Teach Them about this Deeply Deceptive Statistic used by CAGW Spinners: the '97%'

The notorious, the fatuous, the misleading claim that  '97% of climatologists' believe in ('catastrophic' implied/stated/assumed) anthropogenic global warming has been rebutted many times.  Anyone with an elementary grasp of sample-survey techniques would have refused to publish the results, based as they are on a sloppy question, an imperfect frame, and a tiny subset of self-selected respondents of unknown qualifications.  But perhaps when you are saving the planet, the means justifies the ends, or more clearly, 'let's not let scientific integrity get in the way of political impact.'

The WUWT site has a post dated 4th March from Jospeh D'Aleo, a meteorologist, reacting to another meteorologist still trotting out that egregious 97% as if it were a clincher instead of an embarassment, as per:

'Of the climatologists, a staggering 97% agreed to the same question… It’s very difficult for me to understand the disdain for science that exists today.'  

Oh the ironing!  (as they say on the Daily Bayonet)

D'Aleo digs out an IceCap post from last December by Solomon, of the Canadian National Post, and reproduces part of it.  Here is an extract, referring to a crude online survey sent to 10,257 'Earth scientists', of whom only 3,146 chose to respond, and of them a subset of 77 was extracted to create the 97%:

'This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.'

Of course, with a mass media largely supine and uncritical under the whirling deluge of alarmist press releases, soundbites, and sundry spins, the '97%' grew wings and became something with which to impress the public.  But the public is catching up.  Teachers can contribute by ensuring that their pupils see that '97% ' as well-worthy of their disdain.

An SPPI report on the '97%' is available here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf


Hat-tip: The Climate Science blog.

Added 7 March: There is analysis at Climate Quotes of the two questions used in the survey, noting that they could readily be answered in the affirmative by those who do not see any convincing evidence or arguments that AGW is a major and urgent threat: http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

Added 19 July 2012.  Barry Woods provides a lot more information and insight into fatuous 97% and 98% claims: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/#more-60090
Amongst other things, he tracked down an MSc thesis that was the source of one of the most widely quoted 97% figures: 'As this MSc thesis was the original source of the oft cited Doran paper  97%  quote, I tracked it down (sometime ago now) and discovered in the appendi that there was a great deal of  email feedback and answers to write in questions from the scientists that actually participated in the survey, much of it critical and sceptical of the survey itself, the methodology and the questions asked. Additionally, amongst those environmental scientists that responded, were some very sceptical sounding scientists with respect to man made climate change being the dominant driver of climate change.'  
As well as the Doran/Zimmerman survey, he reports on the later Anderegg 'survey', and notes scathing critiques of it:
'Paul Matthews: “Scott Denning needs to be more careful if he and his fellow climate scientists are to be taken seriously by scientists from other fields such as myself. 
He loses credibility by referring to the ridiculous Anderegg et al study, in which the authors put scientists into two different pigeon-holes. ' 

Picture for the Classroom Wall: shut down Australia, save 0.01C of warming

When it comes to that part of the curriculum calling for the children to suggest ways of reducing their 'carbon footprints', such as getting their parents to cancel holidays, turn off lights, reduce the heating, and so on, there is great scope for making them feel bad about their way of life, and the awful things their parents have done, such as buying a car or leaving the TV on standby, or buying food not produced in a nearby field, or, horror or horrors, not giving two hoots about it all.  The above diagram can help them see how worthwhile their actions could be in helping save the planet as it apparently hurtles like a snail towards a somewhat more congenial climate.

The illustration above by Jo Nova.  More at: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/shut-down-australia-and-save-0-01-degree/

The calculations, based on IPCC-style science, are provided by SPPI in a report which can be downloaded from here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/impacts_of_climate_mitigation_measures_in_australia.html

The report is very short, and the sums look easy enough.  Why not get a class to do them for your country?  Help the children see what all the fuss is about, and at the same time help yourself decide how much longer you can stomach pushing spirit-sapping mind-numbing propaganda from the WWF, the IPCC, etc, etc, etc

Notes added 8 March: (1) Here are some computation results for an EU scheme that would return an ostensible 0.002C impact for an expenditure of 2.9 trillion euros: http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/08/the-eus-serial-economy-killers-0-002%C2%B0c-for-e2-9-trillion/
                                     (2) Here are results for many countries of the world, scroll down to find this table

Which I interpret to mean 'shutting down Australia', for example would ostensibly give a temp drop of 1.92/1000 C, i.e. 0.0019C, which is a lot less than the result of 0.01C headlined in this post.  The method used was different, being based on the assumption that greenhouse gases mean the average temp of the Earth is 33C higher than it would be without them, and noting that only about 0.14C of this could reasonably be attributed to manmade CO2.  The earlier Australian value was ' ... calculated with Wigley 1998 protocol assuming that Australia would otherwise have kept producing about 3% of the total CO2 emissions of developed countries. The SPPI estimate uses Wigley’s (1998) mid-range emissions scenario (which itself is based upon the IPCC’s scenario “IS92a” ' (see link to Jo Nova's post above).
Note 1 added 14 March: Jo Nova has new calculations of temperature rises:' ..The effect, according to the IPCC’s theory of man-made global warming' is not alarming: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/carbon-tax-australia-welcome-to-futility-island/    100% reduction in Australian emissions from now to 2050 would reduce temps by 0.0154C using the IPCC approach, an approach which one can of course readily assume to be based more on PR-potential than good science.
Note 2 added 14 March.  USA.  Willis Eschenbach has been doing sums for a post on WUWT about the impact of EPA proposed CO2 reductions: 'Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.'  
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/

Johnny Ball on School Science: Why are we scaring our kids?

The distinguished presenter of TV programmes and talks on mathematics and science for children has just been on a daytime news programme on UK TV, showing a brief movie about his views, and being interviewed.  The transcipt is over at GWPF: http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2563-johnny-ball-why-are-we-scaring-our-kids-to-death.html

He asks 'Why are we scaring our kids to death?'

So, why are we?  And who is doing it?  The school curriculum seems obsessed with violence, tragedy, and disasters such as National Socialism and WWII, fatuous talk of CAGW, and pollution of various kinds, and of course the counter-progressive mush of 'sustainability'.  Who is it that is so determined to give our children a poor view of humanity and our prospects?  They want to 'make little activists'.  Why do we let them within a mile of young minds and spirits?

Well done Johnny Ball for taking this fight into that heart of the 'liberal' darkness, the BBC.

Lessons in Intolerance: a wry look at contempt for CAGW sceptics

The Sun, 26th February, 2011.

Hat-tip: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7301  

A more considered, but equally heartfelt piece on this topic is to be found in The Spectator magazine:

'It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion. As they say in their cover story:

“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed  it - perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play - The Heretic - at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” '

and this classic of understated but penetrating insight:

'Science as a philosophy is a powerful, but fragile thing. In the case of climate, it is now in conflict with science as an institution.'


Link: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica-myths.thtml

Learning by Metaphor: foolish building, foolish technology, foolish teacher, foolish 'science'

Foiled by the winter: The £25,000 eco-classroom that can't be used because solar panels don't provide enough heat

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360297/25-000-eco-classroom-used-solar-panels-dont-provide-heat.html#ixzz1Ey9IWSKc

Simple arithmetic would have shown this building to be a foolish one, yet it was constructed.

Modern technology would have made a better building than this one, yet it was constructed.

The importance of the building as a gesture, no matter how absurd, outweighs, for some, all other considerations:
"Headteacher Jill Hughes defended the project and said she hoped classes would be held in the classroom when the weather gets warmer.  She said: ‘We’re delighted to have the Living Ark - its a tremendous resource both for the school and the local community and is an important part of the Muswell Hill low carbon zone initiative.’ "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360297/25-000-eco-classroom-used-solar-panels-dont-provide-heat.html#ixzz1Ey7jLQ3R

The source of this madness, this modern ideology, can be traced to political exploitation of computer models of the climate which are hopelessly inadequate.  Just like this building.  It is a metaphor for the wastefulness and the incompetence and the smugness of CO2 alarmism.

More details in the Daily Mail report.

Hat-tips:   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/25/climate-craziness-of-the-week-3/    and http://spielclimate.blogspot.com/2010/03/suggestions-for-blogs-and-links.html

Note added 7 March: details of a grander scheme costing colleges in Los Angeles the loss of $10million are given here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/colleges-blow-10-million-on-wildly.html, and once again it would have been avoided if arithmetic had been allowed at least equal status with ideology.

Note added 11 July: another example of this foolishness, this time from East Germany :
'Pupils and teachers dread every school day at the SeeCampus. If the deodorant of just one person fails to work, then half the classroom goes into a coma. The ventilation in the exemplary passive building is a catastrophe. There’s an extreme lack of fresh air on hot days. Because of concern over the health of the children, who complain about headaches and fatigue, parents are threatening to stop operation of the school through legal action.  The school building SeeCampus in Niederlausitz becomes completely overheated on summer days and is badly ventilated. Headaches and cardio-respiratory problems with pupils and teachers are the result. The number of sick days is climbing rapidly.'
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/11/flopped-green-passive-school-suffocating-students/


Note added 23 September 2013: more metaphor opportunities:
(1) children threatened by insects dropping in from an 'eco-school' roof:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/10327504/School-closed-after-pupils-bitten-by-mites-in-eco-roof.html
(2)children threatened by mould and damp in another 'eco-school':  'Devon County Council says it has already spent £250,000 to investigate the problem and without urgent repairs, it says teaching pupils inside the building could seriously damage their health.' 
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Acclaimed-eco-school-forced-shut-classrooms-years/story-19789593-detail/story.html#ixzz2fi669r8B