‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’

Don't diss me, man

Don’t diss me, man

John Cook’s 97% is, quite frankly, bullshit. A simple statistic by, for and on behalf of, the simple minded, to be bandied about as often as possible, hoping that no-one actually bothers to enquire what it means.

And relying on the old adage that a lie, repeated often enough, will eventually become the truth. “97% of climate scientists agree that… [insert assertion here]” is a big heavy weapon used to beat dissenters around the head.

As always, however, the reality is vastly different. What do they agree on?

  1. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
  2. That emissions have increased since the Industrial Revolution?
  3. That temperatures have increased in the same period? If that’s the case, then I’m in the 97%.
  4. Is it also that man has caused some proportion of that warming? If yes, then I’m still in. It’s only when you get to the next level that things fall apart.
  5. Has man caused the majority of the warming since the 19th Century? Probably out on this one
  6. Is the warming dangerous? I’m definitely out here.

So at what point was Cook’s 97% measured? After point 3? Or 4? Or 6? Joe Bast and Roy Spencer go into it here, but really, who cares? Science isn’t done by a show of hands, so not only are Cook’s results bullshit, but the whole premise of the study is bullshit too. As Einstein famously said, why get a hundred scientists to diss me when one motherfuckin’ fact would do, bro? (I’m paraphrasing here.) I just happened to be watching a YouTube clip from the excellent channel Veritasium, when the presenter said:

“That is what is so important about the scientific method. We set out to disprove our theories, and it’s when we can’t disprove them we say this must be getting at something really true about our reality. So I think we should do that in all aspects of our lives. If you think that something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself.”

And that is the fundamental message for all the climate zealots out there. Try as hard as you can to disprove your beloved AGW hypotheses. Do precisely the opposite of what Cook and his Un-Skeptical mates have done here, i.e. surrounded themselves with like-minded folk and never allowed any dissent to creep in, genuflecting at the altar of warmism and offering up sacrifices to please the almighty Greenhouse God. If governments and academic institutions really wanted to seek out answers, they would be throwing a bucket load of cash at research to try to show that the AGW hypothesis is flawed. If it stood up to an assault of that magnitude, then you bet I’d be on board too. Dancing around, handling the issue with kid gloves, desperate not to scratch the surface too deeply for fear of what might be hidden underneath, that’s just delusional. Only when you try hard to disprove your theories can you get to the truth … and not fool yourself. Watch the whole thing (it’s very interesting), but the quote is here.

Comments

  1. There is no point in arguing the facts of science with these AGW fools as they already know that science does not support their argument, the proof is that they would use any scientific argument that they had, if they had one, the fact that they don’t have one is why they use scare image’s that are not backed up by their scientific proof, fake photos of fake dredging on the Great Barrier Reef, photos of children with by lines that suggest that the kids will all die soon, scaremongering is not science and they know it, all they do is appeal to the ones who still believe and still donate, they are getting the cash as long as it lasts. N

    • All we have to do is keep calmly showing the truth to people…..eventually the warmist will fall flat on their faces.

      I still advocate a Nuremberg style trial for Warmists though…..

  2. 97%? Only the likes of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein could boast of a similar approval rating

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Another question ” Has there actually been any real warming since 1900?”

    If you remove all the GISS, HadCrut, BOM adjustments.. it becomes a very hard question to answer.

    Raw data in Australia for eg, shows a very warm period around 1910-1920

    Early Hansen data for the NH shows temps around 1940 pretty much on par with late 1980’s.

    The whole thing is mired in fake data and maladjustments. One wonders that there might be some other agenda behind it all, because its isn’t about climate.

  4. Simon Colwell says:

    Global warming bed wetters have no intention of ever proving their theory. Not only because they can’t but also because they’re either only into it for the money (scientists, bankers, public servants etc) or they’re left-wing ratbags who see global warming as a useful weapontool for attacking capitalism.

  5. “As Einstein famously said, why get a hundred scientists to diss me when one motherfuckin’ fact would do, bro? (I’m paraphrasing here.)”

    I seriously want this on a T-shirt, with a big picture of Einstein on it. This is the best line I’ve read for a month (at least). At the very least I’m going to put this up on my wall. 🙂

    Loved the article, too. You are exactly right. Then again, it’s always been: Don’t listen to what they say, look at what they do.

    Truth is the last thing they want anyone to see.

  6. Yep, agree with all above and well presented Simon.

  7. thingadonta says:

    Any project with the outcome in the title is already red flagged. ‘The Consensus Project’.

    Shows they don’t understand it from the start.

  8. I remember, even clearer now 20yrs later, when I was studying Electrical Engineering at University doing Philosophy 101. We were the first year that had philosophy added to the course with the intention to opening the eyes of potential engineers to a frame of reference for the decisions we may one day make as engineers.

    The topics I remember were:
    • Value judgments, how our personal values influence what’s right
    • The energy crisis – over reliance of fossil fuels
    • Global warming, The Greenhouse effect, man-made CO2 emissions
    I very much enjoyed the Value judgments topic. Why do we make bridges only 2.5 times stronger than their maximum loading? What makes your decisions and values more important than others? Does it take into account the potential of natural disasters? Excellent stuff!
    The Energy Crisis topic didn’t make as much sense to me. So many loaded learnings. We weren’t philosophizing, we were being brain washed. I could understand that fossil fuel is a finite resource but I also knew, at the same time I was being brain washed, the constant discovery of more and larger deposits that technology was helping us find were being discovered. We were being told to use Nuclear energy, solar, wind, tidal, etc. etc. This only had me think, what is the environmental cost of those resources? Why aren’t we discussing those in philosophy rather than being brain washed? I was sure, even without evidence, the environmental cost of making solar panels was likely to be expensive. Not only were fossil fuels required to make them but how much processing and environmental damage? I knew we weren’t being encouraged to think, but to agree. Anyway, so what if I don’t agree?
    Then the topic of Global Warming. I can’t tell you why, it must have been instinct but the whole topic did not sit right with me. Maybe because it was so accusational? It was our fault! And therefore it was our responsibility to fix it. Nope! I didn’t have anything to do with our current position at 20yrs of age. I knew it wasn’t me, and I was feeling uncomfortable about the whole delivery of this brain washing. I immediately agreed, we probably should stop polluting the planet and reduce our use of fossil fuels but the rest was rubbish.
    I was not happy and there was a lack of scientific evidence. And then, the evidence that was produced? Well it was a chart of the earth’s temperature related to the suns radiation. I don’t have a copy any longer, all these years later and I can’t find it online. What I saw, at least in my mind was a direct correlation between the suns output compared to the earth’s temperature. It was as clear as day for me. I wanted to find evidence to support my gut feeling and the only piece of evidence that seemed to matter, but there was none. Keep in mind the internet wasn’t what it is today. The best thing about the internet at that moment in time was the release of Netscape, so I got to see boobs on the computer. Yes indeed, remember the very first steps into the World Wide Web? I do.
    Needless to say, I failed philosophy. I would not spew their lies. I still say, I have never learned more than I did when I failed philosophy.
    All these years later I have found a growing movement of educated and intelligent people who share my suspicion towards the global warming lie. Ok, I better clarify that comment. The lie that global warming is due to man-made CO2 emissions.
    I encourage everyone to research this for themselves. It shouldn’t be a surprise that I refer you to a community I am involved with SuspiciousObservers.
    Here is Ben’s latest conference which is a great start and overview. Watch this if nothing else. Ben Davidson: The Variable Sun and Its Effects on Earth | EU2014
    Their website contains a wide variety of brilliant information including:
    • Starwater – water comes from stars and every planet has water
    • C(lie)mate – the global warming lie
    • Agenda 21
    Check out the daily SO news on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
    See weather presented from a space perspective.
    It’s bigger than you think.
    Rikdownunda

    • Murray B. says:

      What nobody tells you is that there is more oil in the world than we are told. Oil companies are usually refiners. The refineries have a design life of thirty years. When they build one they explore until they have enough oil to feed the refinery for its life. When enough affordable oil is found they stop spending money exploring because they do not want to invest money now for a return in fifty or a hundred years time. This universal practice creates the illusion that oil will run out in a few years when it really won’t. The invented oil crisis has driven the price of a barrel of oil to more than $100 USD which is a good profit for pure fantasy.

  9. manicbeancounter says:

    Note that there are no defined boundaries to the subject, so the “97% consensus” is used to silence opposition to political policies.
    There is no distinction between the positive and normative, so the “97% consensus” is used to silence opposition to other, more conventional, moral perspectives.
    There is no distinctions made as to quality or relevancy. Nor is there a distinction between the trivial and non-trivial. So dozens of papers on the effect of climate change on the yodeling abilities of lesser-spotted chipmunks, in Cook’s terms, trump a single high-quality paper showing negative feed-backs.

    I covered these issues last year.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/09/05/fundamentals-that-climate-science-ignores/

    • I just use John Christies trashing of the AR5 models ( comaparing actual observed weatehr baloon & satellite temp data with teh AR5 models predictions of temp ) and they cant argue with when you compare solid observations versus the warmist fantasy……

  10. Old Ranga says:

    I’ve had the 97% line pushed at me by tertiary-educated people who’ve surprised me by their ignorance of the global warming/climate change issue.

    So much of this gets down to people no longer reading a daily newspaper – or reading any newspaper at all, other than The Australian. I guess that’s partly a reflection on what passes as ‘journalism’ in Australia. Why read crap?

    Well done, Simon, and thanks for filling the news gap so effectively. The steady rise in your viewer numbers speaks for itself.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: