Guck presents that 97% of studies and papers agree
that humans are to blame for everything.
The truth is, however, that only 0.54% of the studies believe
that humans are at least 50% to blame for climate change.
In the face of such brazen manipulation of figures, a storm
of indignation broke out in the scientific community.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide, methane or other
greenhouse gases by humans is leading to catastrophic warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
We must be aware that carbon dioxide itself is not a pollutant.
On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.
Human CO2 emissions have restored the balance in the global carbon
cycle and thus ensured the long-term survival of life on Earth.
Climate skeptics refuted:
Man-made climate change is now a scientific fact - headlines the magazine Geo.de.
And: humans are the cause of climate change.
This is the conclusion reached by 99.9% of all studies on
the subject, according to the Süddeutsche Zeitung website.
The mainstream media proclaims, almost like a chorus, that humanity is
causing climate change, something that 97% of scientists agree on.
Anyone who doubts this is denigrated as a science denier.
But where does this figure come from, and is it even correct?
Anyone who takes a closer look at the study that forms the basis
for this statement comes to a completely different conclusion.
1.
A close look at the analysis of scientific papers on man-made climate change - by John Cook et al.
It is the work Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
by the cognitive psychologist John Cook from 2013, a so-called meta-analysis.
Cook and his colleagues analyzed 11,944 studies on climate and the environment from
1991 to 2011 to determine whether or not the authors blamed humans for climate change.
And as a result, Cook presented that 97% of studies and
papers agree that humans are to blame for everything.
But the truth is:
A full 0.54 percent of the studies believe that humans are at least 50 percent to blame for climate change!
So how can John Cook achieve an approval rating of around 97%?
After all, he himself wrote in the summary of his
analysis, the so-called abstract, that of all the studies
examined, 66.4% contained no statement at all on the
thesis of man-made climate change!
A closer analysis of his study reveals that
Even the division that Cook had made was manipulative!
Cook and his colleagues sorted the almost 12,000 papers into seven categories based on the
question of whether they contained statements on the thesis of man-made climate change.
Category 1 was that humans are responsible
for over 50 percent of climate change.
Category 2 blamed humans, but did not specify
how strongly humans influence the climate.
Category 3 made people at least a little bit responsible.
Category 4 did not comment on human influence on the climate.
Category 5 tended to speak out against human influence.
Category 6 spoke out somewhat more clearly against human influence.
Category 7 argued against human influence and
said that human influence was less than 50%.
So you can see that there should really only
be three categories: Category A:
Humans are responsible for over 50 percent, category B:
No indication of human influence, category C: Humans are responsible for less than 50 percent.
If it cannot be deduced from a study whether the human
influence is above or below 50 percent, then this study
does not make a clear statement and actually
belongs in the category of no statement.
Since the remaining 4 categories are without clear percentages,
all works with unclear statements can be sorted here
at will, which opens the door to manipulation.
Now we come to the results and the mathematical
tricks that turned 0.54 percent into 97 percent.
Here are the raw data from Cook's study - which, by the
way, are not included in Cook's meta-analysis,
you have to search for them laboriously:
Category 1: 64 papers, i.e. 0.54%
Category 2: 922 papers, i.e. 7.72%
Category 3: 2,910 papers, i.e. 24.36%
Category 4: 7,970 papers, i.e. 66.73%
Category 5: 54 papers, i.e. 0.45%
Category 6: 15 papers, i.e. 0.13%
Category 7: 9 papers, i.e. 0.08%
Cook simply ignored all studies that did
not contain a statement - and that was 7,970
out of a total of 11,944, i.e. two thirds of all papers!
In reality, Cook has only processed a third of all data!
But even then, only 64 of the 3,974 remaining
studies are still of the opinion that humans are
more than 50 percent responsible for climate change.
Now Cook also combined categories 1, 2 and
3 into ONE and called this agreement,
although they consisted of varying degrees of agreement
- from yes, over 50% share, to yes, without quantity,
to an implied, tacit, yes.
That would make a total of 3,896 works that blame humans.
And the 78 works that have been sorted into categories 5 to 7 dispute
this - but that is only a negligible percentage overall.
And so we arrive at 3,896 works with
approval - out of the total of 3,974 remaining
works - and that gives us 97 percent.
Originally, only 64 studies explicitly agreed with the thesis of man-made climate change, and that was 0.54%.
2. storm of indignation in the scientific community
In the face of such brazen manipulation of figures, a storm
of indignation broke out in the scientific community.
The website Climatecite.com collected 97 articles, media reports
and blog posts that criticized Cook's analysis.
Quote:The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived,
poorly designed, and poorly executed) 97 percent consensus study.
The fact that anyone continues to produce such soundly debunked
nonsense as Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.
If you would like to delve deeper into these discussions between the scientists, you will
find the link at the end of the program, as well as to all the other sources mentioned.
Below are just a few examples of the critical articles: As
early as May 21, 2013, 8 days after Cook's analysis was published,
an article appeared on PopularTechnology.net with statements
from some of the scientists whose studies were used in Cook's analysis.
They explain that their work was classified
in the wrong categories.
Here are two examples: Geographer Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change writes:
It would be wrong to claim that our paper is
an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Professor Emeritus of Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics at Stockholm University, answers the question: Is
this an accurate representation of your work?
- Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.
Science blogger Anthony Watts reported on the above study by
Dr. Legates, who commented on Cook's work as follows:
It is astonishing that any journal could
publish a study claiming a 97% consensus when the
author's own analysis suggests the
true consensus was less than 1%.
The Dutch professor of climate economics Richard Tol, former
employee and then critic of the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change - also strongly criticizes Cook's work and emphasizes that important
scientific papers have not been included due to the selection of search terms.
In addition, Tol finds it incomprehensible that only 10 of the 122 articles he
himself published in the period investigated by Cook et al. were selected.
5 of these 10 selected papers were also misclassified - of course
as papers that support man-made climate change, not as papers
that question it, which Tol's papers actually do.
The biologist, teacher and filmmaker Markus Fiedler, who has become known as a Wikipedia critic,
has also studied Cook's work in detail and found numerous methodological errors.
The mainstream media, however, hardly report on such criticism of
Cook's work, but still spread the false claim of 97% unanimity.
And this has a long, sad tradition:
3. numerous dissenting voices against climate change alarmism Scientists
have been voicing their protest against climate change alarmism, or originally
global warming alarmism, not just since Cook's work.
It began much earlier, as a reaction to the UN World Climate Conferences,
which began in 1979 and have taken place every year since 1995.
And these protest actions also went largely unmentioned in the media!
1990 USA The SEPP - Science and Environmental Policy Project describes itself
as follows: The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) was founded in 1990
by S. Fred Singer to challenge federal environmental policy based on bad science.
It stands for objective science based on sound evidence.
SEPP examines questionable government policies, no
matter how popular, to determine whether the policies
are based on the consistent application of scientific
methods and are not just a passing fad.
SEPP's mission is to educate policymakers, the media and the public about the
importance of scientific rigor in determining environmental policies.
This is because these environment-related measures are also linked, for example,
to political measures relating to energy generation and use.
1992 Germany Heidelberg Appeal
The Heidelberg Appeal was circulated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the number
of scientists signing it rose from the original 264 to 4,000 worldwide. Quote from it:
The Heidelberg Appeal does not deny the existing
environmental problems, but calls for scientific progress
to be recognized as a solution and not as the cause of current health and environmental problems.
The appeal expresses the conviction that modern society is best
placed in the history of mankind to solve the world's problems
- provided it does not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and
common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears.
1992 USA Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming
This statement by atmospheric scientists on global warming is a protest petition by more than 100
US climate scientists against the Rio de Janeiro Framework Convention on Climate Change.
1995 Germany Leipzig Declaration
The Leipzig Declaration, which was signed in 1995 and
updated again in 2005, stated, among other things: As the
debate progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that
- contrary to popular belief - there is no general scientific
consensus today on the significance of greenhouse warming caused by rising carbon dioxide levels.
In fact, many climate experts now agree that actual
observations from weather satellites show no global
warming at all - in direct contradiction to the results of computer models.
1998 USA Letter from more than 50 US climate scientists
More than 50 leading climate scientists (out of about 60 in total) and members of the American
Meteorological Society have jointly written a letter warning that policymakers should not be
drawn to the distorted statements in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change = Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change] report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].
Literally they write:
The political initiatives are based on highly uncertain scientific theories.
They are based on the unconfirmed assumption that catastrophic global warming
is the result of fossil fuel waste and requires immediate action.
We disagree.
1999 USA Oregon petition
There is also a petition in the USA, known as
the Oregon Petition, which calls on the US
government to reject the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and similar proposals.
Quote: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement
signed in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, as well as all other similar proposals.
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder
the progress of science and technology and damage human health and well-being.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that the release of carbon
dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases by humans is causing, or
will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic warming of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Furthermore, there is extensive scientific evidence that an increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide has many positive effects on the earth's natural plant and animal life.
This petition has already been signed (as of 01.07.2023) by 31,487
scientists from various disciplines, 9,029 of whom hold a doctorate.
2007 USA NIPCC - Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change
The NIPCC was founded in 2007 by SEPP [= Science and Environmental Policy Project - stands for objective science based
on sound evidence] and forms a counterweight to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the UN.
Quote from their website:
"The Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change
(NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international body of non-governmental
scientists and academics who have come together to understand the causes
and consequences of climate change.
Since we don't tend to believe that climate change is caused
by human greenhouse gas emissions, we can look at evidence that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores.
Since we do not work for any government, we do not tend to assume that major government activities are necessary.
2007 Germany EIKE - European Institute for Climate & Energy
e.V. EIKE was founded in Jena in 2007 and describes itself as follows:
EIKE is an association of a growing number of natural scientists,
humanities scholars, economists, engineers, journalists and politicians
who consider the claim of man-made climate change to be scientifically
unfounded and therefore a hoax on the public.
EIKE therefore rejects any climate policy as an excuse to patronize the
economy and the population and to burden the people with taxes.
Their motto is: It is not the climate that is under threat, but our freedom!
2009 United Kingdom The GWPF - The Global Warming Policy Foundation
is a British think tank that introduces itself as follows:
A BALANCED AND RATIONAL APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a non-partisan think tank and
registered educational charity focused on climate and energy policy.
We are deeply concerned about the impact of climate change policy: that it may do
more harm than good, both for the world's poorest people and for the environment.
Our aim is to provide political decision-makers and the general public with well-founded
and reliable analyses of climate and energy issues based on sound research.
In September 2013, chemist and blogger Andrew Montford
wrote a critical essay for the GWPF on John Cook's consensus
analysis with the telling title Consensus? What Consensus?
(Consensus? What kind of consensus?)
2015 USA CO2 Coalition
The US CO2
Coalition aims to educate thought leaders, policy makers and the public about the important contribution of carbon dioxide" to
our lives and the economy and strives for an informed and objective
discussion about climate change, the role of humans in the climate
system, the limitations of climate models and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions.
2019 Netherlands Clintel - Global Climate Intelligence Group
Already in the program 1.100 scientists agree: There is no climate emergency!
(www.kla.tv/26000), Kla.TV introduced you to a group that speaks out clearly against the alarmism surrounding climate change.
This group has now grown to over 1,600 scientists and was recently
joined by the Nobel Prize winner for physics, John F. Clauser.
In his justification for this step, he explained, among other things, that the popular
climate narrative reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens
the global economy and the well-being of billions of people.
And: misguided climate science has expanded into
a massive shock-journalistic pseudo-science.
2019 Italy Climate, a counter-current petition
In Italy, a group of scientists launched a petition against the climate
alarm in July 2019 entitled Climate, a counter-current petition.
The signatories are 83 scientists, including numerous professors.
They explain in detail the actual state of climate research, which
is far from a consensus, and write, among other things:
But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE SELF IS NOT A POLLUTANT.
On the contrary. It is indispensable for life on our planet.
And elsewhere:
On the other hand, the scientific literature has increasingly emphasized
the existence of natural climate variability, which the models cannot reproduce.
This natural fluctuation explains a considerable part
of the global warming that has been observed since 1850.
The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change, which has been observed over the last
century, is therefore UNJUSTIFIED OVERDRIVING and disaster predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.
4. 46 former IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- political, intergovernmental committee on climate change
] Members speak out against the theory of man-made climate change Finally, we would like to present an article
from May 2023 in which 46 former IPCC members speak out against the theory of man-made climate change.
As a reminder, the IPCC argues that humans
are the cause of climate change.
Some quotes from the article:
Dr. Roger Pielke: All my comments were ignored without rebuttal.
At this point, I came to the conclusion that the IPCC reports were actually intended
as lobbying documents aimed at eliciting certain policies, but not as a true
and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.
Dr. Tom Segalstad: The IPCC's global warming model
is not supported by the scientific data.
Dr. Miklos Zagoni: I am firmly convinced that
the theory of anthropogenic global warming is wrong. 5.
A consensus that never existed John Cook tried to prove a consensus that never existed.
But science has never really been a question of consensus.
On the contrary, new insights usually came from individuals and first had
to be pushed through against the resistance of established colleagues.
As a matter of principle, science does not decide
by consensus without considering the facts.
Instead, science works like this:
This is an idea that goes against what the
majority of researchers believe is right.
If this idea is now confirmed in empirical testing and this confirmation eliminates
everything that the majority of scientists have believed so far, then
this ONE idea has achieved scientific
progress - without any agreements.
In fact, a consensus in science is more of a hindrance, because
it makes you lazy and leads you to settle into the present.
Claiming that there is a consensus usually only helps ideologues
who want to use an alleged consensus to promote their goals.
IF the argument is based on consensus, then - with so many dissenting voices - one
might rather assume that a large majority of scientists reject climate alarmism.
Who is John Cook, who are his co-authors, and what are their intentions?
On his blog site SkepticalScience.com, Cook described
himself (at the time of his 97% analysis) as
follows: This page was created by John Cook.
I am not a climatologist or scientist, but a freelance cartoonist and web programmer by profession.
I studied physics at the University of Queensland, and although
I achieved a First Class Honors and could have gone on to do a PhD,
I gave up academia and became a professional
scribbler instead.
Too much scribbling in lectures, I think.
Nevertheless, I retained a strong interest in science
and my curiosity about how the world works grew once I was
no longer forced to study for upcoming exams.
In 2016, he obtained a doctorate
in cognitive psychology, with the topic:
Closing the consensus gap by communicating the scientific consensus
on climate change and countering misinformation.
Today he is a postdoctoral researcher at Monash University in Australia.
However, his main project is apparently the climate activist blog
SkepticalScience.com, which he founded back in 2007.
The co-authors of the 2013 analysis were participants in a so-called citizen
science project - that is, citizen research that is also open to interested laypeople
- and are all still listed as contributors to Cook's climate
activist blog, which has existed since 2007.
So since they are all contributors to Cook's climate activist blog, it can be assumed
that they - just like Cook himself - did
not approach this project with an open mind!
Cook and his people destroy scientists' careers
The fact that Cook is an activist can also be seen from the fact that he keeps a blacklist of misinformers on his blog.
This refers to people who - from Cook's point of view
- spread false information, including 17 scientists.
One of them is Roger Pielke senior, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science
at Colorado State University with an impressive academic career.
Instead of receiving recognition for his achievements in
science in retirement, he is now denigrated and excluded.
Judith Curry, Professor Emeritus of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was hit even harder.
Although she can also look back on a long career and had received numerous
awards, she had to give up her job after Cook put her on his blacklist.
She also found no other employment in the academic world.
Today, she exposes the climate alarmism in which she herself was
once involved and warns against the UN's anti-capitalist agenda.
One involuntarily asks oneself:
Why does Cook's public blacklist have so much influence on personnel decisions at US universities?
Where does an Australian blogger, who himself has
not pursued an academic career in climate science, get
the power to destroy the careers of respected scientists
who are experts in the field?
Why is Cook so influential?
Well - on the one hand, he does aggressive marketing and knows
a thing or two about search engine optimization.
On the other hand, the statement that humans are to blame for climate change also fits the globalists'
program perfectly, and so it can be assumed that Cook is supported by them.
A hint: On September 27, 2011 - long before his analysis was published - Cook reported
in the internal forum of SkepticalScience.com about a partnership with Al Gore: "This
morning I had a long Skype conversation with a man who
works for Al Gore's Climate Reality Project.
[ ... ] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. [ ...
] an exciting opportunity and further confirmation of what we are doing.
The fact that President Barack Obama cited Cook's study in a tweet,
just one day after its publication, speaks for itself.
Obama tweeted on May 16, 2013:
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
In doing so, he played the silent game, so to
speak, and simply omitted important information:
The 97% of scientists who make a statement at all became
- with Obama - a blanket 97% of ALL scientists.
We remember:
In fact, only 33.6% of the studies examined by Cook had even made a statement on man-made climate change.
If you now leave out the remaining 66.4% and set
these 33.6% as 100% of those who gave an opinion,
then 97% of these again agreed that climate change
is probably more or less man-made.
(or could be man-made?)
Partially man-made becomes generally man-made
- that sounds like 100% man-made.
And there was no mention of danger in Cook's
study at all, Obama made it up!
7. was the result of the analysis predetermined?
It gives the impression that Cook and his employees have tried to achieve a specific, predetermined result by any means necessary.
And indeed, in March 2012 - even before Cook's meta-analysis was published
- there were already extensive plans for marketing through: - press
releases - mainstream media - climate communicators - bloggers
- climate organizations - Google - YouTube videos and more - How
can you plan marketing while work is still in progress?
The fact that Cook had been running his climate activist blog since 2007 also
suggests that the outcome of his study was a foregone conclusion.
He wrote quite bluntly in his forum:
We beat the consensus drum often and regularly.
In reality, the arguments he collects against so-called
climate skeptics or deniers are highly controversial.
The Czech physicist and blogger Luboš Motl countered all of Cook's 104
arguments (at the time) and came to the following conclusion:
There is no climate threat and there is no empirically based evidence that
human impact on climate deserves the attention of anyone except a few
overly specialized experts who should be investigating
such speculative questions.
All opinions that climate change is dangerous,
man-made or even relevant to politics are based
on the irrational posturing, cherry-picking, intimidation, censorship
and general sloppiness that Mr. Cook has once again shown us.
8. CO2 is plant food Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, on
the contrary. Any gardener who owns a greenhouse will confirm this:
If you add CO2 to the air, the plants grow better.
And science also provides evidence, for example the study
The positive impact of human CO2 emissions on the survival
of life on Earth by Patrick Moore, 2015.
Moore even comes to the conclusion that human CO2 emissions
ensure the long-term survival of life on Earth:
All life is based on carbon and the main source
of this carbon is CO2 in the global atmosphere.
[ ... ]
The burning of fossil fuels to produce energy for human civilization has reversed
the downward trend in CO2 emissions and promises to bring them back to levels
that will likely lead to a significant increase in the growth rate and biomass
of plants, including food crops and trees.
Human CO2 emissions have restored the
balance in the global carbon cycle and
thus ensured the long-term survival of life on Earth.
This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions
must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis
that human CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic
global warming in the coming years.
The exciting thing about this CO2 study by Patrick
Moore is that it is absolutely the opposite of what
you hear every day in the mainstream media: while the scientific
community supposedly agrees that increased CO2 levels
are absolutely harmful to the climate and that humans must
stop emitting CO2, Patrick Moore writes that it is not:
We need more of them!
While we hear every day that humans are actually the
biggest pest on earth and should be reduced, Patrick Moore
writes that the plants urgently needed
the man-made CO2 because without this
additional man-made CO2, the plants would
have started to die off.
Moore also describes the reasons for this distorted
portrayal, which labels CO2 as a climate killer:
A strong coalition of interests between the most important
elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative.
Environmentalists spread fear and collect donations;
Politicians score points because they seem to be saving the earth from destruction;
The media thrive on these sensational stories and conflicts;
Scientists and scientific institutions
receive billions in public funding;
[...
] Companies want to look green and receive huge public subsidies
for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar plants...
So there are many winners in this fear-mongering about a climate catastrophe.
Those who fall by the wayside are those who are supposed to pay for all
these so-called climate protection measures and thus bleed to death -
and that is us, the people.
9 Conclusion: As described above, there is also
a strong interest group in the climate issue that
wants to enrich itself at our expense and therefore spreads
false reports and suppresses the truth.
And obviously the system media are once again failing
to fulfill their duty of balanced reporting.
Therefore, only the people themselves can ensure that
the dissenting voices to climate alarmism are heard -
and these voices are numerous!
So please spread the word about this program among your friends and acquaintances and on social media.