of a consensus than Un-Sk Ps-Sc would like, the CC is employed to make sure that it is “really” still 97%. The survey in question is this one by the American Meteorological Society, which shows that out of 1800 odd members who responded, only 52% believed that the cause of recent warming was “mostly human”. This will never do:

The misrepresentations of the study have claimed that it contradicts the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The prior studies that have found this high level of consensus were based specifically on climate experts – namely asking what those who do climate science research think, or what their peer-reviewed papers say about the causes of global warming.

The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it’s mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it’s equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). Just 2 percent of AMS climate experts said global warming is mostly natural, 1 percent said global warming isn’t happening, and the remaining 4 percent were unsure about global warming or human causation.

The authors also note that they asked about contributions to global warming over the past 150 years, whereas climate scientists are most confident that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past 50 years. Some survey participants sent emails implying that if the question had more narrowly focused on the past 50 years, even more respondents might have said that global warming is mostly human-caused.

Importantly, most AMS members are not climate researchers, nor is scientific research of any kind their primary occupation (for example, weather forecasters). Among those AMS members who haven’t recently published in the peer-reviewed literature, just 62 percent agreed that humans are causing global warming, with 37 percent saying humans are the main cause over the past 150 years.

Following it so far? Nuccitelli then repeats the study’s conclusions that any divergence from the “consensus” is more about “expertise” and “political ideology” than anything else (Lewandowsky anyone?). Judith Curry points out that the AMS has a history of plugging the alarmist line:

A year ago, the AMS issued a Statement on Climate Change, see my blog post on this.  Excerpts from their statement:

“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.

The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.

Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous.”

I was harshly critical of this statement, which was written by a group of volunteers and then approved by the AMS Council.

So it’s little wonder that the authors of the study look for any extraneous reason to justify the lack of agreement with the supposed consensus.

And just in case you haven’t got the message, Nuccitelli concludes:

In any case, the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming is still a reality.

A figure which comes from a study of which he and Cook are the authors, naturally.

Source (h/t Real Science)


  1. All those persons who say that they are ‘Scientists’ and then they make claims that cannot be supported by the true facts, statements that rely on twisted half truths and blatant omissions, should be very worried about how the future will regard them, I myself would not want the future to say that I was a halfwit, all the claims about Global warming that are not supported by the actual true measurements taken, measurements that do say what is really happening, and has been happening over the last 20 years as well as back through time, and these daily and ongoing weather recordings that do not support what the so called AGW models predicted, true recordings that do say what the truth about AGW is, and it is not what the all the AGW models predicted so there is more sea ice than ever, and more food being grown, and the sea is not dramatically rising, and there are more cold winters around the world as there has ever been, so it now looks like we will not have to move to Antarctica to try to be a part of one of the last breeding couples, and Flannery will be able to stay in his home by the sea. it is no surprise to me that some of the truest believers have recanted and said that the models are clearly wrong as enough time has passed to prove the truth about the models, they say that there should be evidence by now that shows that the models are correct and all the evidence says that the models are not correct so they recanted to save their scientific souls, well I predict that over the next five years then many more of them will start to sweat about how the future will speak about them and to save what is left of the scientific reputations then they to will get in line and recant, admit that is was all about Chicken Little and the sky is falling, time will show if I am correct or not but I also predict that many of them who will be worrying about a personal future with them not being able to rake in the money any longer as a part of this greatest con in history, well they will ramp up the scare tactics and predict the end of the World.

  2. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Once most people believe something that even becomes logically incorrect, they will cling to all straws to defer the inevitable.
    As for the perpetrators of the CO2 and carbon control pseudo-science, they will never admit being wrong, even long after the evidence is clear to any clear-thinking person, scientist or not.
    To continue to support the 97% “consensus” is to exhibit a serious lack of commonsense.

  3. “The prior studies that have found this high level of consensus were based specifically on climate experts – namely asking what those who do climate science research think, or what their peer-reviewed papers say about the causes of global warming”

    A reasonable working definition identifies an ‘expert’ as one whose claims match the observational record in the field of their ‘expertise’.

    Nuccitelli’s ‘prior studies’ should show how they have excluded climate scientists who do not qualify as experts within this very fundamental criterion, especially in respect of; the presence (or otherwise) of the tropospheric ‘hot spot’; the number and intensity of tornadoes, cyclones, typhoons etc during the last 15 years; sea level rise projections; and climate model temperature projections versus the instrumental record over the last 17 years.

    Equating ‘climate scientist’ with ‘climate expert’ is manifestly flawed.

    Perhaps it’s comparable with equating ‘skepticism’ with ‘skepticalism’?

  4. If you asked a bunch of health practitioners if they believed in the efficacy of homoeopathy the percentage of ‘believers’ would be very small. If you restricted the ‘correct’ responders to only those who practised or published in the field homoeopathy, then the percentage who considered it very efficacious would be extremely high. So does that method of survey improve homoeopathy’s credibility? Or does it just show that most of the health practitioners have looked at it, and dismissed it and wouldn’t waste their time practising or publishing in the field? In any event, can you imagine trying to get a negative article published on homoeopathy in a homoeopathy journal, you wouldn’t get it past the gate keepers who are ‘believers’.

    And so it goes with Climate Science. I can’t believe how gullible and naive these people are who can’t recognise confirmation bias. Instead they think that it is wise to discount the views of scientists who are not too close to the issues such that they can look at the issues objectively.

    • Q. What’s the difference between: –
      – a homeopathy disciple
      – a religionist
      – a royalist ….. and
      – a climate alarmist …..?

      A. Nothing, they’re all Prince Charles!


  5. Howard John says:

    Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky & Cook should go and take up permanent residence with Assange.

    Have a nice day, buddies!

  6. The (Un)Skeptical Pseudo Science new scientific method:
    – Make a conclusion
    – Gather relating evidence
    – Analyze the results
    – Re-affirm your conclusion
    – Belittle all attempts to question your conclusion

  7. Oops! Nuccitelli fails to mention he has a conflict of interest.

    “Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science and Guardian fame was discovered to be in the pay of an “oil and gas” company (Tetra Tech). It turns out that Tetra Tech has a subsidiary company called Tetra Tech Construction, Inc. And what do they do? For example, they do “energy” (of the ALTERNATIVE variety that is). Tetra Tech Construction provides design and construction services for wind, solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, natural gas drilling and extraction, combined-cycle, waste-to-energy, and electric transmission projects. […]”

    Via Omnologos.

  8. Given the amount of times Dana has shot himself in the foot with his pronouncements I wonder if he isn’t some sort of human/ centipede hybrid?

%d bloggers like this: