text:
Q: Send data from IntentService to BroadcastReceiver I am trying to send primitive data from a class extending IntentService to a class extending a BroadcastReceiver, however, data received in the BroadcastReceiver is null.
In my IntentService class, I have the following code
 Intent smsListener = new Intent(ScheduledRepliesService.this, SmsListener.class);
 smsListener.putExtra("reply", reply);
 smsListener.setFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NEW_TASK);
 startService(smsListener);

I can guarantee that reply is not null in IntentService class.
I retrieve it in onReceive method in BroadcastReceiver class with
@Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
    if (intent.getAction().equals(Telephony.Sms.Intents.SMS_RECEIVED_ACTION)) {
        String replyMessage = intent.getStringExtra("reply");
        ...
    }
    ...
}

I have declared the receiver in Manifest.xml file
<receiver android:name=".utilities.sms.SmsListener">
   <intent-filter>
       <action android:name="android.provider.Telephony.SMS_RECEIVED"/>
   </intent-filter>
</receiver>

and can confirm that if replyMessage string is not null, code produces no errors.
I would appreciate your help, thank you.

A: Although I was not able to find an answer to my problem, I did a bit of a workaround, and it does solve my problem. I hope this answer will be useful for somebody else as well.
I have a foreground service responsible for creating notifications when SMS message is received and a broadcast receiver whose task is to return said message body and sender number.
I was thinking in the wrong direction, sending data from service to receiver, but it should be the other way around.
Create an interface
public interface SmsListener {
    public void messageReceived(String messageSender, String messageText);
}

and use this code in broadcast receiver
public class SmsBroadcastReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver {

    //Interface
    private static SmsListener smsListener;

    @Override
    public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
        //Get data to a Bundle
        Bundle data = intent.getExtras();

        //PDUs represent received SMS message(s)
        assert data != null;
        Object[] pdus = (Object[]) data.get("pdus");

        for (int i = 0; i < pdus.length; i++) {
            //Reconstruct SMS message from pdus object
            SmsMessage smsMessage = SmsMessage.createFromPdu((byte[]) pdus[i]);
            String sender = smsMessage.getDisplayOriginatingAddress();
            String messageBody = smsMessage.getDisplayMessageBody();

            //SmsListener's callback method
            smsListener.messageReceived(sender, messageBody);
        }
    }

    //Bind listener for the use in ScheduledRepliesService
    public static void bindListener(SmsListener listener) { smsListener = listener; }
}

and lastly, retrieve the SMS message contents and sender number (as string) in service
//Get SMS message data from SmsBroadcastReceiver
SmsBroadcastReceiver.bindListener(new SmsListener() {
    @Override
    public void messageReceived(String messageSender, String messageText) {
        //TODO: do something in here
        ....
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
The ARDET Website
(Contact the webmaster with any snippets)
2022 REUNION Norman Hodnett has heard from the RAF Benson Station Engagement Officer - she is delighted to confirm that the Station Commander and Warrant Officers' and Sergeants' Mess have agreed to the ARDET Reunion taking place in the Mess on Friday 7 October 2022. Details will follow next year, but in the meantime put the date firmly in your diary . .
[Updated 29 Dec 21] Harry's wife, Janet, has passed us the sad news that Harry Leek died on 20 December at the age of 84. He had been suffering from Parkinson's for the last 5 years. He was an Airframe Tech on 242 OCU at Benson & Thorney from '61 to '65 and, on leaving the RAF, became a Flt Eng with British Midland, followed by BA & Kuwait Airways until retiring in 1994.
Harry's funeral will be at 1445 on 12 January at Loughborough Crematorium, followed by a wake nearby - details to follow. We pass our heartfelt condolences to Janet and their family.
[18 Dec 21] George Jamieson has let us know the sad news that that Sqn Ldr Ben Boutin died in Canada on 6 December. Ben was a pilot at Benson in the early '60s, believed to have been on 114 Sqn. Anyone with further details or a pic please contact the webmaster. We pass our condolences to Ben's family.
[Updated 18 Dec 21] Norman Hodnett has let us know that Simon Dalton-Morris died on 13 October, having been in the Great Western Swindon Hospital for two weeks following a suspected stroke. He was initially a Canberra pilot, but Jerry King reminds us that he moved to Argosies on 215 Sqn Changi in the mid-1960s - his tour included the Borneo Confrontation and promotion to Sqn Ldr. He was also Sqn Ldr Ops at Muharraq during some of the ARDET detachment. He went on to fly Hercules and VC10s. He had attended some early reunions. Anyone with more details or pics please email them to the webmaster.
Simon's funeral was on 1 November at Kingsdown Crematorium, Swindon, where all were welcome to come along as well as join the family afterwards at Stanton House Hotel. Donations, if desired, should be sent to the RAF Benevolent Fund.
We pass our condolences to Simon's family.
2021 REUNION A message from Norman Hodnett . .
Friday 1 October saw the Association gathering at Benson for the 48th Reunion - always planned with a concern that, when we got to the date, the circumstances might again preclude such gatherings. But all looked fair the week before and it was decided to go ahead.
