“97% af forskerne er enige og derfor må al modstand forstumme!”

Den hører man tit og den er skudt ned for længe siden, men her er en ny vinkel, der illustrerer venstrefløjens hykleri:

Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson:

[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]

If we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change.

Det nye i denne artikel, der viser hykleriet, er følgende:

 A colleague sent me a recent review in The New Republic of a new book by Binyan Appelbaum that is critical of the economics profession. The reviewer, Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein, quoted with approval Appelbaum’s low view of consensus in economics:

Appelbaum shows the strangely high degree of consensus in the field of economics, including a 1979 survey of economists that “found 98 percent opposed rent controls, 97 percent opposed tariffs, 95 percent favored floating exchange rates, and 90 percent opposed minimum wage laws.” And in a moment of impish humor he notes that “Although nature tends toward entropy, they shared a confidence that economies tend toward equilibrium.” Economists shared a creepy lack of doubt about how the world worked. [Kaiser-Schatzlein, bold added.]

Isn’t that amazing? Rather than hunting down and demonizing Democratic politicians who dare to oppose the expert consensus on items like rent control—which Bernie Sanders has recently promoted—the reaction here is to guffaw at the hubris and “creepy lack of doubt about how the world [works].”

Herfra.

1 Kommentar

  1. Fint akronym AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Klimaændringer har aldrig tidligere været menneskeskabte som AGW, så det er de sikkert heller ikke nu. Hvis klimaet i det hele taget er ændret?
    Klip fra KLIMA SOM RELIGIONSERSTATNING Kristeligt Dagblad juni 30, 2019
    “Klima og miljø Af Jens Morten Hansen Fhv. statsgeolog og adj. professor
    Forventelige klimaændringer (…) De fleste videnskabelige afhandlinger taler nu om forventelige klimaændringer, som forskere med klimahistorisk ekspertise kan vise ligger helt indenfor de hyppigt tilbagevendende naturlige udsving, vi kender fra de sidste 5.000 år. Vi har altså set det før, og hverken Jorden eller menneskeheden gik under. Tværtimod. Varmt klima har givet relativ velstand, sundhed og intellektuelt overskud, mens kuldeperioder – fx Lille Istid (ca. 1300-1800) – har givet misvækst, pandemier og hungersnød. (…)
    Men denne viden har det vist sig stort set umuligt at fremføre i fx DR og – med få undtagelser – i de trykte medier. Her i landet, der stræber efter en klimapolitisk dukserolle, skyldes det især, at videnskabeligt uholdbare påstande om ’klimakatastrofen’ uafladeligt finder uimodsagt vej til DR’s udsendelser og andre massemedier.”

Leave a Reply

Din email adresse vil ikke blive vist offentligt.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.