What did I say? After the near collapse of climate talks, global leaders “rescued” COP28 at the last minute, scoring top marks in Climate Bingo: the talks are “historic“, “landmark“, “unprecedented” and use the actual phrase “transition away from fossil fuels” for the first time ever. Be still my beating heart.
A hundred billionaires met with 70,000 groupies, using millions of dollars mostly taken from other people, and have decided they need to do it all again.
The point of these meetings is to issue more press releases, reward the faithful underlings, arrange golden handshakes behind the scenes, and transfer billions of dollars from the riff raff to the Private-Jet-Class. This glorious goal is achieved when the Grand UN Performance of vague non-binding Hopium is used to fool investors and voters in domestic theatres.
And so it comes to pass that all nations have finally agreed to do what they were doing anyway. But UN-speak translates the nothingness into hyperbole:
“The agreement marks “the beginning of the end of fossil fuels” — UNFCCC
The president of the European Commission has welcomed the COP28 agreement, hailing it a “global turning point”. –more Sky News.
Despite that — the world continues on the transition to fossil fuels and away from wood and donkeys, while everyone — except the patsies — plays the game and pretends to power themselves with sunshine and breezes.
Oblivious to the trillions of dollars being spent, 82% of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, and the new annual growth in fossil fuels is so fast that all the additional unreliable energy sources added this year cannot even keep up with it.
The spokeswoman for a bunch of small islands told the world the deal was nothing much and got a two minute long standing ovation anyway:
The lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, Anne Rasmussen, criticised the deal as unambitious.
“We have made an incremental advancement over business as usual, when what we really need is an exponential step change in our actions,” she said.
But she did not formally object to the pact, and her speech drew a standing ovation that lasted nearly two minutes. — Reuters
It doesn’t matter what she said, just like it doesn’t matter that 90% of their islands are not sinking either. The islands are the token mascots and must be cheered. It’s a performance religion.
It’s the empty UN landmark deal that almost no one will achieve
Even the propaganda machine in Geneva has to admit that the “central outcome” is just a stocktake, which shows emissions *need* to be cut by an impossible amount and people are not achieving it. This is as good as it gets:
The global stocktake is considered the central outcome of COP28 – as it contains every element that was under negotiation and can now be used by countries to develop stronger climate action plans due by 2025.
The stocktake recognizes the science that indicates global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut 43% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, to limit global warming to 1.5°C. But it notes Parties are off track when it comes to meeting their Paris Agreement goals. — UNFCCC
The UNFCCC hopes everyone will turn up with better plans next year:
In the short-term, Parties are encouraged to come forward with ambitious, economy-wide emission reduction targets, covering all greenhouse gases, sectors and categories and aligned with the 1.5°C limit in their next round of climate action plans (known as nationally determined contributions) by 2025.
If your government is one of the ones sincerely trying to meet impossible, stupid targets, you know you live in The Patsy State.
Thanks to Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone who lets us know that Kristina Schröder — a minister in the Angela Merkel government for four years, has written in Der Pragmaticus, of her fear that the German government is copying the dark pattern of the pandemic to create a nation where the government controls what people eat and wear, and whether they can travel.
It would have helped if she had seen this coming ten years ago, when she was a Minister, but she says, she did not believe Germans would accept drastic restrictions for the “collective good” until the pandemic hit. Now she asks why there is a blindness to the costs of climate action, and why there is indifference to the losses of freedom. (Obviously, the German media and industrial censorship complex is just like the rest of the West, and there is no outrage allowed, no node for protests to gather on, and a constant stream of gaslighting — “renewables are cheap”, the “world is hotter than ever” and “climate change makes goldfish alcoholic”, that sort of thing).
Corona is now over, now it’s about climate change . And again, the two argumentation patterns that predominate during the pandemic can be observed: refusal to weigh things up and an end-justifies-the-means way of thinking.
Against the background of the experience of the pandemic, it is easy to imagine these future measures to contain the infection, pardon, CO 2 occurrence: There is a threat of requirements that affect our most private lifestyle. How we live, heat, move, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly dictated by the state.
The long-time director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who is considered in some circles to be Germany’s most important climate protector, has already made a corresponding suggestion: You could provide every citizen with a CO 2 budget of three tons annually. Anyone who knows that Germans are currently responsible for an average of eleven tons of CO 2 emissions per capita per year can appreciate what that would mean.
As Gosselin observes Schröder “…so far many Germans have been acting complacently about such drastic proposals”. Schröder asks the 64 trillion dollar question of our times — why are Germans (like so much of the West) willing to accept these losses of basic rights so easily?
Schröder, who contributes regularly to Welt, also wonders why in Germany there’s such a “blindness to the costs” of reducing CO2. “Why this indifference to the loss of freedom and prosperity?” And: “Why this longing for bans, renunciation and penance?”
Schröder is now aware (belatedly) that the activists don’t care about the environment but are using climate change to fight the evil capitalist system.
Fight against the system
I am convinced that large parts of the climate protection movement also fight our way of living and doing business at least as much as they fight climate change. They adhere to the narrative, which has been very powerful in left-wing movements in the Western world since the 1970s, that free and market-economy societies are structurally exploitative and destructive. Also, of course, structurally discriminatory and racist; This is what the members of the wokeness movement deal with.
Clear empirical findings that the more capitalist a country is, the cleaner the water and air and the more diverse the flora and fauna are, are robustly ignored in these circles. With climate protection, activists have found a powerful lever to push back the hated capitalist system.
It is the crisis for the sake of having a crisis — and by definition it must never be solved:
I am sure that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to make CO2 harmless overall, large parts of the radical climate protection movement would not be relieved, but rather disappointed.
Scientifically the UN Conference of Parties (COP) has abjectly failed 27 times at the one thing it was supposedly set up to do, which was reduce carbon emissions and save the weather, but it’s been a wild success on the Global-Trade-Party-and-Schmooze calendar.
Tonight the UN COP28 “climate” conference is on the ‘Verge of complete failure’ says CNN — because they’ve given up talking about “phasing out fossil fuels” and they’re only trying to reduce fossil fuels now (exactly the same as the last 27 meetings). No doubt tomorrow, headlines will tell us a historic deal, which is barely enough, was somehow clawed from the brink after an all-nighter.
The historic deal will amount to ambiguous subclauses that enable carbon grift and graft wherever carbon grafting and grifting were likely to happen anyway.
28 conferences and nothing to show for it:
It was never about CO2 anyway, was it?
Whatever happens, the conference is a big success as the Planetary Fashion Parade where the virtue-signalers of the world unite to show off their cloaks of carbon-purity. In the background it’s the place where billionaires and bankers bring their yachts and personal planes to meet Presidents and Kings.
Supposedly 100,000 people signed up, and 70,000 “were expected” to attend the Bureaucrat-Trade-Olympiad which used to be a kind of science conference 28 years ago, but is now a large trade convention.
How COP28 has become the new Davos
It costs a lot to stop global storms and floods you know. No wonder the Bankers and Bill Gates, care so much about the climate, and go to a UN convention with lectures on climate sensitivity. It’s like speed-dating for business deals:
…there are trillions of dollars needed to finance or develop projects that serve the energy transition. As World Bank chief Ajay Banga told a panel: “Everything has a lot of zeroes attached to it.”
It’s an all-star cast: ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods, and the bosses of energy companies RWE, ENI and Engie. The global CEOs of PwC and EY. The heads of Brookfield, BlackRock and IFM Investors. The bosses of Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Macquarie. Rubbing shoulders with Stella McCartney and Chelsea Clinton.
18 months ago the coral on John Brewer Reef was dead according to The Guardian, but Jennifer Marohasy, Peter Ridd and Rowan Dean took the risk of going back to the same dead reef to make a short documentary on it and found the same coral, 80 kilometers offshore and it, and the whole area around it, is flourishing.
According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park authority, the area was surveyed in April 2022 and the damage was classed as “severe”. According to them, 60-90% of the reef was bleached. It was so bad that when the Sydney Morning Herald wrote about “500 kilometers of severe bleaching” it was John Brewer Reef that they picked for the feature photo.
Scientists, apparently, were dreading the damage to come (of the reef that recovered):
If the John Brewer reef was sick, most of the Great Barrier Reef was bound to be sick too, said Graham Readfearn:
“This is one of the healthiest reefs off Townsville and one of the best reefs on the whole Great Barrier Reef. So for these corals to be stressed and damaged … well, it’s likely it’s the same at other reefs down here.”
But here in the real world, the formerly bleached coral now is a normal “cafe latte” brown color, showing it has recovered from the bleaching. The growing tips are always white, apparently, so it’s all good. Jennifer wrote all the details up on her blog.
The coral threw out the zooxanthellae last year, but this year it has new ones…
The John Brewer reef, right now, is full of colorful fish and very alive corals.
As Jennifer Marohasy says, it was a risk to return to the “The centre of the sixth mass coral bleaching”. The 15 minute video of the trip to John Brewer Reef is below.
But some official agencies that diagnose the doomed reefs do it from a plane. Here’s an example of the same reef from 120 meters above sea level. For some reason nearly everything deeper than 2 meters is hard to see, and vertical walls of coral are, invisible.
The Australian government gave $1 billion dollars to save the reef in January 2022. Perhaps it worked? You’d think The Guardian might want to tell the world, but they don’t seem to want to give a healthy reef the same attention they gave to a momentarily bleached one.
Though alarmists are losing the head,
John Brewer reef is anything but dead,
With its colourful coral,
Spread like bouquets floral,
Where parrot fish swim and are fed.
Insurance companies just want to save the world right?
An anonymous insurance insider warns the plan is to force people to buy a digital car, and claims the push is so strong we won’t even be able to get insurance for a combustion engine vehicle. It sounds like a conspiracy theory except that insurers themselves admit Big Data from cars is worth a fortune, and they’ve have been lobbying to get your car data out of the hands of the car manufacturers (purely for your own good), and they’re already “involved in negotiations with the European digitalization and data protection manager”. Righto. Just six weeks ago, a Managing Director of Allianz insurance said he wants to track your car data so he can be “your invisible Guardian Angel.” Creepy, yes?
Wouldn’t you love to have your insurer, the police and the IRS as your back seat drivers?
Imagine a world in which the insurer acts as an invisible guardian angel to drivers, warning them of upcoming weather hazards or accident hotspots to avoid.
According to GeoffBuysCars an insider at a large European insurance company has spilled the beans. Being a car lover himself, the insider wants to warn the world that the plans are well advanced. The insurance giants want to collect all your data as you drive so they can adjust the premiums accordingly and instantly. If you drive a bit too fast, it’ll cost you (especially when 20-mile-an-hour-zones spread to everywhere). Your EV will report your offenses to the police and the insurance company. How good with that be?
GeoffBuysCars has translated the insider report “doing the rounds of Europe” into English (hear him below). I’ve searched for any news reports or confirmation and of course, found almost nothing at all about the insider. But a story from Allianz on October 17th suggests he’s right on the money.
It’s a new era of Big Data from cars:
Allianz seem awfully very excited about the tidal wave of big car data that is about to arrive, which they warn was being “monopolized” and “hoarded” (just not by them). Luckily for us, they lobbied the EU and now there’s a new law. Insurers are salivating at the thought of getting their hands on this data, and Big Bankers, and Big Bureaucrats are hardly going to stand in their way are they? They want that data too:
As the world in which we live becomes increasingly digital, every day, more and more data is being generated, monitored and analyzed. It’s also being transferred and monetized, and in some cases, monopolized. The power and insights that can be drawn from data is not lost on corporations and industry players, and while data can improve the competitive position of those with access, the hoarding of it can stifle competition and progress.
Connected vehicles already churn out several terabytes of data per day, but this is nothing compared to what’s to come – an estimated 30 terabytes of data per day by 20251. This is the data equivalent of over 7,000 high-definition movies2! In today’s cars, hundreds of high-tech sensors record everything from driving behavior to fuel consumption and seatbelt status.
…a coalition of parties including insurers, leasing companies, and repair shops have been lobbying the European Commission to intervene when it comes to accessing valuable vehicle data.
All the terabytes of car data was owned and “hoarded” by the car manufacturers like VW and Volvo but the new EU Data Act “gives that back to the car owner”. Which all sounds good, but wait half a nanosecond for the insurance companies and government agencies who will “offer discounts” to people who sign away their data so they can be spied on legally. Obviously the skiing billionaires at Davos won’t need the discount, so only the riff raff and the poor will be tracked every second of their driving day.
..the new EU Data Act will be a game changer, putting car owners back in the driver’s seat when it comes to who accesses their vehicles’ data. “This move is an important first step in order to enhance data sharing and competition, and for us as insurers to be able to implement new and improved products, claims processes, and effective prevention measures for our customers,” says Christoph Lauterwasser, Managing Director of the Allianz Center for Technology.
“We are about to enter a new era in the world of automotive insurance and solutions, thanks to the power of data from connected cars.”
Imagine being able to sell that data? Say, the insurers give you the discount and collect the bytes and then the tyre guys, the media, the phone companies, the police, the FBI, the shopping centres, the electricity companies and the CCP are happy to pay…
The Government will of course, just offer you a discount on your registration if you agree to be tracked.
“I worked in the IT department of a very large insurer…”
Hear his words. They are already setting this up… it will be connected to police, insurance and national security agencies…. in cooperation with Google and Microsoft.
Since the Luton airport fires, my favourite car commentator is GeoffBuysCars. This is a depressing story, but forewarned is forearmed. Get the word out so we can cut them off at the pass…
Did they forget to mention a clean green planet is full of steel transmission lines?
Recently the International Energy Agency (IEA) told the world off for not preparing the Earth for the transition they want to force upon us. Apparently, we should have paid attention and built the right grid and now, due to our laziness, we will have to rush in another 80 million kilometers of interconnectors by 2040. Just like that.
All the high voltage lines we built in the last century, we have to build again in the next 17 years.
Remember, it’s not their fault that renewables need far more land, more space, more back up and more infrastructure — it’s our fault we didn’t build a world ready for their holy energy. Those sacred wind and solar gifts cannot be bestowed upon us! We are unworthy:
First-of-its-kind global study finds the world must add or replace 80 million km of grids by 2040, equal to all grids globally today, to meet national climate targets and support energy security.
Notice how these changes “are essential” girls and boys, and you should have paid for them already. It’s only half a trillion dollars a year for the next 7 years…
Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030.
Issues are already emerging. The report identifies a large and growing queue of renewables projects waiting for the green light to be connected to the grid, pinpointing 1 500 gigawatts worth of these projects that are in advanced stages of development. This is five times the amount of solar PV and wind capacity that was added worldwide last year.
Just bill it to the wind and solar investors, says Jo Nova, and make them pay to put the lines underground so they don’t pollute the forests and farms and start fires.
Tell the children they’ve been lied to. The Green future is an industrial wasteland of concrete and steel built to line the pockets of billionaires and bankers.
In the last couple of weeks a New Zealand whistleblower came forward with detailed, but anonymized data showing that certain batches of the experimental you-know-what, were associated with shockingly high mortality rates. As this news started to spread, the government could have responded to correct or explain this, instead they arrested him, thus accidentally verifying that the data he showed was not wrong, but real. His crime apparently was not faking-up the data, but “accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes” which seems like a very strange crime given that, as he describes it, he was paid to work with the data, and the results of public health data is — in a free society — supposed to be public.
In the world we thought we lived in, we would assume that the NZ government would already know and track the mortality of all the batches they forced the citizens to take. Unless they were grossly incompetent or inherently corrupted by, hypothetically say, large multinational entities earning a hundred billion dollars — authorities would have the real death rates at their fingertips, surely? So if he faked the data, or misinterpreted it, or he made an honest but calamitous error with the spreadsheet, then surely the government could have told us that?
Perhaps there is some legitimate explanation (for example if the worst batches went to nursing homes with 104 year old patients at deaths door, or were only given to wards of Stage 4 cancer patients). The Minister of Health could have explained that. But check these numbers: The batch labelled “1” here had a death rate of 21%. Out of 711 injections, 152 people died. (Apparently over a long timespan, so some of these deaths are months afterwards.) This needs explaining.
The ten worst batches:
This needs some explanation.
Batch 62, which went out to 18,000 people was associated with an extraordinary 4.6% death rate. Does the Minister know the average age of these people, or their risk factors? If not, why not? Isn’t this one of the most important questions in the country today?
In this short video below, Barry Young is interviewed by Liz Gunn, and referred to as “Winston Smith”. The man is a hero. In court he received a standing ovation from the packed public gallery. This interview was a few days ago, before his name was revealed and he was arrested.
New Zealand Covid-19 vaccination database admin turns whistleblower and reveals how many people died after taking bad batches of the Pfizer vaccine. This must be investigated. If this data of mass vaccine casualties is real there must be accountability. pic.twitter.com/2QjkmRGJca
The New Zealand Ministry of Health says that only four people have died because of vaccination. Steve Kirsch has analyzed the data, and claims it (and other data he has) shows an overall mortality rate of around 1 in 1,000 doses. He calls for people to prove he is wrong and points out no nation has ever released their record-level data publicly, which would be easy to do if they wanted to prove their programs were safe.