Circumstances conspired against some of you - the fuel shortage precluded those who live in what turned out to be wrong areas when it came to fuel resupply. Sorry you could not make it; and sorry to those who did not feel 100% and decided not to come - wise decisions - thank you.
Benson did us proud; from the young lady who was cleaning the 'Mark' at 5pm when I arrived ("we clean it every year just before you come"), the Guardroom and back office staff who prepared the passes in advance, and the staff in the Warrant Officers' and Sgts' Mess. I thought opening the small bar for us, leaving the ante-room free for quiet chats and to watch David's excellent show of pictures from the past, was an excellent idea. And then the buffet; outstanding was the word that came to mind.
I asked you to think about the future over the coming year; meanwhile David Broughton and I, living close on two hours drive away from Benson, would be grateful for anyone, perhaps closer to Benson, who would be prepared to shadow us in our roles, to get in touch.
For me it was a very enjoyable, occasionally poignant, remarkable evening some fifty years on; thank you all for your support over the last 18 months.
See Reunion Pics at bottom of page . .
[30 Aug 21] Barbara Walker has passed us the sad news that Mark Wallington's wife, Wendy, has died from cancer. Mark himself died of a stroke in January (see below). Wendy had requested and arranged a celebration of their lives to be held at their home. Their daughters Chloe and Esther are fulfilling these wishes with a catered event on Sunday 3rd October. All who remember Mark and Wendy would be most welcome to Upper Minety on that day. For further details, please email estherwallington@gmail.com. We pass our condolences to Chloe and Esther on the loss of their parents.
[30 Aug 21] Len Hind has joined ARDET. He was a nav on 105 Sqn 64-66 and 114 Sqn 66-68. He then went to Search & Rescue for 13 years, followed by Gazelles at Shawbury 81-84, ops in Germany 84-87, then back to Benson on 115 Sqn Andovers 87-89, followed by 60 Sqn in Germany and 32 Sqn Northolt. He was commissioned in 1973 and retired from the RAF in 1993. We welcome Len to the ARDET fold.
[28 Jun 21] Graham 'Squeek' Wade has passed us the sad news that John 'Geordie' Dawe died of cancer on 19 June. Geordie was an Air Wireless Mech with 215 Sqn and was one of the first batch of ground engineers to arrive in Changi in 1963. He was a regular attendee at our Benson reunions - the pic is from Wallingford in 2017. Graham Wade and Ralph Macloud will represent us at the funeral on 2 July. We pass our condolences to his family.
[22 Mar 21] Jock Manson has been contacted by Zara, the daughter of Ken Stanley to let him know that her father had died back in 2004. Ken was a co-pilot on 21 Course and was posted to 105 Sqn in late 1966 before coming back to Benson on 267 and 114 Sqns, after which he joined civil airlines, flying the DC8, Dash 7 and 737 amongst others and retiring from BMI in January 2004. Sadly, he died of a heart problem later that year at the age of 59. Zara has asked that anyone who has pictures or stories of her father please get in touch with her at klzstanley@hotmail.com. We pass our belated condolences to Zara and her family.
Kenneth Stanley 19.4.45 - 29.4.04
[11 Feb 21] Daughter Sara has passed us the sad news that her father Ron Ibbotson died on 2 February in the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, at the age of 81. He undertook Flt Eng training on 21 Course in 1966 and was posted to 105 Sqn, then back to Benson, Brize Norton and Lyneham, finally retiring as a MEng after 24 years service in 1981. He was known for a dry sense of humour and was a regular attendee at reunions. We pass our condolences to Ron's family.
[19 Jan 21] Jock Manson has passed us the sad news that Wg Cdr Eddie Rigg died on 18 January in his 95th year.
He joined the RAF in 1945, undertaking pilot training at Cranwell and flying Spitfires, Tempests and Vampires in Germany before instructing at the Central Gunnery School, Leconfield, in 1951. He became a test pilot after training at ETPS in 1953, during which he survived a major accident when his vampire exploded on take-off at Farnborough; injuries included a dislocated spine and he was off flying for 4 months. He went on to A&AEE Boscombe Down test flying fighters and trainers and, after a staff tour at Fighter Command HQ, returned to ETPS as an instructor. From 1966 Wg Cdr Rigg commanded 105 Sqn for the 2 years that covered the move out of Aden and the ARDET detachments in Bahrain. After Argosies, he went on to Staff College at Bracknell as an instructor and then to London to oversee flying operations at research establishments. Probably as a result of the Vampire accident, he started to suffer severe migraines in the mid-1970s, lost his flying category and retired.
Eddie was a wonderful squadron boss - many have commented that he was the best they had ever had. He will be remembered by many from the Argosy community as well as by others. We pass our condolences to his family members and close friends. There will be private memorial gatherings held when permitted and we will remember him (and others) at our next reunion.
Further details of his life can be found at The Last Argosy
Edward Comer Rigg MBE AFC . . . . 21 April 1926 - 18 January 2021
[18 Jan 21] Barbara Walker has passed us the sad news that Mark Wallington died of a stroke on 6 January. He was a co-pilot on 267 Sqn during the ARDET period and was involved with the detachments. As Martin Willing's co-pilot with a full load of troops on a Sharjah-Bahrain trip, after taxying in he made himself look dishevelled, climbed through the crew hatch and banged on the pax ditching hatch on the roof by the pax doors; when let down, he loudly asked the AQM why he had not let him in before taxiing out at Sharjah. The pax were totally taken in at first, but were quickly in howls of laughter. Mark left at 38 and created a successful brewery in Wiltshire. He was also Barbara and Geoff's wedding Best Man and had attended some of our reunions. We send our condolences to his wife, Wendy - should anyone wish to contact her, please do so through the webmaster.
[3 Dec 20] Farewell to Geoff Walker. Geoff's funeral took place on 2 December at St Mary le More Church, Wallingford. The church was packed, within current regulations, with others standing outside. RAF Benson provided a Guard of Honour and a helicopter fly-pass as the coffin, adorned with a Union flag and Geoff's hat and medals, was about to enter the church. The service was a moving experience, with his and Barbara's two sons giving wonderful eulogies, a grandson making a reading and granddaughter accompanying a hymn on her flute. Sadly, there was no opportunity to celebrate Geoff's life afterwards, but Barbara is determined to do so when life returns to normality.
The service was live-streamed; this may be viewed for 90 days at this link. The family ask that donations be made to the Sobell Hospice Charity.
Once again, we pass our deepest condolences to Barbara and the family, in the hope that their sadness will now turn to a wealth of happy memories.
Click pic for full size . .
[12 Nov 20] Barbara has just given us the sad news that Geoff Walker passed away in Sobell House Hospice in Oxford at 1215 today, 12 November. Geoff was diagnosed with an incurable brain tumour in August and ultimately could no longer be cared for at home. Thankfully, he was in no pain.
Geoff navigated on 215, 267 and 105 Squadrons from 1963 and became Wing Nav at Benson in 1968, moving to 114 Sqn in 1970 as the Argosy Force was run down. It was then that he served on ARDET.
Shortly after the withdrawal of the Argosy from the UK Transport Force, the first ARDET Reunion took place - which grew into the Association embracing everyone who had served in the Argosy Force. And every year it took place on the first Friday in October at Benson. The need for continuity in the organisation led to Geoff and Barbara, living in Wallingford, taking over the reins. They created a caring Association quite unlike any other, and a Reunion that you could not miss. Last year, Geoff was presented with a cake depicting our 47 years of the get-together (see Reunion pics). We owe Geoff a huge amount of gratitude for his successful endeavours on our behalves.
The RAF Benson Station Engagement Officer adds 'I am so very sorry to hear this sad news; Geoff will definitely be missed by all who had the pleasure of knowing him. If there is anything we can do, please do let us know, including whether his family would like RAF representation at his funeral. Please do pass on our thoughts and sympathies to Geoff's family and to the wider ARDET family.'
If you would like to contact the family, please do so via Barbara bunnywalker@icloud.com. Barbara hopes that many messages will be read out at the funeral, yet to be arranged; she also hopes to invite all Ardetians to a Celebration of Geoff's Life when conditions permit.
We pass our deepest condolences to Barbara and the family.
[2 Oct 20] 2020 REUNION Sadly, for the first time the Annual Reunion had to be cancelled due to the Covid 19 outbreak. But watch this space for a date for 2021 . .
[19 Aug 20] Harry Apiafi has joined the ARDET fold. He was groundcrew on 105 Sqn 1962-64, but on return to UK underwent pilot training and flew C-130s, finishing at RAE Farnborough. He then went into various airlines, ending with the then-BMED in 2002. He is now a general aviation instructor and examiner. We welcome Harry to ARDET and look forward to seeing him at future reunions.
[19 Jul 20] Jack Harrison has put us in touch with aviation author and ex-RAF navigator Ken Delve, who, at the request of a number of people, is looking at putting together a book on RAF transport types of the period covering the Argosy, Beverely, Belfast and maybe Hastings. His idea is to collect pictures and stories that can help make the basic records from squadron records a bit more interesting and readable. He is, of course, aware of this website, but would appreciate input from any of our members. He can be contacted at historian@rafht.co.uk .
[14 Jul 20] Martin Willing has let us know that Charlie Gravett, a 215 Sqn groundcrew member from the beginning of operations in Changi, died on 4 July at home in Jersey after an unsuccessful casevac to Oxford. Following his RAF service, he and his wife had become accomplished long-distance swimmers and raised funds for the RAFA's 'Holidays for Heroes'. He had attended a couple of reunions with Martin. We pass condolences to his wife, Sally, and family.
[12 May 20] We have received the sad news that Tony Steff-Langston died on 5 May in Caterham at the age of 93. He was OC 114 Sqn 1966-68 and went on to commanding Northolt; he had also headed the British Defence Liaison Staff in New Zealand and held a Deputy Directorship in the MoD. After 33 years in the RAF he became Executive Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society for a further 11 years. Many that served under him at Benson have said what a wonderful boss he was - a perfect gentleman. He used to be a regular attendee at our reunions. Tony's wife, Joyce, predeceased him but we pass our condolences to their family. There will be a private family cremation.
[7 Apr 20] We have discovered the sad news that Gp Capt Tony Talbot-Williams died peacefully on 11 August 2019, aged 95. He had left Cambridge University early to join the RAF for wartime flying duties, ultimately flying Catalinas; he went back to finish his degree after the war but then rejoined the RAF, ultimately flying 30 aircraft types. He was OC 215 Sqn 1963-65 and retired from the RAF in 1971 as Station Commander at Odiham. He took up property development, from which he retired at the age of 93. We pass belated condolences to his wife, Diana, 4 children and 5 grandchildren. Anyone with an image of Tony or a group from which one can be cropped, please email it to the webmaster .
[5 Apr 20] John Kelly is undertaking doctoral studies and is focussing on the Argosy, in particular, Eddie Rigg. He has generated a fascinating website and would appreciate any comments; he asks 'please check out my timeline of Edward's career.' He adds that 'Eddie is still with us living in a retirement home near Guildford.' John Kelly can be contacted through his website.
[20 Feb 20] Bill Lowe and Tom Norcross have passed the sad news that Ian Mackie died on 18 February. Ian had been a pilot on 215 Sqn from 1963 to 1965 and went on to fly VC10s. Sadly, he succumbed to pneumonia and other complications after a short stay in Worthing hospital. We pass our condolences to his partner, Val, and family. Members are invited to Ian's funeral at 1440 on 11 March at Worthing Crematorium, followed at 1600 by a gathering of family and friends at Shoreham Conservative Club, 102 High Street, Shoreham by Sea. If you wish to attend, please email Val at val.robinsv@btinternet.com .
[10 Jan 20] Simon Thomas has found the website and realised that the '? Thomas' entry was that of his father Roy 'Tommy' Thomas who, sadly, died nearly 21 years ago. Tommy was a pilot on 9 Course and posted to 267 Sqn 1963-64, on the OCU Staff 1964-67, Benson Ops Wg 1968-70 and ASCEU and its successor 1970-73 and 115 Sqn 1973-74. In 1974-75 he joined the Flying Standards Unit RAF Finningley to convert 6FTS pilots for the planned introduction of the Argosy T2 as an aircrew trainer. His last Argosy flight was in May 1975 to deliver XP411 to Cosford for ground training; it was later transferred to the Cosford Museum, where it now resides. The picture, from the Finningley Observer, is of the first pilot to convert to the aircraft at Finningly; sadly, the plan for its use as an aircrew trainer was dropped. We thank Simon, and pass our condolences on losing his father all those years ago.
[18 Dec 19] Paul Ryan has joined ARDET. He was an AQM/ALM on 267Sqn from 1968, then moved to 114Sqn until its disbanding in late 1971. Paul is currently in the granite industry, quarrying and processing the stone; he contributed stone to The New Forest Airfields Memorial. We welcome Paul to the fold.
[10 Nov 19] Pete Read has been given this painting by the artist, Mal Grosse, with whom he trained at RAF Syerston back in 1962-3 before Mal went on to fly Hunters in Aden. Since his retirement, Mal has pursued painting and has donated a handful of pictures to the RAF Club. ARDET Members can purchase an A4-sized mounted print of this beuatiful Argosy painting for the princely sum of �30 - go to HMG Artwork or malgrosse@talktalk.net.
[9 Nov 19] Tony Morris has passed on the sad news that Syd Adams' wife, Trish Adams, has died. Syd himself died in 2009, but Trish had continued to be a regular attendee at our reunions. The interment of her ashes will be at 1100 on Saturday 30 November at Buckland Village Church, followed by a Reception at the Village Hall (SN7 8QS); all are welcome to attend. We pass our condolences to Syd and Trish's family.
[8 Nov 19] Pete Read has let us know that Dave 'Yarpy' Davis, a pilot who was on No 1 Argosy Course and retired in 1970 to join BEA/BA, died in February this year. We pass condolences to his family.
[12 Oct 19] THE 2019 REUNION and chance to visit the Ethos and Heritage Centre made for a wonderful day on 11 October. For more info and lots of pics, see the REUNION PICS
[22 Sep 19] Brant Gulyes has found the ARDET website and passed us the sad new that his father, Joe Gulyes, died in November 2008. Joe had been a pilot with the RCAF, Trans Canada Airlines and Nordair before joining 267 Sqn at Benson as a captain in 1962-64. He then left the RAF for Qantas in Australia before returning home to Air Canada in 1966, finally retiring in 1991. Jo was a popular captain who lived in Benson village and was fun to fly with. We pass our belated condolences to his family.
[Updated 28 May 19] Jock Manson has passed on the sad news that John Stappard died this month in a care home in Wootton Bassett. 'Stap' had come up through the ranks to become a commissioned instructor on Varsities before joining the Argosy Force on 105 Sqn 1965-66. He went on to Hercules, becoming an ASCEU examiner. Many have already commented that he was very knowledgable and helpful and a pleasure to fly with. The funeral will be at 1500 on 19 June at North Wiltshire Crematorium (200 yards S of M4 J16 on the A3102), followed at 1615 by a Reception at the Marsh Farm Hotel (adjacent to Coped Hall Roundabout, just N of Wootton Bassett). After the Committal, all are invited to Marsh Farm Hotel to celebrate John's life - expect finger food and a bar with the first drink provided by him. Sadly, John was pre-deceased by his wife, Jean, several years ago, and his his son, who died in his 30s from a motor accident, and his daughter, who suffered a terminal illness. Consequently, C-130 colleague Colin McClay and his wife have been looking after John for several years and are arranging the funeral. If you wish to attend, please email Brian Poulton; he will pass on details to the McClays.
[Updated 21 Apr 19] Mike Sayer has let us know that an obituary has appeared in The Telegraph for Gp Capt Richard Bates AFC, who died on 6 April at the age of 85. It has been confirmed that this is Dickie Bates, who passed through the OCU in 1963 and became a Flight Commander on 267 Sqn, later to become OC XXIV Sqn at Lyneham in 1970-72 and Station Commander at Brize Norton in the late '70s. A funeral service will be held at 1200 on 27 April at St Peter and St Paul Church, Blockley, GL56 9ES; all are invited - see In Memorium. We pass our condolences to his family.
[4 Apr 19] Son Graham has let us know the sad news that his father, Guy Thrower, died on 20 March. Guy was on 6 OCU Course and joined 267 Sqn in 1963 as a co-pilot, moving to 105 Sqn in Aden in 1966 as a captain; he went on to be a captain with BA. All ARDET members would be welcome to attend a simple service at 1100 on Monday 8 April at the South Oxfordshire Memorial Park and Crematorium, Garford, Abingdon, OX13 5PA. We pass our condolences to Graham and all Guy's family members.
[12 Mar 19] As mentioned below, Graham Oliver, has sadly died and had asked to be buried with a model Argosy and with a picture of an Argosy on his grave's nameplate. His son Mark has passed us this picture of the nameplate - surely the only such one in existence. Again, we pass our condolences to the family, but thank them for remembering father so well.
[16 Feb 19] Martin Willing has been contacted by Mark Oliver with the sad news that his father Graham Oliver has died in Cyprus. Graham was a pilot on 114 Sqn 1964-69 and 70 Sqn 1969-71, and then went on to Britannias, retiring in 1974 to fly with Tradewinds and Gulf Air. He finally retired to Cyprus. The funeral will be at 1100 on 19 February at Peyia Cemetery, Cyprus; he is being buried with a model of an Argosy and is having a picture of the 'old bird' on his nameplate. We send our condolences to Mark and the family.
[4 Feb 19] Giles Dennison has discovered the ARDET website and let us know that his father, Peter Dennison, sadly died in August 2006. Peter had piloted Vampires, Meteors and the Beverley before the Argosy; he was on 105 Sqn 1962-64 and then back to Thorney Island and Benson. He retired in 1968 to work for BAC at Weybridge, and then British Airports Authority, where he was involved in airfield planning and safety. We pass belated condolences to son Giles, who assures us that Dad will be in the bar - at least in spirit - at our next reunion.
[Updated 23 Jan 19] Bill Lowe has passed us the sad news that Graham Humberstone was found dead in bed on 9 January. Graham was on 114 Sqn 1963-65 and 105 Sqn 1966-68 and then flew the Belfast on 53 Sqn and the OCU before retiring to fly the BAC 1-11 and DC-10 for Laker, followed by the Tristar and 767 for Gulf Air. He was a regular good-fun attendee at our reunions. We pass our heartfelt condolences to Graham's daughter, Ceriann, and family. Graham's funeral will be held at Surrey and Sussex (Worth) Crematorium, Balcombe Rd, Crawley, RH10 3NQ, at 1330 on Monday 11 February. ARDET members would be welcome; please email Ceriann cpurssey@gmail.com if attending.
[8 Jan 19] We have heard from son Brian the sad news that Peter Crouch died in January 2018 at the age of 95. Peter joined up in 1942 and trained in Canada, finishing the war flying Halifaxes. In 1948 he joined 47 Sqn flying the new Hastings, then onto Ansons as a Nav School staff pilot and then, after CFS, instructed on numerous aircraft up to the Hunter. After a Far East tour, he converted to the Argosy, instructing at 242 OCU 1963-66, then joining 215 Sqn until 1967 and 70 Sqn until 1970, when he joined the ASC Examining Unit at Benson. After a couple more tours, he retired in 1978 to become Laura Ashley company pilot for a further 10 years. In all, Peter had flown over 11,000 hrs in 75 types and had been awarded the AFM in 1954. We pass our condolences to Peter's family. (The pic shows his typical humour of wearing a cadet's cap when a little old for the part . .)
2018 ARDET REUNION The Reunion was a wonderful event, incorporating the unveiling of the Argosy 'Mark' and a return to the Sergeants' Mess for the reunion itself.
[22 Oct 18] Graham 'Squeek' Wade had passed on the sad news that Dave Riley has died of cancer. He was an engine fitter on the introduction of the Argosy and served in Changi from 1963 on ASF and First Line. He was a regular reunion attendee, but could not make it this year. We pass our condolences to Dave's family.
[17 Oct 18] Mike Crossman (was Groizard) has joined ARDET. He was on First Line at Benson on 114 and 267 Sqns and then on VASF at Sharjah for the twice-daily visit of Argosies from ARDET. He was then on 70 Sqn Akrotiri, seeing the transition halfway through his tour from the Argosy to the C130. We welcome Mike to the fold.
[5 Oct 18] Neil Cairns has joined ARDET. He started at Benson on the Major Rectifications Flt 1969-72 and did 3 Bahrein ARDET detachments, seeing the Argosy out at Benson and into Cottesmore in 1972. He retired as a Ch/Tech from RAF Halton as an instructor in 1988. We welcome Neil to the ARDET fold.
[3 Sep 18] Ralph Darnell has joined the ARDET Group. He was a navigator on 114 Sqn 1968-71 (including 4 ARDETs) and 115 Sqn in 1972. We welcome him to the fold.
[23 Aug 18] Alan Baker has passed the sad news that Dom Parkinson died on 19 August. Dom was a navigator on 215 Sqn 63-66, 267 Sqn 66-68 and 115 Sqn 68-71 & 75-80; also display pilot for the RAFGSA. He had been taken ill in Martinique and flown home to UK by air ambulance, but died 8 months after being diagnosed with a brain tumour. We send our condolences to his wife, Caroline, and children. The funeral will take place at 1200 on Friday 31 August at St Adhelm's Church, Malmsbury, Wiltshire; ARDET members are welcome to attend.
[29 May 18] Martin Willing has passed us the sad news that Tony Ogden had died in Spain on 18 December; he had suffered from cancer for a long time. Martin recalls that Tony was on No 11 Course in 1963 and joined 105 Sqn in Aden. When the main force disbanded, he went to 115 Sqn at Watton before retiring to join BEA on Viscounts. After a spell in Birmingham, he moved to Jersey, and ultimately back to Sussex and B Tours - from whom he retired at 55 and joined Singapore Airlines until aged 60. We pass our condolences to Tony's family.
[27 Apr 18] Ken Patchett has asked to join the ARDET Group. Ken was a navigational instrument technician at Thorney Island in 1962 and 1966-69 and now lives in Havant. We welcome him to the fold.
[23 Apr 18] David Pyne has passed the sad news that Brian Prior died of cancer in March. Brian was a navigator on 267 Sqn in 1967-68 and completed an ARDET in 1968. We pass our condolences to Brian's family.
[9 Jan 18] Tex Macaulay has found a black-and-white short film 'Soldier in the Sun', covering Aden and Radfan in 1964. It has many shots of Argosies, Bevs and Hunters, including interesting shots of Argosies delivering one-ton containers to the troops on top of Jebel Wadina. The film can be found at the BBC.
[8 Jan 18] Dick Amor has found yet another gem - a video of a large electric-powered flying model Argosy. In Boscombe Down colours, it flies beautifully and drops loads from the rear doors (but the parachute packer is not much good . .). Click on YouTube to view.
[Updated 3 Jan 18] Norman Hodnett has passed us the sad news that Alan Selby died on 30 December after a long and hard fight against cancer. He had been in Chichester Hospital for a couple of weeks. Alan was on 105 and 114 Sqns before joining BA, and was a regular attendee at our reunions. We pass our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Valerie, and their family. The funeral will take place at 1400 on Friday 26 January at Worthing Crematorium (Horsham Road, Findon, West Sussex, BN14 0RG). Please email Valerie if you wish to attend via vie48@aol.com . The undertakers are: HD Tribe, 19 West St, Storrington, RH20 4DZ. Flowers are welcome, or donations to Cancer Research UK or Macmillan Nurses, Midhurst.
[23 Dec 17] Dick Amor has also found a recently-published book on the development of the Argosy and its civilian and military use. It's available in the 'Warpaint' series and is number 71. He explains that it contains several photographs and is worth a look for those who are interested. The author, Charles Stafrace, hasn't quite got all his details correct and there are some errors . . for example, he says that 38 people were killed when XP133 crashed at Afrag, when the number was 11. He also has the landing weight of the Argosy at 90,000 lbs when it was 92,000 . . and a coloured depiction of the battle-axe on a 105 aircraft shows a blue handle and not a green one! Some errors in his research or perhaps misprints! There is only one picture of a crew member at work and this is an AEO in the back of a 115 Sqn aircraft. Dick doesn't know of any other books concerning the Argosy unless any of our members is compiling one! The book can be found at Guideline Publications.
[14 Nov 17] Dick Amor has found an impressive 'Aden 50th Anniversary Souvenir & Commemorative Journal, 1967-2017'. The huge (112-page) journal gives an enormous amount of background as well as fascinating descriptions of the problem times and the withdrawal, including Argosy activities. It's a must-read for those involved and can be freely read and downloaded from Horizon Publications.
