The myth of the 97% climate change consensus


Image Credit –

Via and

What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.

There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%.

What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?

Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have “crippling consequences,” and that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source is Naomi Oreskes. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles and to have found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists who question the consensus. She also failed to acknowledge that a study published in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Read the rest of the article.

169 Comments on "The myth of the 97% climate change consensus"

  1. Anarchy Pony | Jul 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
      • BrianApocalypse | Jul 4, 2014 at 8:02 am |

        “Crank Magnet” would be a good name for a band.

        • marytrasnick | Jul 5, 2014 at 8:31 am |

          my Aunty
          Allison recently got a nice 6 month old Jaguar by working from a macbook.this website C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

    • ehh,being scared is being in a position where you’re constantly dependent on other assigned and hailed ‘experts’ to tell you exactly how scared you should be.

      so isn’t it actually a more rational position to be completely skeptical & question the data presented by said experts,especially when they’re telling you about imminent,dire consequences that can only be resolved with government intervention? or just simply believe the conclusions because they’re ‘experts’.

      most climate change fear touters i know are simply passive,’go with the flow bandwagon’ believers in climate change,no matter what evidence is put forth.since they don’t even bother to read any of the data regardless,,but especially if it’s contradictory and accurate,it doesn’t matter. they just parrot a conclusion of an ‘expert’,rather than looking into anything actively.

      does this mean i’m pro-pollution and pro oil shill?,not at all..
      it means i just know that positions of power and control will use everything & anything they can, but especially a imminent crisis,to leverage dominance and control over an entire population for as long as they can…much like ‘terrorism’ as a crisis,and all the military ‘experts’ that touted all the fear-mongering, has already allowed them to transform many countries,including the u.s., into a surveillance /police state since 2001.

      so ask yourself,doesn’t fear of climate change present a corporatism based gov control apparatus with much more control and power to wield over a population, than no threat of climate change?…is the looming threat of a climate change crisis empowering to those in control?

      • you talk how you type and it’s pissing me the fuck out lol

      • you talk how you type and it’s pissing me the off lol

      • Thank you Ersatz. You make far too much sense for the common pretenders on this forum.

        • yeah, all means,feel free to answer either of the last 2 questions at the end…or just post another fucking picture,genius.

          • Well, there’s the problem of all the straw men you set up before you ask those 2 questions. I’d have to accept your various incorrect assertions, outright distortions, and make my way through the field of land mines that is your perspective. Heady stuff.

            The world may be pretty grayscale most of the time: but jebus h. christo fucking Heartland Institute??? Why would you waste your time further muddying an issue when the originating impetus deserves complete and total rejection? Anything less smacks of the invocation of false equivalence.

            But then, I’m guessing you’re another one of those people that demands to pilot the aircraft themselves, rather than those damned fatcat jerkoffs with 3 decades of experience.

          • heh.. c’mon, you’re reusing your quip about the pilot again instead of just answering my question directly..that’s just laziness.
  ’s not a trick question..just a question that i’m throwing out there.

            as far as heartland institute…they don’t fund my skepticism about a controlling power leveraging a crisis for more control.. so fuck them far as i’m concerned.

          • At the end of the day, I’m realistic about the situation: the tools we have are fundamentally flawed. As an example: “technology” (aka “progress”) was supposed to eliminate the need for the 40 hour work week (i.e. less work / more leisure). Indeed, the work skullduggery of 60 years ago is now largely automated away.

            However, the potential costs of inaction or inadequate action far outweigh the threat of some nebulous future cabal telling me where and when to shit. Newsflash: we’re all serfs. I am well acquainted with my serfdom and its historical precedents. & if you hadn’t noticed, wee serfs ain’t neverz been duh friedomz’d en masse

            The [insert generic 0.001% descriptor here] have found ways to turn practically anything to their advantage. Will they try to do so here? No doubt. Shall we discuss their self-serving, lawyer-generated semiotics some more or shall we hold the appropriate parties accountable as best we can?

            This is why we need better tools, and new paradigms to build them. But in the meantime, conscientious use of what is available will have to suffice.

          • well,problem is…is that the ‘nebulous future cabal’ you mention as the weigh-able threat,actually took place back in 2001.
            and as a direct result,the surveillance & police state infrastructure we’re now surrounded by,were incalculably fortified using fake terror threats cited by security,military/terrorism ‘experts’.
            ‘experts’ who’d then exploited fears of imminent crisis in the days,months and years after that day to give themselves more power.

            ‘experts’ in this case,were the key to selling the terror threats as legitimate and imminent to the public,making any gov responses to them seem valid, to the faithful that bought into it…
            while inadequate public action in response to this disturbing progression has now resulted in a dystopia under construction.

            sadly,as a result of this ongoing bamboozle,the ptb now have all the essential tools they’ll need for the next monitoring the form of drones, and smart grid technology, etc…

            as i’ve pointed out just now,my skepticism regarding probable control motivations used by the authority is based on actual actions taken already, and not blind assumptions or speculation based on paranoia.
            no, it’s based purely on the manipulative,predatory behavior that the corp/gov/mic has demonstrated at will,up to this point.

            the serfdom you’d mentioned is way more apparent these days…yes,but i can assure you,that with any more gov intervention in response to climate concerns,and even daily serf life minutia will eventually become much more monitored,restrictive and controlled.

    • ishmael2009 | Jul 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm |

      Rationalwiki is a great source. I refer to it sometimes when talking with anti-nuclear crackpots who claim global warming will lead to the deaths of millions but we can’t use nuclear because it’s too dangerous. Rationalwiki covers a lot of the lunatics they tend to cite.

    • So again it’s obvious you didn’t bother to read the article or follow up on the related papers. You lead with an ad hominem attack against me as well as Anthony Watts. We both only re posted forensic evidence of propaganda. Do you have anything to say yourself or will you simply repeat the fake skeptic movement’s sad little mantras? Case in point, “Dingberts” post below.

  2. Anthony Watts (author of the posted piece) has zero academic qualifications or indeed any verifiable education in anything related to the subjects on which he now presents himself as an ‘authority’.

    He was a TV weatherman for fuck’s sake. A corporate media-friendly hand puppet, employed on the basis that he was considered to appear trustworthy and reassuring to the general public when standing in front of a blue/green screen pointing at things that he didn’t even need to understand.

    Putting forward this sadly ludicrous joke of a man as any kind of argument that there is not 97% scientific consensus only serves to identify the poster as a fossil fuel industry shill, or at best, someone so blinded by ignorance and ideology as to fail to recognise that putting forward the arguments of the climate equivalent of the village idiot only does one’s argument harm, rather than good.

    • misinformation | Jul 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm |

      How does attacking the person making an assertion, as opposed to attacking the assertion, do one’s argument more ‘good than harm’?

      • Some people should be harmed.

        • misinformation | Jul 3, 2014 at 9:45 pm |

          Don’t think I haven’t noticed your affinity for one-liners…

          • I didn’t find the last one creepy at all, but I never mouse-overed it to get a closer look. Was that the face one?

          • misinformation | Jul 4, 2014 at 12:14 am |

            Honestly, I’m not sure what made it creepy. I couldn’t even tell you exactly what was going on, it just struck me funny. It made me think of Boards of Canada – music that I enjoy yet find their use of children (within the music) to be sinister and creepy.

          • I’m a creep. I’m a weirdo. I don’t belong here.

          • misinformation | Jul 4, 2014 at 6:17 pm |

            I see what you did there.

          • Ooh, BoC: good taste there, IMHO. Love them myself, but I have to pick and choose times to listen, as sometimes the underlying vibe is weirdly unsettling.

      • I might as well attack the person making the assertion, as the assertions in question are already discredited by better qualified persons than my humble self, and form the basis for my dismissal of the person.

        Seriously, some of Watts’ “work” is so fundamentally flawed it has been used by scientists as proof of the opposite of what he was trying to prove, i.e. it wound up strengthening the man-made climate change argument.

        Look, he might be a lovely human being for all I know, but on the specific subject of climate change, the man is a complete muppet.

        • misinformation | Jul 4, 2014 at 12:11 am |

          ‘…based on said assertions already being discredited, and thereby forming
          the basis for my dismissal of the person as any kind of authority on the
          subject at hand.’

          I hear what you’re saying. It just seems more potent to me, if you were to actually link to articles debunking the information presented. I feel it would be essentially the same if one were to attempt to discredit AGW (disclaimer: I’m not sold on it) by pointing out all the bullshit that Al Gore has ever stood for. Of course, you did not post an Al Gore article but there is a correlation in the make-up of the argument.

          As for the random lunatic point, I disagree that it is the same. Camron didn’t post something from a guy who says that dinosaurs gave birth to him. Whether or not Watts’ claims have merit, most people would not be able to dismiss them as easily as my example of a true ‘random lunatic’. To me, hyperbole (though used by all, on occasion) is also a red flag for a disingenuous argument.

          It’s unfortunate (to me) that the internet seems to have generated (or perhaps it’s just focused attention on something that was always there) a ‘discussion environment’ where emotion and fallacy rule the day. I’m not saying this describes your particular use of discussion forums (in this case perhaps) but it seems to infect everyone at some point.

          • where emotion and fallacy rule the day

            Welcome to the human experience.

          • misinformation | Jul 6, 2014 at 3:47 am |

            ‘Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.’ – Viktor E. Frankl

          • In pursuing knowledge, one accumulates a little more each day. In pursuing the Tao, one takes away a little more each day.

          • Bam! 🙂

          • Sure, I get what you’re saying too. I guess the key thing for me is what you say in your third-last para. Yeah, I could have done that, citing other works, etc. to debunk it but I was indeed feeling lazy, and also I think the links Anarchy Pony posted way back at the start linked through to some stuff – it was mostly Wikipedia but the pages there made acceptable kick-off points for the “down the rabbit hole” journey internet-wide to where said debunking was (IMHO pretty damn conclusively) done.

            I was going to post a longer explanation on the above just now, but to be honest (and this is me being a lazy-ass again) what Jason Lewis wroite below summarised my take on Cameron’s re-posting/championing of Watts’ stuff pretty effectively to the point where I have nothing new to add, so… I’ll not add to the verbiage for a change. 😉

          • Nah, bro, give up those links. And I demand a 30 page dissertation, or clearly, you’ve raised a bunch of red flags and we should spend more time parsing semiotics.

            I’m way too lazy to google this dude or the issue and research it for myself. I’d rather get other people to waste their time challenging my biases rather than do it myself. Oh, and [witty observation about people and the internet that completely ignores the universality of the human condition].

            Because, you know, every fucking comment you post on the internet better have a graduate-level bibliography with footnotes and shit.

  3. Roger Mexico | Jul 3, 2014 at 9:34 pm |

    “As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy
    Spencer make clear”

    Ah yes, the Heartland Institute. So this revelation is brought to you by people being paid to “make it clear” that we shouldn’t be doing anything about a problem that the people paying them would lose money from the most obvious solutions to?

    The same people previously paid by another group of clients to similarly “make it clear” that cigarettes don’t cause cancer and the science behind THAT was all a communist hoax?

    • Yeah…it was a kind of giveaway, wasn’t it? I mean really…Camron is getting a little desperate when he throws up articles basically citing two well paid well known industry stooges with a long track record of mouthing what they’re told and being roundly mocked for it. I don’t buy into ‘carbon market’ crapola either…but at least I accept certain basic facts that are measurable and agreed upon by anyone and everyone not grinding a corporate funded ax. For my money…the best answer is old fashioned brutality in fines. Do it old school style like we did at the dawn of the 70s. Asshammer a few companies right out of existence for failure to comply…and sure enough…the rest will toe the line and start polluting less. The claim that they ‘can’t afford it’ will get made right up until the shotgun is jammed into their mouth and the trigger is almost pulled…at which point…miracle of miracles…they’ll somehow afford it and survive and prosper afterwards. You just have to remember that corporations are like teenagers…the only way they’ll clean that room or mow that after limping thru it with a whipped ass a few times.

  4. Gjallarbru | Jul 3, 2014 at 9:46 pm |

    You know, climate change or not, isn’t the idea to do LESS POLLUTION? Isn’t less pollution a good idea, regardless of the heating of the atmosphere? Why are we arguing over climate change exists or not when less pollution is always good? It might just prevent our species from wiping itself out…

    • Enough of your common-sense crazy talk!

    • You grasp the crux of the issue perfectly. I’ve long claimed that the massive shift of dialogue in recent decades was calculated to bring anti-pollution efforts to a halt by chaining them to a spurious dialogue about radical warming. No mistake though…regional climates are changing…but in very different ways that cannot be collectively called warming with any accuracy. This means that the flawed dialogue makes an easy target for dispute…and thus political paralysis…as opposed to pollution…which was an easy target with near universal agreement and a brief period of real effort to reduce it…all of which went up in smoke when the topic moved to ‘carbon markets’.

      • this article is a shining example of the power,and control that’s utilized and leveraged by corporations via the UN and World Bank,to oust the poor via land grabs in the name of climate change/carbon offset schemes.

        rather than posting the link for approval,feel free to check out the guardian article via a google search:

        “World Bank and UN carbon offset scheme ‘complicit’ in genocidal land grabs – NGOs”

        Plight of Kenya’s indigenous Sengwer shows carbon offsets are empowering corporate recolonisation of the South

    • Anarchy Pony | Jul 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm |

      “So-called global warming is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy-independent, clean our air and water, improve fuel-efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!” -Chip Giller

      • Gjallarbru | Jul 4, 2014 at 8:10 am |

        I’m not a tree-hugger, I’m just thinking less pollution is better, and that we should do it on principal.

        • RicardoRed | Jul 4, 2014 at 9:19 am |

          The quote was ironic.

          • Gjallarbru | Jul 4, 2014 at 9:23 am |

            I guessed it was, but I wanted to clearly disassociate myself from tree-huggers. Craig Bickford clearly thinks me a tree-hugger, so I thought the effort to distance myself was worth it.

          • What do you think caused you to become a tree-hugger?

            Something traumatic in your childhood, perhaps?

            Did your Father “demonstrate” his love for you by correcting your behavior with a switch from a tree, thus forever intertwining trees and parental love, in your mind?

            Or was it something else?

          • Gjallarbru | Jul 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm |

            To which I would simply reply, WTF are talking about?

          • ÿ believe Zenc is expressing jocularity
            +/- the modus operandi of a certain slavery-loving lunatic with an ability to post articles?

    • ‘New NASA Images Highlight U.S. Air Quality Improvement’ –June 26, 2014

      actually nasa stated there’s been a notable reduction in air pollution and improvement in air quality across the u.s.,according to their data and imagery that was compiled, analyzed from the aura satellite taken between 2005-2011.

      • Gjallarbru | Jul 4, 2014 at 8:18 am |

        Yeah, and that is good on principle. There could be no global warming, and that would still be good.

      • Ffejtball | Jul 4, 2014 at 9:20 am |

        We’ve also been more aggressive with emissions standards and halting deforestation. We should continue down that path.

    • sveltesvengali | Jul 4, 2014 at 1:24 am |

      I have thought the same thing in the past, but, to my understanding, the Clean Air Act and similar pieces of anti-pollution legislation were in response to lower-atmosphere pollution causing direct problems for human health, rather than the upper-atmosphere climatological phenomena.

      Hence, I believe these two issues are distinct, though one can be treated as an externality of the other, and vice-versa. It is easy to conflate the ozone hole, climate change, ocean acidification, smoggy cities, et. al. as the same problem; while they are related in different ways, these seem to be different problems that often necessitate different approaches and solutions.

      • Gjallarbru | Jul 4, 2014 at 8:13 am |

        Distinct issues? Perhaps… I’m talking about the fact that as a general principle, less pollution is better. Arguing if one motive exist or not, or the source of it, is a waste of time. Just find ways to pollute less, I think we can all agree on that can’t we?

        • You just asked the $64,000 question.

          Unfortunately, the answer seems to be a resounding “NO”. Capitalism is impossible without pollution. An infinite growth machine can’t help but leave behind waste products.

          Seeing as how $$$ now somehow equals “free speech”, it should be apparent that those with more “free speech” have decided that shiny, shiny toys are better than a natural, healthy Earth. They have more $$$, so they must be blessed by duh FreeSlave Market℠, the Lord Dog Most High®, or quite possibly ¡LIBERTY, BRO!℗. Thus they have the sanction of heaven, and all us plebes better get in line and realize they own the ™ruth now.

          Camron gets it. Look at him fervently worship at the altar of Exxon. Maybe he’s angling to be a high priest in the new Gospel of Exxon promotion they’ll be rolling out soon in the wake of the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling?

    • Craig Bickford | Jul 4, 2014 at 7:08 am |

      Clearly,as has been stated by many who vocalize this position, because the policy makers and political climate that breeds these fallacies and false positions have other things in mind, and this is a vehicle to make those changes happen much like the synthetic terrorism craze or fad we are currently still addicted too is. It isn’t all about saving wild life and making the planet happy bull shit, it’s about centralized control just like stopping a fanatical Islamic counter to western hegemony that we funded and trained isn’t about an opposition or hedge against western power, it’s about control of the domestic polity by our owners or ranchers (political leaders and their psychopathic brethren). Sorry bro, it’s plain as day, and a lot of people need to take off their ideological blinders and take a hard look at what is actually happening. The primary root cause of this issue is our (the species) reliance on authority which is a false belief system or more accurately a fallacy, the fallacy of authority. That’s the real issue. All the games and mind fuckery over climate change or terrorism or fucking up your schools or what ever is the symptom of the strategy. It’s not all us fossil fuel lovers who are just trying to fuck up the party, or what ever controlled opposition meme you want us to swallow (you meaning everyone on board this idiot train), that’s all window dressing for the battle taking place for your mind (the fourth world). Critical thinking is the way out. ‘It might just prevent our species form wiping itself out…’ this is what I am talking about, you are putting your logic before your grammar, what proof is ther that this is going to happen or may happen? I’s a forgone conclusion that you are using as a justification. This is backward thinking and that is one fo the primary goals as well, have people accept an appeal to authority then replicate that meme over and over again until we all hear it so much we believe it, not understand it.

      • Gjallarbru | Jul 4, 2014 at 8:08 am |

        What is the problem with developing technologies that don’t pollute, or pollutes a whole lot less? That was my point! I don’t care for the motive, be it global warming or “making the earth happy” as you have put it.

        I’m thinking the only debate we should be having is about where we can improve things, period. I think the endless scientific, political and social debate is a freakin’ waste of time. In that, I’ll agree that political authority has been a big part of the problem, providing no real effort towards any progress. In fact, the political class is a big part of any problem, and I think you have addressed that appropriatly.

        Still, you can’t really be arguing that less pollution isn’t better on principal? You can’t really be saying the chemicals we have released in our environment is just fine. Do you really like the BPA in your bloodstream?

        As for proof that pollution might eradicate our species, by the time we have firm proof, it will be too late. Logically, our species will have to start dying on a large scale, for a known cause, before proof of anything is provided. Waiting for that is the stupidest position to take. The rest of your diatribe made some sense, but wanting proof before doing better about pollution means your logic is faulty. Perhaps you should try putting “your logic before your grammar”, since your grammar can’t hide the fact you haven’t thought that through.

        By the way, I have a truck, and diesel at that. I’m a gearhead as much as any other guy. Yet, I can’t but observe we can do better, and unlike you, I think better technology and less pollution now is just a damn good idea. I don’t need proof less pollution is better for us.

        • ishmael2009 | Jul 6, 2014 at 6:22 pm |

          I always wonder about that too, and why no politicians seem interested in fixing the little things that would help make a difference. One example might be legislating so that all washing powders, liquids, and detergents were easily biodegradable. Wouldn’t be glamorous, and it wouldn’t save the planet, but it would make a difference. Same goes for packaging, fishing laws, and so on. I think politicians love global warming for the opportunity it gives them to make big speeches and pretend to save the world, whilst really extending their power, prestige, and after-politics earning potential on the speaking circuit.

      • the fallacy of authority

        We don’t need nuclear scientists to run nuclear reactors, let’s get some lawyers instead.

        Also, when I fly in a plane, I insist that I be allowed to be the pilot, rather than some fatcat jerkoff who’s done it for 3 decades.

  5. Clark Cant | Jul 3, 2014 at 11:29 pm |

    I had a discussion very similar to what this article is trying to say ( I think) with a guy. A friend at the dinner table, intelligently pointed out that we can argue all we want about the consensus of the scientific community about climate change, but like Chris Hedges says; big corporation are still destroying the environnement. Montains tops are being blown off and forest are being destroyed because of our standart of living. Those things are not coming back. It’s not just about icebergs melting. So, I guess it would be pretty hard to convince me that I should’nt worry about human activities, if that was the point.

    • Craig Bickford | Jul 4, 2014 at 7:22 am |

      It’s also about getting us to accept responsibility for secondary costs of industrialization, so we pay for what the wealthy owners have profited from. There’s this climate change, that you collectively (fallacy of division in sociology double speak) are responsible for, even though western over production, a planned and not spontaneous phenomenon, is really the culprit, must follow then that we are all collectively responsible. First off there is no collective we, that is collectivist speak garbage. There is no group mind, so societal we, or we for that matter. So there is a lot of socialist mind control with these massive policies as well that is a neglected aspect when people talk about this ‘issue’. It’s more about mass psychology than saving the environment (which is another massively under reported fallacy meme, we are not saving the environment if climate change is really how it is described, we are saving the species and or other species, the world or climate does not need saving).

      • Not only is there no “we,” there is no “me” or “you.” There are independent cells (90% of the cells in your body are not human) and there are organs and no rational mind can do anything except through organs and organs look to themselves first. There is no such thing as an individual. There is a living tapestry of cells and organs, and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of their lives will depend upon how much each organ is prepared to take responsibility for itself and each cell is prepared to turn round and help by its own efforts those who are unfortunate.

    • Ffejtball | Jul 4, 2014 at 9:22 am |

      Do you know how much of the top of mountains is usually taken? It’s not much. Believe it or not they actually handle that pretty responsibly. But our forests and our waters, those are a different story.

      • martykayzee | Jul 4, 2014 at 2:02 pm |

        When you ‘cut’ above you must ‘fill’ below. Streams are broken and polluted. Nature is lost.

      • Howingtron | Jul 5, 2014 at 6:31 am |

        Ya… blowing up mountains responsibly… makes sense. The Nazis were also responsible with the holocaust; the 11 million people they killed is not much when world population is considered. And yes, I just equated destruction of human life with the destruction of nature.

      • Damian Caligula | Jul 6, 2014 at 1:26 pm |

        You should take a drive south of Tucson. Quite a bit of mountain taken off. On one I saw I would say about 75% of it was taken off. Now it’s a flat stump instead of a mountain. And for what? Some new cement sidewalks for Phoenix.

  6. Howingtron | Jul 3, 2014 at 11:56 pm |

    Oh the irony of sharing something put out by the Heartland Institute on website called Disinformation. Camron, I’m glad that you understand that what’s crippling the economy is the efforts of environmentalists and not, oh I don’t know… maybe the actions of a minority of megalomaniacs who have essentially weaponized debt and corporations? Seriously, WTF is this doing on here?

  7. Camron, do you find it remarkable that the sources you cite in these articles always trace back to the Heartland Institute? Do you know what the term “astroturf” means in a political context, such as when it’s used to describe libertarians and climate deniers?

    Have you ever explained how you went from being strictly against U.S. involvement in wars abroad, to repeating press statements from Exxon’s fake think tank, verbatim?

    Would you like to do so now? It might make for an interesting story.

    • Jamie Lee | Jul 4, 2014 at 3:50 am |

      This is disinformation after all. But one could pick better disinformation to disseminate, one would think…

    • Craig Bickford | Jul 4, 2014 at 7:26 am |

      BY all means lets all only consider two sides of every issue. It could be pro industry propaganda, or it could be the other side of a ridiculous two sided head game that we all constantly fall into, a consciousness box. Just because Cam here might be disinfo doesn’t mean what he is saying is wrong at it’s core, that is circumstantial ad hominem potentially (in reference to his past articles or positions you stated, even if true) and or false dilemma rearing it’s ugly head friend.

      • Neither let us just consider only two sides of the Individualism/Collectivism head game.

      • Guys, I’m not disinfo, I just post ideas that require thinking. This causes cognitive dissonance to flare up like a herpes outbreak amidst the neohipster bandwagon humpers such as we see here. I will gladly debate any of these silly trolls via Skype or in person and show them how ridiculous their posturing is. Put up or shut up schmucks 🙂

        • Howingtron | Jul 5, 2014 at 4:51 am |

          Dude, you posted something co-authored by the president of the Heartland Institute, an organization that has little if any credibility and a track record of disseminating dis/misinformation to serve business interests. FOX News is more trustworthy than this shit.

          • So what credibility do you imagine the IPCC has again? What of the individual who manipulated data (again) to bring you the mythical 97% statistic? You know the one the politicians and other climate alarmists drop as though it meant anything to keep up the hype and hysteria, why are you unconcerned then when such a patent lie is repeated by the talking heads at MSNBC? Did you even read the article DUDE?

          • Echar Lailoken | Jul 5, 2014 at 3:20 pm |

            That sketchy nonsense was debunked a long time ago. Do your homework.

    • Reasor, how about you and I go point for point in a debate. How about we debate the topic at hand. We can go via Skype round by round and have Staggs or whomever moderate. I will eat your soul in front of your offspring. 😉

      • Howingtron | Jul 5, 2014 at 5:01 am |

        What a mature and enlightened response. You must be right

      • How about you turn your skepticism toward the the people who lie to you on Alex Jones or the Glenn Beck Show, or wherever it is that you keep getting exposed to them? Then you won’t have to feel embarrassed because a crowd of people saw through some obvious bullshit,that you thought was legit and worth sharing.

        • Howingtron | Jul 5, 2014 at 7:37 am |

          Dude, don’t fall for the Skype thing, he just wants to show you his dick.

        • “Climate denial” is the new “conspiracy theorist” and a simpleton’s method for casting aspersions in light of actual rational thinking or discussion. Case in point, I’ve made a very simple challenge, yes I will of course provide citations, most likely you will ignore them and pretend they don’t exist, even if they decapitate your bullshit argument(s) in front of your posse of pretentious fanboys. But yes, more than fucking happy to make them publicly available live and direct face to digital fucking face anytime. So now that we’ve cleared that up, why don’t you prove you have shit to say that is relevant to the matter and actually walk your talk? Such a hipster, lacking awareness of the irony of calling out logical fallacies as your “argument” is dependent on them entirely.

          Put up or shut up sir. The ball is in your court. And for shits and giggles enjoy the following,

          “Thank you, Michael Mann, for perfectly illustrating why global warming media hounds are so frightened of public debate.”

        • Echar Lailoken | Jul 5, 2014 at 8:09 pm |

          Just sayin’… I’d say let him down easy, but good luck.

          Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a
          personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism.[4]


          Some people diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of

          Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR, include:[1]

          Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments

          Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others

          Envies others and believes others envy him/her

          Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence

          Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others

          Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior

          Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

          • One day, I’ll learn not to bother. Trying to have a discussion with this guy is like trying to clap with one hand. Dodging real discussion and hurling verbal abuse at the “sheeple” who live in his head is all he seems to know how to do.

            I’m tempted to question whether my mistake is assuming he’s sincere, and not actually on the payroll of some think tank. (As an aside, if you ever question whether we’re still a polite society, consider the fact that we call them “think tanks” and not “billionaires’ money laundering operations.”) But then I remember the sage advice to never attribute to malice what incompetence can accomplish, and I forgive the kid. That’s how I am. He’s stuck on the same warming globe as the rest of us, in addition to being one of the most thoroughly bamboozled regular visitors this site has.

          • Echar Lailoken | Jul 6, 2014 at 1:53 am |

            I hear you. Everyone has a stupid idea or two to grow out of. Some never do.

          • Number1Framer | Jul 6, 2014 at 1:46 pm |

            I learned that lesson with the Agenda 21 debate. Maybe some day I’ll be shackled up in a United nations run FEMA camp gazing longingly out my cell’s barred window pining for the glory days of freedom. Then I’ll look up toward the sky and with my raspy dying voice my last words: “you were right Camron.” Until then, I’m just gonna laugh from the bleachers when these click bait ‘debates’ flare up.

      • I think anyone with more than half a functioning brain around here would prefer it if you posted something on here for all to see, that isn’t just the regurgitated two-headed love-child of the Heartland Institute and various other industry shills who have a clear financial agenda in climate change denial.

    • Dude, don’t fall for the Skype thing, he’s just gonna show you his dick

  8. Jamie Lee | Jul 4, 2014 at 3:42 am |

    Climate change denial disinformation? Surely we can find better disinformation…

  9. ‘… this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. …’

    Hmmm, bravo.

    Who indeed can believe that countless, intense heat producing factories, can possibly raise atmospheric temperature, resulting in an adverse effect on ice?

  10. Nah, you’re right. It’s more like 99% agree.

  11. What we can say definitively, is that 100% of those 3 scientists who “doubt” the reality of climate change, are paid by the oil, coal, and gas interests, and their think tanks, who are running the tobacco company “teach the controversy” playbook – in some cases with the same “scientists”.

    • Echar Lailoken | Jul 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm |

      Let’s not forget the useful idiots that espouse this concocted thought pollution.

  12. Get this crap off my Disinfo.

  13. more than a billion cars driven on the planet could not possibly have any impact on temperature and climate or could they? And unbreathable shit coming from approximately 7000 coal fired power plants cannot possibly have any impact on temperature or climate. Melting glaciers and polar ice are absolutely no indication that anything unusual is happening to the climate or that it could possibly have anything to do with 7 billion people doing what modern people do. Cameron, believe what fox “news” or the WSJ tells you and your head will be firmly lodged betwixt your arse

    • misinformation | Jul 5, 2014 at 2:27 am |

      I just found this here…

      In the article you link to, if you replace the first word of the intellectually lazy phrase of, ‘conspiracy theory’ with ‘status quo’ or ‘mainstream’, the thesis will remain intact, if not supersede the original.

      • One could just remove qualifiers entirely and say “theory”, but I think specifying can get people to examine their own biases, if they don’t get defensive. “Conspiracy theory” is only as intellectually lazy as its context, and “mainstream” can be just as reactionary. I definitely think “conspiracy theory” is as appropriate for this site as “official story” would be at CNN.

  14. Go spend more time outdoors. All the proof any sane individual needs is in the environment.

    • misinformation | Jul 5, 2014 at 2:19 am |

      That the climate changes or that humans cause it?

      • To resolve your query, please refer to my previous comment:

        Go spend more time outdoors.

        • misinformation | Jul 5, 2014 at 2:37 am |

          I don’t think I could spend much more time out-doors. I farm for a living. In case you’re wondering, that means I work with plants – pretty much all day long…outdoors. I’m going out on a limb and assuming one of us has more contact with the outdoors.

          But don’t let that stop your internet zingers or your non-answers to simple questions.

          • I’m going out on a limb and assuming one of us has more contact with the outdoors.

            Perhaps it is less a function of “contact” than “sensitivity”. After all, there are degrees of seeing light and hearing sound.


          • misinformation | Jul 5, 2014 at 3:09 am |

            It’s always more than the simplest but in those terms, in my niche, if I’m not ‘sensitive’, I’m not making a living.

            The irony of your last two post is, the people who are least likely to have what, I assume you mean by, ‘sensitivity’, are the ones both growing a monoculture and making a decent liviing.

            We’re just out here trying to change the paradigm.

          • Many people can see the trees
            Not all can appreciate the forest
            Some decide to burn it down
            And impose their will instead

            American farmers don’t exactly have a history of environmental expertise on their side. See: Dustbowl 1.0 & 2.0.

            FYI: I’d venture to say homeless people spend more time outdoors than farmers. And while I am not personally homeless, one roof, three walls, and a wall of windows lets an awful lot of outdoors into my indoors. Funny too how much human generated pollution is carried into my home by the wind.

          • misinformation | Jul 5, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

            So, aside from the homeless people red herring, now you’re saying that ‘go spend more time outdoors’ doesn’t reveal anything? The bar is ever changing.

            It’s also not difficult to avoid a dust bowl with appropriate farming techniques.

          • ÿ’m dancing to the tune you’re playing, misfo. Your propertarian tendencies have been so noted.

            If you spend so much time outdoors, the answers to both of your initial questions should be easily solvable through direct, personal experience. It’s not exactly a koan, but if you require additional explanation, you kind of seriously missed the point.

            But since you’re flailing about so spasmodically, ÿ’ll throw you a lifeline:

            You’re a farmer, what’s your local water table like? Can you go to the nearest natural body of water and drink untreated water from it? What if you go downstream? How is the health of the core insect populations doing on your property and in the surrounding region? What about other wildlife? What invasive species do you deal with? Is your soil largely organic, or does it require a significantly measurable quantity of industrial inputs? How many oil-derived, oil-powered devices are necessary for your operation?

            Since this seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp…

            – Ask a Question
            – Do Background Research
            – Construct a Hypothesis
            – Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
            – Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
            – Communicate Your Results
            (Via: )

          • misinformation | Jul 6, 2014 at 4:10 am |

            “what’s your local water table like”

            High. I farm in a river valley. Perhaps you had a more specific question, you wanted answered?

            “Can you go to the nearest natural body of water and drink untreated water from it?”

            It would depend on the circumstances. River swales, which are the closest ‘natural bodies of water’ (a highly ambiguous phrase) are genearlly stagnate so I would tend not to drink from them. You are aware, in all of your outdoor endeavors, that even mountain run-off is susceptible to giardia so I would tend to steer clear of unfiltered water anywhere that I didn’t understand the consequences.

            ‘How is the health of the core insect populations doing on your property and in the surrounding region?’

            Do you even know what you’re asking, here? There are ‘a lot’ of insects. Some years predators overwhelm the crops. Other years beneficial insects overwhelm the predators. That’s how nature works.

            ‘What about other wildlife?’

            ‘Wildlife’? As opposed to native plants and insects? Way to be myopic.

            ‘What invasive species do you deal with?’

            With regard to whom? Me? The county? The state? It helps if you actually think these questions through.

            ‘Is your soil largely organic…’

            Is there an inorganic soil that I’m unaware of?

            ‘soil…does it require a significantly measurable quantity of industrial inputs?’

            What are ‘industrial inputs’, exactly? Zero petrochemical fertilizers amend our soil if that is what your clever little question was getting at.

            ‘How many oil-derived, oil-powered devices are necessary for your operation?’

            Necessary is relative and, I assume you mean petroleum, when you say ‘oil’, even though various ‘oils’ make up parts of many things.

            I use the smallest Kubota tractor available (and occasionally run a weed whacker or chain saw) that isn’t essentially a lawn mower. The front loader (that’s the scoop-thing in the front) holds approximately two wheel barrows of material. We are shifting heavily towards perennial crops (though we’ll always grow some amount of annuals and semi-annuals – you can look those terms up if you don’t know what they mean) due to the fact that there is far less impact on the environment…despite what vegetarians believe.

            Now that I’ve answered all your ‘gotcha’ questions, perhaps you could take a stab at answering the first question that I asked you (let alone your answers to the attempts at gaining clarity on the non-sequitur questions in your previous post) , here. I doubt you will, of course, as you seem incapable of brevity or substance.

            I don’t believe I’ve ever come across someone who uses so many words to say so little – and that’s saying something in the age of the internet. Don’t let that stop you from responding with your red herring, internet zingers, though. I’m sure there’s a large audience clamoring for a lack of substance.

            I’m going to point you somewhere, though I’m sure you’re already familiar – your style is too similar for you to not have studied them:


          • It’s not exactly a koan, but if you require additional explanation, you kind of seriously missed the point.

            This is for you:


          • Separate question for you:

            Do you monoculture?

          • misinformation | Jul 5, 2014 at 3:04 am |

            Hard to know exactly, at this point – trying new things all the time but probably working with approximately 80-100 species atm…down from around 150 when I started.

          • It’s “hard to know” … “certainly” …?

            Try this on for size:

            What percentage of species do you monoculture, and what percentage are polyculture?

          • misinformation | Jul 6, 2014 at 3:10 am |

            “hard to know” and “certainly”, out of context means nothing. You’re tiresome. Aside from reading about monocultures and polycultures on the internet, do have any idea what those terms mean.

            Do you have any concept of what 100 species of plants on one property looks like? Don’t worry, that’s rhetorical. I know that you don’t.

          • You’re tiresome.

            You’re not so bright, are you? Try this one on for size: mirroring.

            When you get a clue, get back to me.

  15. martykayzee | Jul 4, 2014 at 1:57 pm |

    Jesus says there’s no climate change, but there was immaculate conception and actual resurrection. Ask the Heartland Institute, they’ll explain it all to you.

  16. Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in
    “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman,a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis
    adviser Peter Doran.

    It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that
    humans are a significant contributing factor.

    The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who
    are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer
    “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human
    impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar
    scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists
    or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of
    natural causes of climate change.

    The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of
    expertise and said they published more than half of their recent
    peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the
    3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

    In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg,then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.
    Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers
    on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been
    responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no
    mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course,
    200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate
    science debate is not evidence of consensus.

    In 2013, John Cook,an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

    Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in
    August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “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.
    Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso,Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

    Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the “consensus” (emphasis mine) on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

    Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

    Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims
    that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and
    climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet
    relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do
    with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other
    climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made
    greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of
    the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing
    “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

    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.

    Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal
    research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the
    U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

    • Charles Saeger | Jul 4, 2014 at 6:28 pm |

      And that, folks, is how the corporate media works. Except it’s now on disinformation, a site for avoiding the corporate media. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is the house organ for the American Right, fielding stuff too toxic for Fox News. The Heartland Institute is a legendary corporate shill.

      Camron, your decision to run this in light of this would have you flunked college journalism. This is just running a press release of the 1%. Regardless of whether or not 97% or 99.7% or 9.7% of climate scientists agree with global warming, this should not appear here.

      • Defend the tribe at all costs! Keep the outsiders away! Self-appointed warriors unite, a new idea is lose in the province! En garde! Release the trolls!!

        • Charles Saeger | Jul 6, 2014 at 10:24 pm |

          No, moron. It’s called finding out what someone’s interest might be in saying something, and looking at it critically in light of that interest. In the case of the Heartland Institute, it wants to pollute more, something that is obvious from its donors, which include Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries. This is basic reporting, stuff reporters learn in intro to journalism, and have drilled afterwards.

          Learn basic reporting if you want folks to take you seriously. And there’s no new idea loose. Don’t flatter yourself.

          • No, moron. It’s called understanding beyond a two party/hegelian dialectic and then presenting evidence to support your claims. Obviously you didn’t bother investigating, content to parrot your fanboy posse, you just see “Heartland institute” or “Wall Street Journal” and presume your controlled oppositional favorites are incapable of duping you. Or your just another sock puppet disinformationalist with the exact same tone and aggression against actually thinking things through. The temperature hasn’t catastrophically warmed, the ice caps are not catastrophically melting, and there is no 97% consensus. Where is your 97% fanboy? Show me why don’t you.

          • It was a valiant attempt, but Camron sees cognitive dissonance as something that only affects other monstrous egos people.

            “He” has an “idea”, and you’ll pry it “from his cold, dead fingers”.

  17. NYT: ‘Prominent Environmentalist Helped Fund Coal Projects’ —


    “But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.

    Mr. Steyer, 56, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.

    But an in-depth examination of those investments shows that, despite his highly public declaration, Mr. Steyer’s divestment will do little to impede the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled, which will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come.

    Over the past 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China, records and interviews show.”

  18. What is the ideal global average temperature and CO2 level?

  19. How much money does the IPCC get yearly by the way?

    • Wow, this Burr guy must be one of those genocidal authoritarian elitists you’ve been talking about.

  20. “New idea” being the same old appeal to motive.

  21. Aoi Warai | Jul 6, 2014 at 4:44 pm |

    The number of scientists that agree isn’t 97%? That’s an interesting but useless factoid, as useless as hearing that 97% of them did agree. There are legitimate economic and technological arguments to be made for not
    destroying the economy in a fit of emotional freakout, without denying
    that anthropogenic climate change is real. The conversation has turned toxic due to the irrationality of both “sides” in what is more a political struggle than a scientific one.

    The problem is the profusion of demagoguery tactics on all sides. Just like the constant
    emotional nagging by tree-huggers, abandoning appealing to anyone on
    rational grounds in favor of showing us polar bears looking sad, the Right has
    abandoned reasoned discourse for emotional, anti-scientific F.U.D. There is Big Money funding BOTH sides, and the
    race to the bottom seems to be one of endless emotive appeals that don’t
    educate people in legit science OR economic analysis.

    I don’t know why some elements of the energy industry have decided to invest in science denial public relations, rather than to invest in improved technology for managing the externalities of production, except that marketing is probably cheaper than R&D.

    Not that environmentalist groups do things with more sophistication. It’s sad that the leadership class in this society has such a contempt for the public as to abandon completely any notion of appealing to them truthfully, and relying on their ability to reason. They’d rather feed people emotion pills, and circumvent their intellects.

    We can’t fix problems, either economic or environmental, by living in denial that the two are inextricably linked. Both sides suffer from this kind of denial. One side only fears profit loss and denies that anything else is real, and the other side has cult-ish primitivist ideals. Both sides are rife with Luddites, and we’re going to fail to save both the environment AND the economy as a result of this division. Not everything can be treated like a football match, where teams battle in a polarized way. Some issues only get mangled by trying to polarize them.

Comments are closed.