This new whistleblower data comes from the “Pay per dose” program in New Zealand and applies to about 4 million of the 12 million total doses. While one critic claimed these were doses for people in nursing homes, Kirsch claims that nearly 900 million days of data in people under 60 in the dataset. Kirsch also says the mortality peaks around six months after the last injection.
He pointedly asks why other countries don’t release their record-level data (which could show the injections are safe, right?) I don’t know if Steve Kirsch is right, but I do know the governments are acting guilty.
After years of universities turning out smug self-obsessed graduates of Woke ideology, Big Business has realized they might be better off hiring people with experience in the real world instead. They are also doing their own testing — with 2 out of 3 setting their own test assignments for candidates.
This year more than half of the 800 employers surveyed had already dropped bachelor degree requirements for at least some of their roles. It must have worked out, because next year almost all of those same companies plan on dropping the requirement for even more roles. That looks like a trend…
This surely must be ringing some warning bells in a few Ivory Towers? Fewer students, means less income, less influence, and fewer alumni:
Nearly half of US companies intend to eliminate Bachelor’s degree requirements for some job positions next year, a new survey has revealed.
And 55 percent said they’d already eliminated degree requirements this year, according to an Intelligent.com survey of 800 US employers, carried out in November.
In October, Walmart eliminated college degrees as a requirement for hundreds of its corporate roles…
Intelligent.com suggests that this move will help increase diversity by giving marginalized applicants more of a chance. But employers are conducting their own tests and they’re talking about finding a good fit for their culture. Perhaps what the employers want is a better attitude, not a virtue signalling Marxist? Or perhaps, since universities don’t like to fail anyone anymore, employers have to run tests to assess the merits:
“Assessments are important for many jobs, even if a student seems to have a relevant degree,” Gayeski says. “Employers use assessments to get a handle on whether candidates will be a good fit for their specific culture or the challenges of a certain job – such as the ability to handle conflict or to take on unfamiliar tasks and take risks. They’re also a way for applicants to demonstrate their interest in a job and how accurately and quickly one can perform tasks.”
The majority of test assignments, 81%, take two hours or less to complete.
This is what you get when you take a great institution, try to make it fit half the population, and spurn free speech and the pillars of its success. Alas, at the bleeding edge of societies intellectual fashion parades, and in protected government zones, the adulation of academic degrees will continue.
Joe Biden wants half of all cars to be EV’s by 2030 to stop the storms, but customers have other plans
Such is the dour mood in sales yards, it only took three weeks to get nearly 4,000 dealers across the USA to sign on. Their joint letter to Joe Biden informs him electric vehicles are piling up in their sale yards. And even though the prices have been cut and subsidies applied — it’s still not enough. They plead with him to slow down with the EV mandates.
Rich Democrats buy EV’s but the poor and middle class can’t afford them, the charging infrastructure is not there and the grids can’t cope. If the price of traditional cars is forced up artificially to effectively subsidize and “meet” the EV Diktat, presumably most customers just won’t buy new cars at all.
Right now in the EV vision, sales are supposed to be accelerating:
Dealers have a 103-day supply of EVs compared to 56 days for all cars. It takes them on average 65 days to sell an EV, about twice as long as for gas-powered cars. EV sales are slowing though manufacturers have slashed prices and increased discounts. Consumers paid on average $50,683 for an EV in September, compared to $65,000 a year ago.
A new study from the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas finds a “strong and enduring correlation between political ideology and U.S. EV adoption.” About half of EVs registered as of last year were to “the 10% most Democratic counties, and about one-third to the top 5%,” the study notes. This suggests “it may be harder than previously believed to reach high levels of U.S. EV adoption.”
Today, the supply of unsold BEVs is surging, as they are not selling nearly as fast as they are arriving at our dealerships — even with deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives…
With each passing day, it becomes more apparent that this attempted electric vehicle mandate is unrealistic based on current and forecasted customer demand. Already, electric vehicles are stacking up on our lots which is our best indicator of customer demand in the marketplace.
Mr. President, no government agency, no think tank, and no polling firm knows more about the automobile customer than us. We talk to customers every day. As retail automotive dealerships, we are agnostic as to what we sell. Our business is to provide customers with vehicles that meet the needs of their budgets and lifestyles.
The Inflation Reduction Act offers $7,500 in credits to qualifying households, and it’s still not enough. The EV market share is still growing, but has dramatically slowed in the second half of 2023. Joe Biden wants half of all cars to be EV’s by 2030, but even though EV sales hit a record “high” in the US, the market share is still only 7.9% of new car sales.
A new paper tries to clean up the chicken entrail decrees of Mark Lynas (and earlier of John Cook) and concludes that their methodology is so bad, a 99.85% consensus could just as easily have been 32%.
All the papers in between 32 and 99% were neutral on the cause of man-made climate catastrophes, but Lynas et al bundled them in with the believer pack and made hay in the global media. This was even though many of the “neutral” papers showed results that didn’t fit the consensus. But who cares about results eh? If an abstract was neutral, it was therefore a “sign” the authors believed — like reading their tea leaves, or laying out the entrails. (Either that or it was a sign scientists who question the dogma get sacked, lose funding, and get uninvited to laboratory barbeques, but, shh! We won’t mention that.) So Lynas assumes that as long as a scientist doesn’t specifically say they disagree, they de facto endorse the “consensus”.
Why do people who call themselves scientists even talk about a “consensus”?
Obviously if believers had evidence, they’d talk about that instead.
Dentelski et al do an admirable job of pointing out galactic level bias, grand flaws and wild assumptions of Lynas, but the central fallacy of The Global Industry of Sciencery is barely mentioned. Why do people who call themselves scientists even talk about using consensuses as an instrument of “Truth Seeking”? The whole idea that truth can be figured out by interpreting the first paragraph of industry publications is a parody of science. It’s a fallacy of science (or three at once).
We might as well add up the funding offered to each side of a theory and declare the issue settled. 99% of climate funding is paid to scientists who don’t rock the boat, therefore climate sensitivity on the third rock from the sun is 3.3 degrees…
If the opinions of scientists counted in science, we’d just survey them directly anyway instead of conducting seances on abstracts. But when we do, the consensus blows away. Outside the star chamber of the IPCC junkets, half of Meteorologists and two thirds of Engineers and Geologists flatly didn’t agree. There’s nothing remotely like a consensus in the world of science in the hideously complex and immature world of climate prophesies. Those polling results were done in 2017 and 2012, but the results scared the science pollsters so much, they have been too frightened to ask them ever since.
If the magic wand of “consensus” worked, research could be so much cheaper. Who needs the satellites and thermometers, when opinions cost so little?
Of the 3,000 papers analyzed in Lynas et al., 282 were deemed not sufficiently “climate-related.” Another 2,104 papers were placed in Category 4, which meant either the paper’s authors took “no position” or the position on AGW was deemed “uncertain”…in the abstract. So, exploiting the “if you are not against, you are for” classification bias, Lynas and colleagues decided that the authors of these 2,104 scientific papers in Category 4 do indeed agree with AGW, as what is written in the abstract does not explicitly state they do not agree.
Interestingly, if this classification bias had not been utilized and the thousands of Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) papers were not counted as supporting AGW, only 892 of the 2,718 (climate-related) papers, or 32%, could be said to have affirmatively stated they support AGW. So, simply by assuming one cannot divine the AGW opinions of authors of scientific papers by reading abstracts, it could just as facilely be said that 67% (1,826 of 2,718) of climate-related papers reject AGW.
As I’ve said before, these junk consensus studies are merely sociological surveys of the purity of government funding:
Given the $7 billion in funding from the US government for the 2015 financial year, marked for climate science and clean energy, it is hardly surprising that there are a lot of papers about “climate change” and “global warming”. There are a lot of people studying how big the crisis might be, how to solve the crisis we might be having, and what the effects of this crisis might be (if we are having one). What there is not, are institutions of people specifically tasked to investigate how minor CO2 is, how beneficial it is, or to assess if the Sun controls most of our climate. Around the Western world there is no government funding specifically to audit or find problems with the man-made global warming theory. There are no programs with the sole purpose of finding natural causes to provide the counter arguments ($0). The purity is near complete. Skeptics mostly have to fund themselves. That’s a very high barrier to publication.
In a complex science, purity of opinion is a bad sign.
Lynas, M.; Houlton, B.Z.; Perry, S. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett.2021, 16, 114005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Painting, R.; Honeycutt, R.; Skuce, A.; Jacobs, P.; Green, S.A.; Lewandowsky, S.; Richardson, M.; Way, R.G. Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’. Energy Policy2014, 73, 706–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuce, A. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett.2013, 8, 024024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cook, J.; Cowtan, K. Reply to Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’. Environ. Res. Lett.2015, 10, 039002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments