why do scientists disagree about global warming

April 5, 2016, Spencer Irvine,
Craig Idso, Robert Carter and S. Fred Singer tackled climate change alarmism in the book, БWhy Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus,Б published by the Heartland Institute. As much as the liberal media, liberal academics and pundits tell Americans that the earth is too warm and human beings are the cause for a spike in weather and temperature changes, there is little-to-no scientific consensus to support these assertions. For example, Naomi Oreskes, who wrote one of the most-cited articles on climate change alarmism, is a science historian and is not a scientist. But, the authors pointed out that her essay was not peer-reviewed, which is a common practice for published journal articles.

What was the basis of her article? БExamining abstracts from 928 papersБ and Бusing the key words Бglobal climate changeБ to make her conclusion that 75% of scientists believed in climate change. Yet, she ignored abstracts from global warming skeptics, the authors noted, and there are at least 1,350 global climate alarmism articles since her article was published in 2004, which would affect her results if she repeated the process today. Oreskes also did not specify how many of the 928 articles endorsed her conclusion of a БconsensusБ of scientists. Oreskes has made a career out of her work, with her essay leading to a book entitled БMerchants of DoubtБ and a movie released in 2015.

Also, OreskesБ claims are often repeated by former U. S. vice president Al Gore in both his movie and book, БAn Inconvenient Truth. Б Oreskes teaches at Harvard. Remember the oft-repeated Б97% of climate change scientists agree humans have contributed to the rising global temperaturesБ line? The 2009 Doran and Zimmerman paper made that claim, but the authors disagree with the methodology behind the paper. For example, it was a two-minute online survey sent to 10,257 scientists, of which 3,146 people responded. However, these scientists were geologists, paleontologists, oceanographers and not physicists, meteorologists and those who would know the field intimately.

БNeither was academic qualification a factor Б about 1,000 of those surveyed,Б the authors noted, Бdid not have a Ph. D. , some didnБt even have a masterБs diploma. Б They also estimated only 5% of the respondents Бself-identified as climate scientists. Б There were also issues in how the questions were worded and where the 97% consensus claim came from, which apparently was from 79 respondents within that sample. These are but two examples from the NIPCC book, but it is clear that the climate change agenda turns a blind eye to neutral and impartial studies of the subject. Photo by Photo by Tennessee Lawmakers to Withhold Funding from Univ. of Tennessee over Annual Sex Week Lawrence Summers: No Hypersensitivity against Anti-Semitism at Colleges, but Why Not?

All eyes are currently on Paris and the United Nations twenty-first conference of the parties (COP-21). COP-21 is an attempt to force all of the nations of the world to sign on to the myth of man-made global warming and force them to reduce carbon output, which they believe will lower said global warming. In reality not even the people attending really believe in this nonsense they use it as a method of controlling the citizens of the world. It s about power and the abuse of power. But let s pretend there are some who do really believe this childish nonsense.

What arguments do they use? One of the chief arguments is a lie so often repeated it s now believed that there is a consensus of scientists that man-made global warming is real. Something like 97% of all scientists believe it. Thing is, that statistic is pulled from an artificially low, select number of scientists. It s not real. Yesterday, as COP-21 got under way, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released a new book titled Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Consensus (get a free copy below). This important new book lays bare and refutes the claim that there is a Бscientific consensusБ on the causes and consequences of climate change