Discussion > Refuting the 97%
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
In view of the significance of the 97% to the general public I am sure that those who advocate acceptance make a great mistake.
A proportion of the public, maybe a significant one, will think 'Oh well, if the scientists say so, then maybe we ARE causing the world to warm' and cause them to think they have a moral duty to support CAGW.
When the 97% figure is dropped into a discussion (usually of other related matters) the two second objection I have advocated - without the details the cognoscenti here have proposed - is absolutely necessary to alert journalists and the public to the fact that agreement is not universal and that some say one thing and some the opposite. Your man in the street will soon appreciate that this leaves him free to make up his own mind as best he can, and in the resulting vacuum individual short term financial considerations will no doubt predominate. This would suit the skeptic position and in any case seems fair enough.
There would be plenty of opportunities for the arguments set forth above by the cognoscenti to be discussed in scientific meetings, blogs like Bishop Hill and the like, but most of the public would be too preoccupied to be interested. And it is them with the votes that put the politicians who make the decisions on policy into place, who have to be persuaded.
Ecclesiastical Uncle
Hilary: Refute was always ironic - because Martin A had recently used it. I considered rebut and debunk as well. You tell me!
Robin: That is very good, thanks.
stewgreen: I agree it will become a weapon in our hand in the end but I sure don't think it is yet. And I'm much less happy with what I'd call the 'philosophy of science' arguments. I don't think they cut ice in the way sceptics on blogs think they do and I think there are good reasons for that. But no time to go further now. Perhaps I just don't think I could carry it off in one-to-one conversation.
I think given the ubiquity of the 97% we're doing well to brainstorm this. I have one particular person in mind as I do so, who came out with the 97% in conversation about 18 months ago. I didn't do at all well then. No cameras, just the two of us, but we'll talk about it again I'm sure and the ideas here are very valuable for that. And I hope for other bears of lesser brain like me.
I'm certainly in the "It's important to debunk" camp, not the other one, in case that wasn't clear :)
Richard Drake
Debunking would be great if there was a single authoritative source to point people at. Remember believers have been warned about the "evil deniers" and their clever websites telling lies.
TheBigYinJames
Debunking would be great full stop. Or failing that, rebutting, refuting or ridiculing (as long as it's effective). If you don't think so, isn't there another thread worthy of your attention TBYJ? :)
Richard Drake
come-on the green arguments are weak as F
the public is ready for it
97% is so vulnerable ..that´s why they came up with Cook 97% of all papers BS to try to prop it up
- as is "the ice is melting"
"the polar bears"
"the ocean is getting more acidic"
- The only metric that stands up to analysis is that level of CO2 has increased
It just shows the greens as dogmatists with no respect for proper science ..their movement is dying
"meanwhile people ARE dying from cooking with wood indoors
stewgreen
meanwhile people ARE dying from cooking with wood indoors
We should never forget this. One of the most interesting things about the mythical 97% is that they never mention it, which must mean they don't care about it. Or when have you heard the 97% cited and the point at once made that there are massive tradeoffs in the energy area and of course the 97% realise this? Another interesting line to take against the stupid, soon to be laughable, 97%.
I recommended an article by Bjorn Lomborg to the inventor of Ruby on Rails earlier this month - partly because both men hail from Denmark and studied at the University of Copenhagen. You don't have to know RoR to benefit from the article, which is all about the issues you raise, stew. And the one David originally pointed to is interesting too, coming as it does from the stable of Joe Romm.
Richard Drake
Well with Doran you can say:
You do know this survey was students thesis, with lots of sceptical feedback from the scientist that actually took part, in the actual survey paper. (and 96% of the scientists surveyed were from the North Americas)
.
(The Consenus on the Consensus - M Zimmermann - which is cited by Doran/Zimmermann - EoS
the Doran co-author seemed to have learned far more than Cook/Nuccitelli ever will..
Quote from Maggie Zimmerman after doing the infamous 97.4% Doran survey (in the paper appendices)
“This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I’m actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc.” - M Zimmermann
my other little contribution (Skeptical Science hated it)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Barry Woods
meanwhile people ARE dying from cooking with wood indoorsSpare us the crocodile tears. The rich world has been using fossil fuels for several hundred years but there are still people cooking with wood. And you suggest that if the rich reduce their use of fossile fuels, the situation of the poor will somehow be made worse. Only a total pudding-head would fall for such backward thinking.
On the 97%, I agree it is not necessary. Try this:
green: how can you say that? Thousands of scientific studies are published each year and only a tint few support your position.
sceptic: blah blah blah
public: wan*er!
Chandra
No, we are suggesting that the following policy direction is all wrong and that 'the 97%', whoever they are, are duty bound to speak out against it:
The world’s richest nations, moving to combat global warming, are cutting government support for new coal-burning power plants in developing countries, dealing a blow to the world’s dominant source of electricity.First it was President Barack Obama pledging in June that the government would no longer finance overseas coal plants through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Next it was the World Bank, then the European Investment Bank, dropping support for coal projects. Those banks have pumped more than $10 billion into such initiatives in the past five years.
That's Coal at Risk as Global Lenders Drop Financing on Climate from Bloomberg in August. Please consider in conjunction with Lomborg's The Power to Develop last month. And, if possible, grow up.
Richard Drake
Nice quote from the Telegraph's top comment on Corinne Le Quéré's dire piece today:
You don't need to be a climate scientist to know you're being had.
When it gets to 97% of the general public knowing they've been had I'm told it gets really interesting.
Richard Drake
That's a new one even for Chandra.
Impoverishing the "advanced" nations is somehow going to benefit the "non-advanced" nations.
Only a total pudding head would fall for such backward thinking.
Economic illiterate!
Mike Jackson
Check the premises again:
Apart from the 97%, how many of you find people like Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook convincing? I know there's a lot of history there but think back to your own initial impression of who these people and what they say are.
Were you convinced by their line, style and substance of their arguments? Were you swayed by what they had to say and did it change your opinion, or consider a new line of thought?
If the answer is a 'no', then the question is: 'why not'? If your answer is, "well, I've been following the climate debate for a while. I know some of the contentious points and players. With that background, I didn't find myself buying their stuff", I would propose, I would suggest this may not be entirely correct. If you are sufficiently grown-up and have at least a partially functioning BS detector, you're going to be at least a bit suspicious of the likes of Cook and Nuccitelli. Polarizing writing, unless it's done extremely well, like a Mencken, Steyn or a Delingpole, is not going to sway the relatively uninterested and the nonpartisan (and even Delingpole, and satirists in general are depending their rhetorical ability to stick the knife in, to get the point across). The persuasive ability of a Nuccitelli is limited on a broader scale. I am frankly surprised the guy gets paid for what he does - mainly insults, recycling of material, and providing the faithful their regular dose of ammunition and reassurance that their established talking points still have life in them.
So, let the chips fall where they fall. For all the above, the 97%ers have every right to convince and fool anyone and carry them off to their camp, whether it be via TV soundbite form or their painful Guardian articles.
shub
Shub: I agree about the importance of a well-tempered BS detector (shades of JS Bach) but not this:
For all the above, the 97%ers have every right to convince and fool anyone and carry them off to their camp, whether it be via TV soundbite form or their painful Guardian articles.
What, and thereby provide phony intellectual cover for some of the worst possible policies and rent-seeking? I say they do not have that right, unless and until they speak out about the damage done to the poor in the same breath. But they never do that - it's not the purpose of the 97% to bring truth and balance but to shut down debate. We should have some much better snorts and retorts whenever it's mentioned.
Snorts and retorts. I like that. That's what I'm looking for here.
Richard Drake
Didn't Andrew Neil put down Ed Davey with a quick retort in a TV interview? Can't remember exactly what but it might be worth noting.
Martin A
Far from being a hinderance the 97% is a great stick to beat the greens witht.
"97% of scientists say ..."
-stop right there ?
Is this your level of understanding of science.. it's expletive Pathetic !
Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent everyday on climate mitigation and hat is the level of you argument ?
#1. It's the fallacy of appreal to authority.
#2. There never has been a proper survey of scientists.
Cos you don't have any proper science like VALIDATED models you have to come out with PR rubbish like this.
Tell the world how many of the world's climate
scientists your survey is based on !
go on tell them !
(they won't know, if they do they'll try for another argument of authority)
"You know that there is a consensus of all the worlds (west) Climate institutions that we are headed for catastrophe, Name one that contradicts.
that"
(now that is tricky to counter)
(they maybe also switch to Cook and Lews "97% of climate papers say, muddying the water)
an old survey of 79 cherry picked scientists Firstly hundreds of millions of pounds is spent everyday of climate stuff and that the level of you argument ! ("Cook and Lews discredited 97% survey is just the same)
- Now you know that is not how science work : yes there are green activist scientists who will shout the hardest, while proper scientists get on with the hard job of trying to make climate models that WORK that make VALIDATED predictions ..so far they haven't been able to do that so they remain pretty quiet.
For one thing if the shout about that failure they risk having their funding cut off.
(by then they should be out of their depth
They'll lie ?)
"There are models that replicate"
Ridiculous, the real world is far from Al Gore and his dodgy graph you know damm well for 17 years CO2 has gone up and temperature stayed the same.