By Rich Kozlovich
In order to have clarity on any subject we first need it defined. From the beginning The High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, Al Gore, proclaimed in Pontifical confidence - "The science is settled"! We have been told from the beginning that "97% of scientists agree" that mankind's introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the globe so dramatically we only had months before we reached the tipping point of no return, therefore "we can't wait", we must act now.
The first thing that struck me about the phrase "97% of scientists agree" was they didn't claim 97% of "all" scientists agree. That should have triggered this question in everyone's mind.
How many constitute 97%?
The number of scientists should have been of more concern than the percentage of scientists. Why? There's a reason statistics is call the arcane science. If there was anything that generates more logical fallacies I don’t know what it is, because you can make statistics say anything you like if you leave important things out.
"I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or
scientists who use the phrase ‘97% of
scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate
scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the
public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite?”
He goes on to say:
“Perhaps a few may
say the ‘Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this
‘97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely
cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual
survey.”…. “The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in
the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to
75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97%
figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the
majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many
critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary,
some other reviews here, here and here”
Let’s take a look at this. The 97% figure they tout is in reality the views of just 75 out of 77
scientists of unknown scientific discipline. Originally a survey was sent to
10,265 scientists - a credible number - but this is where the story starts to
get interesting - only 3,146 responded. It would appear that right from the very beginning they lost
approximately 60% of “all” scientists by not responding. I think it isn't unreasonable to presume they didn't respond because they didn't agree with the basic premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that
mankind was responsible. That leaves 3,146 to make up that
97% figure. Right? Well, actually no, and the story of the fabled 97% gets even
Now we need to ask: What did all those 3,146 scientists have to say? We don’t know! Why? Because they apparently didn’t like what almost all of them had to say since the number of “acceptable” responders was whittled down from 3,146 to 77.
Did I ever mention in the past you can’t fix stupid? Which in this case couples corruption and insanity!