Climate (Political) Science

Today the U.S. Congress’ Committee on Science, Space and Technology had a “Full Committee Hearing – Examining the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process.”  


As the Washington Examiner asks:

What’s that “process” about? It seems to imply something unethical or corrupt in the very guts of how the IPCC works, maybe governments buying scientists to fit their politics? I’ve always been suspicious of the IPCC’s claim that its work is “policy-relevant,” not ”policy prescriptive.” Why say that unless, like Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon, you’re guilty?

And what are we to make of the famous “I” in IPCC? Why is that most critical element in the panel’s design “intergovernmental” instead of “international” or non-governmental?

See:  House panel takes hard look at UN climate change process


At today’s hearing, as reported by the Daily Caller: “Scientists say IPCC puts politics before science, needs reform”

…Scientists and academics who have taken part in major international and domestic climate assessments say that politics and alarmism need to be taken out of the study on global warming.

A panel of climate experts are telling the House Science Committee that politics often gets in the way of good science at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as in the U.S. government’s own climate research.

Climate scientists and researchers who dissent even slightly from the talking points of politicians and environmental groups are intimidated and ostracized, said one congressional witness. Politics, the witness said, takes a lead role over science in the study of global warming.

Read more:



The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

It is the Go-To statistic that is heard time and time again in any “global warming” and/or “climate change” discussion.

 …“97% of scientists agree about global warming”…

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

“What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?


May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” 

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.”


The Wall Street Journal then goes on to show how the false and misleading conclusions reached by:

Naomi Orsekes – 2004:

Ms. Orsekes 2004 opinion essay published in Science Magazine was bases upon flawed methodology, vague generalizations, and omission of contradicting information.

Maggie Kendall Zimmerman – 2009

Her 2009 article was published in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” which used the results of an online survey of only 79 respondents.

William R. Love Andrgegg – 2010

As a student at Stanford University he used Google Scholar to search for internet hits for the most prolific writers on climate change. His flawed conclusions were based upon vague criteria for what is causing “climate change”

John Cook – 2013

An Australian blogger, cartoonist, and science activist; review papers published from 1991-2001.

Cook reported that 97% of the papers he reviewed stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.   Cook’s “study” was quickly proved false.

“only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.


Wait!…What’s this….

 …” Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.


Wall Street Journal article is here (Site requires registration)


The full Wall Street Journal article can be read here as well: