Sunday, December 21, 2014

About those scientific organizations who *ALL* agree about 'man-made' global warming.....

One of the claims often made by those arguing the case in favor of the theory of 'man-made' global warming, is that ALL scientific organizations across the globe support the theory. People often supply a substantial list of organizations to back up their claim, and / or will quote from the statements made by those various organizations. NASA itself provides a list of over 200 such organizations.

The precise definition from one pro-AGW site on the internet, is this:

'That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.'

That is an interesting claim. It appears that virtually (supposedly) every single scientist on the face of the Earth, no matter what their degree in, views the current climate change as both A) human-caused and B) Catastrophic. After 8 years of arguing various points with a variety of people, it always seems to devolve to the above two contentions. No other point of view is to be tolerated. We must acknowledge the overwhelming consensus. There is no choice but to take action on the climate, Now!

But is that really the case? Do we know for certain the claim that '97% of all scientists agree'** is true? Can we really say that every single scientific organization on the face of the Earth, agrees with the theory of 'man-made' global warming / climate change?

If it is truly the case that the memberships of every single scientific organization on Earth agrees with and supports the theory of 'man-made' global warming / climate change, then we should not be able to find any dissent. So, just out of curiousity, let's try... the Geological Society of Australia:


'AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue "had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole."

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.'

Full article here


Wait. Large numbers of the membership disagree with the statement on AGW made by the leadership? How can that be? Didn't they poll every single member before they made such a statement? Are not the claims made within the theory, incontrovertible? If there is truly a '97% consensus,' then would not a straight vote have put an end to the issue? Who cares what 3% of the membership believes?

Let's get a bit closer to that divisive pro-AGW statement by the GSA, in a letter to the editor by one of the organization's members:

An independent poll
of members of the Society (conducted in
2010) showed that a majority (53% of
626 members who responded) did not
agree with the Society’s position
statement. The Executive then agreed
to withdraw that statement from the
Society’s website, but by then it had been
picked up by other websites and continues
to be freely available.

Surely no rational person could disagree
that any statement by the Society on such
a contentious issue needs to reflect the
various views of its members. Indeed the
statement by Brad Pillans does just that.
For the interest of readers, my own views
as a ‘sceptic’ (known to some AGW
believers as a ‘denier’) can be summarised
as follows:

• Modern global warming is a fact; it has
continued, with stops and starts, since
about 1850, the end of the Little Ice

• Geological evidence shows that the
Earth’s climate has always been
changing, due to natural causes, for
billions of years.

• Climate changes were much greater at
many times in the geological past than
those being experienced today, and
AGW could not have been a factor in
those past changes.

• Historical evidence shows that there
have been large changes in climate
during the past two millennia, entirely
due to natural causes — including the
Medieval Warm Period (AD 950 to
1250, when wine grapes were grown
as far north as Yorkshire and the
Norsemen colonised Greenland) and the
Little Ice Age (AD 1550 to 1850, when
the Thames periodically froze over, sea
ice extended into the Zuyder Zee, and
the Norsemen had to leave Greenland).

• The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere
is vitally important to life on Earth, and
increasing levels stimulate plant

• CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and its
content in the atmosphere is rising
steadily due to the burning of fossil
fuels — but there is no accepted
scientific method to separate natural
causes of climate change from any that
are due to the rising levels of CO2.

• There was no global warming during the
period from the 1940s to the early
1970s, and again from 1999 to the
present, despite ever-increasing levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere

• During the 1970s serious concern was
expressed by some that the Earth was
about to descend into a new ice age,
which contrasts with the views of AGW
believers today that the Earth is about
to experience catastrophically hot
conditions and rising sea levels.

• Others now contend that Solar factors
are more important than has generally
been recognised, and the pattern of
recent sunspot cycles is similar to that
experienced prior to the Maunder and
Dalton Solar Minima, so that some solar
physicists predict that cooling of 1–2C
will occur during the next few decades.

I doubt that these issues can be resolved
conclusively in the near future. Although
the President of the [Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change] IPCC, Rajendra
Pachauri, has conceded that the rise in
global temperatures has stalled for the
past 14 years, he contends that this trend
will need to continue for at least another
30 or 40 years for it to invalidate the
AGW hypothesis. Some invoke the
‘precautionary principle’ in seeking to take
action to reduce CO2 levels in the atmos-
phere, and Australia is in the forefront in
that regard. However, in any case, Aus-
tralia produces only about 1.5% of global
CO2 emissions, and if it could entirely
eliminate its generation of CO2 that would
have no significant effect on the world’s


A copy of the complete letter, plus more information may be found here



Granted it was not the entire 2000 members, but, how much would the final % be if everyone had spoken their minds? Does 53% look anything like the claim of '97%'? Should we not know what Every. Single. Member of this organization thinks? When more than half the members disagree with the statement that 'man-made' global warming is the primary and possibly Only factor in current climate change, it seems to me fairly obvious that NO consensus exists.

Also, please take especial note of Dr. Playford's description of Skeptic beliefs. They mirror mine quite nicely. Heck, they mirror those of Most skeptics. Just ask Any pro-AGW type what skeptics believe.... oh, wait, you will hear the exact opposite. In very shrill, demeaning, condescending, demonizing tones.


But Ok. That is only one group. Surely the other 199 groups have all polled every single one of their members individually, and come up with a 97% consensus, right?

Erm, well, let's look at another group: the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Seems in 2009 there was a major kerfluffle within the ranks of membership there. The AMS had made a clear statement on 'man-made' global warming, claiming that current climate change is Of Course the fault of mankind. Well, that sat so well with a lot of people there that well over a hundred (how many more, I am uncertain) resigned membership in the organization.

One such person who had serious concerns about the validity of the AMS climate-change statement was hurricane expert Dr. William Gray.

Dr. Gray, hurricane forecaster with 70 years' experience under his belt, has had a great deal to say about the stance of the AMS (found here ), including the following:

'Of all the country’s scientific societies, the AMS is the most relevant to the global warming debate because its members have the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. The AMS should have been a leader in helping objectively to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics.

The U.S. legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a contended issue present their views in open debate before a nonpartisan jury. Given the political pressure created by global warming concerns, it’s important to subject the science behind such claims to exactly that kind of debate.

Unfortunately, nothing of the kind has happened regarding AGW. Instead of organizing free and open debates on the basic physics and likelihood of AGW-induced climate changes, the leaders of the national meteorological society (with the backing of its AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to place their full trust in the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate. I know of no AMS-sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion.

The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question, claiming the issue has already been settled by their model results. They take this view because they know the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods are unlikely to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review. Thus they simply will not debate the issue.

To forestall criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of all those who do not support their AGW hypothesis, falsely and maliciously denouncing them as tools of the fossil-fuel industry.'


In the above letter, Dr. Gray also called for a poll to be taken of the membership of the AMS, to see just how many supported the stance on global warming taken by the leadership. This poll did occur, and was published in 2013.

Did it support the '97% consensus'?

Take a look at the table at the top of this article (Which can be found, with commentary by climate scientist Dr Judith Curry, here . This is the breakdown of the internal poll taken by the AMS. Going by two definitions: A) the pro-AGW side, which contends that current climate change is pretty much your fault and a total disaster, and B) as described above, the Skeptic view on current climate change, what do we see?

52% agree with the idea that current climate change is pretty much your fault. Going by the Skeptic view, a full 35% disagree, leaving a few % who don't really say one way or the other.

Interesting how the % agreeing or disagreeing, keeps floating right around 50/50, isn't it? Hardly a '97% consensus.' And yet, proponents of AGW continue to contend that only a small fraction of scientists- say, 3%?- disagree... and they would like you to believe that those who disagree do so ONLY for political reasons, or due to mental defects, or because they were worthless in the science department to begin with. This despite the easily-verifiable facts that many of them hold PhDs, have been working in the field for decades, have taught thousands of students over the years, and even, here and there, have been awarded the Nobel prize.


Well now, that's two. Do we consider them flukes, or is a pattern at complete odds with claims made to the public, beginning to emerge here? Seems like one Hell of a lot of scientists disagree with the 'consensus.'

'But,' some might say, 'meteorologists are *not* climate scientists! Their viewpoint doesn't count!'

Well there's an interesting point. If you are going to contend that *only* 'climate scientists' can hold a valid POV on climate change, then you have just eliminated the AMS from that list of over 200 scientific organizations which support the contention that current climate change is both our fault, and catastrophic.

Ohhhhhhhhh, wait. That makes for a slight problem, don't you think? If non-'climate scientists' cannot be allowed to be holding a 'valid' opinion on climate change.......... If *only* 'climate scientists' can hold a 'valid' opinion on climate change....... Then you had better start striking other organizations off the list. Such as the:

American Medical Association.

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences   (One of the things I have long noted is that pro-AGW types sneer down upon engineers- what *could* they possibly know about climate?)

Crop Science Society of America

American Academy of Pediatrics

The American Astronomical Society......? (I thought THE SUN could not have an effect upon the climate, let alone the rest of the universe...)

The list goes on, many groups quite substantially having little or NO climate scientists within their ranks. I mean, biologists? Psychologists? Really?

If members of the American Meteorological Society cannot be allowed to hold a 'valid' POV on climate change, then you must needs eliminate the vast majority of the 200 groups NASA and wiki mention.

Oh My. That % of 'all the world's scientists'** keeps dwindling, doesn't it?


There's a great deal more that I could post here, of course. Educated, scientifically-backed dissent against the prevailing and unproven theory of 'man-made' global warming, is far more widespread than they would have you believe. Peer-reviewed research which indicates major and growing problems with both the unproven theory and its' manifestations in Reality, is far more extensive than most people know.

One has to wonder how many pro-AGW types are on serious high-blood-pressure meds, due to their efforts to prevent the public from learning just how many of the membership in their various organizations, seriously disagree with them- and for quite valid reasons.

Let me just throw out a few more quick items:

Scientists have resigned from the American Physical Society because they could not live with the statements supporting catastrophic, It-Is-YOUR-fault 'man-made' global warming. To whit:

'The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.'


'In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.'

Hmmm. That last statement was from a Nobel Laureate. Who on the pro-AGW side wishes to demean, denigrate and demonize him?

I'm waiting.

In the meantime, one can BET there is a lot more dissent among members of many other scientific organizations, than we are hearing about. It will come out, sooner or later.

The '97% consensus' meme is just that, a meme. Anyone who cares to take a look will find that number shrinking, that is has been shrinking for a long time, and that politics and ideology lie (in both senses of the word) at the heart of it.


And finally, just for fun, there is this comment I made to another person on Deviantart (found here )

'Couldn't find the original comment, but here's my thinking:

'47% of all petroleum geologists don't believe in climate change,' or some such Nonsense.

Funny how you just Don't seem to see the flip side of that.

A MAJORITY, 53%, by your numbers, WOULD believe in 'man-made' whatever.

Yet they are STILL DRAWING A PAYCHECK FROM the 'big oil' conspiracists.

And somehow, that doesn't bother you. Just the people who Don't 'believe' in your religion.

Just thought I'd mention that.'


Feel free to quote from or link to this article when people bring up the 'every scientific society' meme. Ask them to explain why the numbers seem to fall closer to 50/50, than 97/3.

**If you pay close attention when pro-AGW types cite these things, it has gone from '97% of all climate scientists' to '97% of ALL scientists.' And some have tried to nudge it '99%'









Anonymous said...

A review of the new book "CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014" by about 24 authors - available here.

The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 "Sun Shunned" in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun's orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.

The rest of the chapters on the "science" do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth's surface temperatures. Instead the "lukes" all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.

Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquired out of the atmosphere.

All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun's radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.

Anonymous said...


Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That's even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.

Hence all the "luke" authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don't know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.

That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the "lukes" who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.