Sunday, February 7, 2016

Why Claim of 97 Percent Scientists is Wrong

Subtitle:  Consensus Does Not Make Wrong Science Right

The claim is often made, and by a great many people who don't know any better, that the science is settled because there is a 97 percent consensus among the scientists.   The "science" at issue here is global warming due to increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.    The point appears to be that scientists looked into the global warming problem, carefully measured the available records, and published their findings over many years; those findings show (they say) that man's activities are definitely warming the globe's climate.  Finally, the climate scientists sounded the alarm, saying drastic measures must be taken right away to avert an impending catastrophe of melting polar ice caps and glaciers, rising seas, inundated shorelines, millions of displaced people, and a host of other calamities.   

Then, along came a group of skeptics who claimed that the science is not settled, there are serious problems with the way the scientists obtained the data, altered the data, falsified or made up data, analyzed the data, and wrote down conclusions that ignore contrary data.   

A poll was then taken, "how many of you scientists believe that global warming is happening?"  and supposedly 97 percent of the respondents agreed that it is.  

Those who believe the 97 percent number often draw the analogy to a sick person who sees a doctor.  If 97 percent of all the doctors tell you that you have an illness and need their treatment to be cured, would you believe them?   Would you take the chance that the other 3 percent are right, and go on your merry way? 

This article addresses the 97 percent of the doctors argument.   Disclosure:  I am fully aware that the climate science has serious flaws, with data included in the databases that should never have been included, with data that has been adjusted over and over and over yet again, with contrary data that shows no warming occurring is ignored, and many other problems as described below.  As a chemical engineer with 40 years (and counting) of world-wide experience both in operating companies and as a consultant, I have a great deal of knowledge and experience in data acquisition and analysis.  Chemical engineers do not have the luxury of using bad data, of falsifying data, of selecting only the data that proves our agenda.  We design, build, and operate the toxic, hazardous, flammable and explosive chemical plants and refineries.  If we use bad data, people die.  It is that simple.  

Here then, are some points against believing the 97 percent.

1.  The 97 percent publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.   Peer review, alone, does not guarantee scientific accuracy.  The sheer number of scientific findings that are wrong, are retracted, are shown to be false by subsequent studies shows that peer review and publication is no guarantee.   Indeed, there are hundreds upon hundreds of published, peer-reviewed articles that refute the claim of man-made global warming.  

2.   If the 97 percent of doctors kept revising their diagnosis every time you make a visit, would you feel confident in their conclusions?  The false-alarmists of climate science do exactly that, every few years re-adjust their findings and pronounce them as reliable, certain, and believable.  Then change it all again a few years later.  

3.  If you learned that the 97 percent of doctors will lose their jobs, lose their incomes if they don't diagnose you with the illness, would you feel confident?  That is precisely the situation with false-alarmist scientists, with great pressure to publish only the results that agree with the doctrine. 

4.  If you learned that the international governing medical association that is assigned to study the illness is biased toward one, and only one cause, would you feel confident?  That is also exactly what the false-alarmist scientists have, the IPCC that is assigned to study man-made global warming.  Not if there is any warming (or cooling), not what might possibly be causing climate change, but only the man-made aspect of warming.   

5.  If you learned that it is impossible to conduct more studies, instead the 97 percent doctors accept the corrupted data from the past, would you feel confident?  That is exactly the situation, with temperature data from the past (it's impossible to go back and measure it again).  Much of the past data is biased, impacted by buildings and parking lots, and is clearly wrong.  But, the scientists adjust it to what they want it to be and use it anyway. 

6.   If you learned that the 97 percent doctors realized the past data is corrupted, then started a new research program with modern instruments to accurately collect data on the illness, would you feel confident?  Especially if you learned that the new experiments will not yield valid results for approximately 100 years?  That is precisely where climate science is today, with the establishment 10 years ago (more or less) of the US Climate Reference Network, USCRN, where temperatures are taken in hundreds of pristine locations across the US.   see link to "US In A Cooling Trend - Winters Much Colder"   and see link to USCRN Overview

7.  If you learned that the 97 percent doctors rely on truly awful data, with missing data simply made up, with known false data used to adjust good data so that it is virtually all bad data, would you feel confident? 

8.   If you learned that the 97 percent doctors have a predictive tool, and they predict future illness in their patients; but none of the patients show any symptoms, would you feel confident?   That is exactly where false-alarmist scientists are, having a multitude of predictive models that do not agree at all with actual measured temperatures.   see link to Dr. John Christy's testimony of 2 February, 2016, before Congress, Figure 1. . 

9.  If you learned the 97 percent number is false, that it is more like 2 percent, would you feel confident?  

10.  If you learned that the cure recommended by the 97 percent doctors will bankrupt you and all your descendants, would you feel confident?  

11.  Especially when you learn that the proposed cure will do absolutely nothing to treat or cure your symptoms, even if they eventually do manifest?

12.  And finally, if you learned that the illness the 97 percent doctors diagnosed cannot possibly be true because it violates fundamental laws of science and engineering, would you feel confident?  see link to "Chemical Engineer Takes On Global Warming"

Given all the above, twelve issues in all, how confident would a patient be in accepting the diagnosis from those 97 percent doctors?  Instead, would you as the patient be headed to report medical malpractice?

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

No comments: