97% CONSENSUS FALLACIOUS



97% “consensus” on global warming is derived from prejudice, not from data and not by the "Scientific Method."
This article was run March 4, 2016 in The Daily Press, a Tribune Paper. I'm posting here to reach readers beyond our local, Virginia Peninsula, area, especially for worldwide readers.

On Monday morning, February 27, 2017, The Daily Press published a letter by a citizen, in which he used the fallacious 97% “consensus” on global warming to deride the newly approved EPA Director, Scott Pruitt. He also took a swipe at new Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos for speaking quite a bit of truth about misinformation now instilled in students in our colleges and universities. The 97% “consensus” is a mantra now presented as inarguable truth, yet it's fallacious, a contrived prejudicial assessment.

First, we scientists know that science does not yield to consensus, rather hypotheses and laws are derived from disciplined analytical problem-solving work consistent with the “Scientific Methodology.” Then on Monday evening, I heard Bill Nye, The “Science Guy” puppet the consensus fallacy in a debate. Americans are being misled! It's time to inform them of truth.

The “consensus” propaganda came from a 2009 American Geophysical Survey by two researchers at the University of Illinois. It is referred to as the Doran Survey or Zimmerman Thesis. The “survey” was a two-minute, two question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 scientists by two university professors. Only 3146 “earth scientists” responded. The researchers cherry-picked 77 of the 3146 and labeled them experts. Of those 77, 75 (97.4%) agreed “global warming, now climate change, is manmade. The AGU survey was widely criticized by the scientific community, most notably by the respondents to the survey. But, we don't hear it, do we?

Sadly, as I published some years ago, “Too many Colleges and Universities are no longer sanctuaries for learning and research, rather are now havens for political activism.” So it is with the 97% “consensus.”

Dr. Joe Mann, PhD Chemistry
Williamsburg, James City County, Virginia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w...
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif...
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own exp...
Read more