Thursday, January 11, 2018

When 97% becomes 99.6% - climate change in 2017

Sou | 6:37 AM Go to the first of 12 comments. Add a comment
Anthony Watts has kindly pointed out that the scientific consensus on climate change is changing. He wrote the very strange headline: "‘The 97% climate consensus’starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it". Apparently some drongo (who does this every year IIRC) has only managed to dig up 485 "papers" that he claims " in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future."

I expect that, as in past collections, many of findings of those 485 don't dispute climate change, and many probably support the fact that human activity is causing global warming, but I haven't bothered checking (because that's not the point of this little article).  What struck me was that 485 was a pretty small number given the vast number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change these days.

If you go to Google Scholar and search for the term "climate change" and select "2017-2017", you'll find there were "About 115,000 results". Now 485 is 0.4% of 115,000, so even if all those 485 papers disputed the greenhouse effect (which they don't), it would still mean that one could argue that 97% has become 99.6% :D

Now that even beats the 98.4% of WUWT-ers who deny straightforward science. Who'd have thought!

Thanks, Anthony Watts, Breitbart, Pierre Gosselin and Kenneth Richard.


  1. Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.
    Professor of ethics,.......

    Popular Priest Fathered Child and Says He'll Step Aside - The New ...

    May 15, 2012 - Thomas D. Williams, apologized in a statement on Tuesday “for this grave transgression” and “to everyone who is hurt by this revelation.” He said he would take a year off from public ministry to reflect on his transgressions and his “commitments as a priest” — a decision he said he made with his superiors.

  2. The usual self-harm from WUWT's dimwits.
    A quick look at the abstracts for the first dozen in the first list offers no support to their claim of 485 that "..questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future".
    The legit papers are on past climate discussing known/suspected climate influences of the times, which naturally exclude elevated CO2 because, amazingly, CO2 wasn't elevated in the early Holocene by human use of FFs. And there's a junk sea level paper [Morner]
    'Brain-dead' sounds an optimistic assessment of these folks.

  3. As reported in Breitbart and No Tricks Zone. Oh my.

  4. Conspiracy blogs and white supremacist rags are about all that's condoned at WUWT. Facts are not tolerated. Science journals, science websites and legitimate media sources are pretty well off limits. WUWT is for weird and wacky denier dimwits, remember. (How's that :D)

  5. But - but - but - isn't there supposed to be some kind of conspiracy to keep such articles from being published?


  6. About those 400+ papers, you might want to watch this video from potholer53:


  7. ...and very effectively dealt with months ago by Snopes.

  8. Potholer has done a video on this "claim"


    turns out its nonsense!!!!! what a surprise

  9. Whoops apologies did not see Kaj's post

  10. Kenneth Richard is the pseudonym of a man named Rick Cina who is a children's entertainer and foster home parent from Morrisonville, Illinois. His youtube channel is here.


    He got his start spamming unmoderated science forums with the same copy/paste nonsense. Anyway, here's him admitting to using a pseudonym. He also didn't get any death threats, the man is a nutter. I actually wouldn't be surprised if he was getting paid to write this drivel.


  11. Heh. That RCina idiot almost single-handedly destroyed the comments section of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog before it was moved to Slate (and now SYFY). Two out of every 3 comments on any AGW post were guaranteed to be RCina copy-pasta drivel.

    I stopped reading Bad Astronomy after several months of that un-moderated nonsense. If you tried to reply he dutifully ignored what you were saying and threw some new copy-pasta at you. Got to hand it to him, though. He sure was dedicated and nearly always on the job :-\

  12. De smog blog has a expose of the source of sea level papers included in this list.

    Climate Denial Group With Trump Admin Ties Is Funding Sea Level Research in Questionable Journals

    Graham Readfearn | January 18, 2018


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.