[27 Jun 17] An aviation artist (and ex-professional pilot), Alan Spears, has put some attractive paintings of civil IPEC Argosies on his website. Some have been added to our CIVIL AIRCRAFT PICS - well worth a look . .
[29 Feb 16] Jock Manson has spotted an article in the April issue (yes, it's published already . .) of Flypast magazine on Bob 'Tin Leg' Olding . Bob was a navigator and Flt Cdr on 267 Sqn around 1966. The article, entitled 'Courage over Suez', describes the remarkable circumstances that led to Bob losing his leg . . As a Fg Off, he was on exchange to the Royal Navy during the Suez crisis and found himself embarked on HMS EAGLE as nav (or observer in RN parlance) in the lead of 6 Venoms attempting to neutralise Egytian MiGs on the ground. They encountered intense anti-aircraft fire and sustained a hit under the cockpit. On a second run, a hole appeared in the bottom of the cockpit, all hydraulics were lost and it became apparent that Bob had suffered a severe injury - he injected himself with a pain-killer and continued his nav duties. After a wheels-up landing on the carrier and emergency treatment, Bob was flown to Cyprus, where his leg had to be amputated. For his courage in continuing his duties, he was awarded the DSC - a remarkably brave officer . .
[15 Aug 15] The September edition of Aeroplane magazine features an 18-page 'Database' of the Argosy, covering 'Development, Technical Details, In Service and Insights'. It's a fascinating read, with lots of pictures and drawings accompanying the words - some of which emanate from our own Martin Willing. Well worth a read - it's £4.30 at newsagents.
[2 Aug 15] Trevor Lightburn visited the Newark Air Museum today and took a couple of photos of the cockpit of XN819 that was recovered from Finningley - where it had been an Engineer Procedure trainer. There is no Nav position installed; the APU panel is there, as is the periscopic sextant mounting - but the museum volunteer had wondered what that was for . . The cockpit is wired up for lights and noise and Trevor reports that children of all ages have a great time in there! He recommends that it's worth a visit if anyone is passing by, it is a few minutes off the A1 at the A46/A17 junction. The museum is open most days, but the Argosy is only open when attended by a volunteer - so a check beforehand is worthwhile. Trevor's pics are in our Photo Gallery.
[26 Jan 15] Nick Huband, son of John Huband, has spotted an article on the Whistling Wheelbarrow in the January issue of Aviation News. It's 5 pages of interesting reading - photos included are mainly of civilian aircraft or former RAF machines after they had been sold, but there are also pics of aircraft in RAF markings. If you can't find a copy, it can be bought online at Aviation News.
[22 Jul 14] Nick Huband (see news below) has spotted an impressive DVD featuring Argosies at Benson in 1962. 'Classic Airliner Collection No.1' from Avion contains 72 minutes of pure nostalgia, including Benson at work. It costs �17.95 + �1.50 P&P from Avion
[7 Nov 13] We have been informed of another company selling what appear to be superb 1:200 Argosy (or 'RAF Benson Load Lugger' as they call it) scale models. They have some in camouflage as well as in Boscome Down livery and the Training Command scheme as at Cosford. The die-cast models cost £50-60. For details see Flying Tigers Ltd.
[Dec 12] Martin Willing tells us that Aviation 200 is producing Argosy models at 1/200 Scale - a handy size for detail, but not too big that they take up a lot of space. So far, it has produced XN817 in Boscombe Down colours, XP444 in 70 Sqn's colours and they are just producing XP108 in the camouflage scheme; it has also produced XP411 in the Training Command scheme as seen at Cosford. They cost around �50, but look good and a nice reminder of happier times. Martin adds that for those amongst us who are true aviation 'nuts', there are a mass of models at the website in various scales, so one can almost certainly have a collection of all the aircraft in which one has flown. The site is www.aviationretaildirect.com
The Midland Air Museum at Coventry ran an Argosy Day on 19 May 2009 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first flight - it was actually on 8 January 1959. Three ARDET members attended - Ian Haldane, Dave Pritchard and David Broughton. To see a few pics of the day, CLICK HERE.
To celebrate 50 years of the Argosy (first flight was in January 1959), Brian Fare has produced a very nice A5-size greetings card featuring a pencil sketch of two aircraft, with more on the back. These can be purchased at £1 each + £1.50 postage for up to 5 cards. To order, email Brian.
'Drop Zone Borneo' is a first-hand and entertaining account by Roger Annett of two-and-a-half years' excitement in the Far East from 1963 to 1965. It is the story of the so-called 'Confrontation' with Indonesia and the missions flown by the Argosy in support of combat troops on the ground. It is published in hardback with 160 pages and 36 illustrations by Pen & Sword Books (ISBN: 1-84415-396-7) at �15.99 plus �2.50p/p. Orders can be placed on 01226 734555 or at www.pen-and-sword.co.uk
And Roger has written another book - 'Drop Zone Burma' was published on 23 October 2008. With a strap-line 'Adventures in allied air-supply 1943-45', it demonstrates the brave determination of the transport squadrons' air and ground crews and the soldiers who fought one of the longest, most remote and demanding battles of the war. It is published in hardback with 214 pages by Pen & Sword Books (ISBN: 978 1844157504) at �19.99. Contact on 01226 734555 or at www.pen-and-sword.co.uk
An interesting book 'Masirah; Tales from a Desert Island' by Colin Richardson (an ex-RAF and SOAF pilot) has been found by Trevor Lightburn, who says it brought back a lot of memories (for anyone who wishes to be reminded of the place . . ). It is from Pentland Press with an ISBN 1 85821 801 2. It's still available from the author at �24.95 p&p free; contact Colin Richardson, Five Acres, Fulbeck Lowfields, Grantham, Lincs, NG32 3JD.
THE SQUADRONS
REUNION PICS

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
"Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous"… Survey Says: NOT!
David Middleton / September 6, 2018
Guest dredging up the past by David Middleton
As a geologist, I spend my work days dredging up the past, mostly from the Upper Miocene to the Lower Pleistocene. My earlier post today about Dr. Will Happer joining the Trump administration led me to dredging up a 2016 survey of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al., 2016)… And that led me to dredging up this 2013 Tweet from thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama…
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013
In light of CNN's proclamation that Dr. Happer's "public stance on climate change is in opposition to near universally accepted science," as outlined in thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama's Tweet, I decided to proverbially put 2 + 2 together and see if I get 97%.
"Climate change is real"
Close, but no cigar… Only 96% of "scientists" agree that climate change is real.
Only 67% of "scientists" characterized climate change as real and man-made.
"And dangerous"
Only 38% of "scientists" characterized climate change as having been dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the past 50 years.
Only 50% of "scientists" characterized climate change as being dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the next 50 years.
"And today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change."
So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead.
–Thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama, April 18, 2015
Only 18% of "scientists" thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of "scientists" indicated that climate change might as well be "ignored."
Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National
Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.
September 6, 2018 in Consensus. Tags: 2016, American Meteorological Society Survey, Climate nostalgia, Family Feud, Maibach et al.
A Skeptical Reply to Dr. Steven Novella's "Skeptic vs. Denier"
President "Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change"… He's right, Dana Nuccitelli is wrong
American Climate Denial: Frack Yeah!
← NASA Finding: Jupiter has an extra magnetic pole
Admission: A Need for Better Data for Modeling the Sun's Influence on Climate →
162 thoughts on ""Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous"… Survey Says: NOT!"
EdB says:
"More than one in three (37%) AMS members who participated in this survey consider themselves
'expert' " in climate science.
Will those that are wrong resign their positions?
John Harmsworth says:
I have much more respect for those who are still questioning than for those who've made up their minds when not all the facts are known- as they are not now.
JCR says:
"Trust the man who is searching for truth. Beware the man who has found it." Can't remember who said that, and it's probably not quite accurate. Anyone know?
Michael S. Kelly, LS BSA, Ret says:
W.C. Fields, I believe.
Of course, I believe a lot of things…
Stu says:
Sooner or later, you have to poop or get off the pot.
Phil R says:
More than half (57%) don't consider themselves to be an expert in climate science. 🙂 But they still gave an opinion and it counted in the study.
MarkW says:
I'd trust the opinion of those who didn't consider themselves experts above the opinions of those who did consider themselves experts.
David Middleton says:
97% of UFO experts agree… UFO's are real, not of this Earth and dangerous.
Rick C PE says:
Yup. Similar results, I'm sure, would be found among experts in parapsychology, cryptozoology, homeopathy and theology. Although, to be fair, surveys have found that only about 60-70% of Christian ministers, reverends and priests believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
I agree, and I'm not even an expert. But I did watch Ancient Alien Theorist on TV!
Neo says:
Ancient Astronaut Theorists agree.
So do the ancient astronauts.
Rich Davis says:
https://craphound.com/images/camels_doctors_whiteshirt.jpg
I have some classic NY Giants NFL championship game programs from 1958-1961… Almost every ad was for cigarettes, beer and hard liquor. The USAF comic book hero Steve Canyon was the best…
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/cigarettead.jpg
Of course, nothing tops this…
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/humble_01.png
Jim Whelan says:
Especially true in the climate science field where "experts" are in the field because they want to save the world from disastrous climate change.
John Tillman says:
They're also in the fake field because they couldn't hack real science.
Brooks Hurd says:
These "experts" also have a strong financial interest in supporting the CAGW dogma. This leads me to doubt their credibility.
Kristi Silber says:
Is that why you went to the doctor to get a boil removed, and instead got a lobotomy?
Test questions:
1 – Considering that Ezrth's climate has repeatedly changed over the past 4.5 billion years, LONG before humans existed, explain how it occurred?
2 – Do you, as a scientist, know the difference between climate and weather?
3 – Do you know how long modern humans have been in existence?
4 – Explain why computer models with no verifiable data or physical evidence are more important than field work with verifiable data and physical evidence.
5 – If CO2 levels have such a devastating effect on the planet, have you measured your own CO2 emissions? If so, are you modulating them in any way? If you are modulating your own CO2 emissions, what equipment are you using?
Greg61 says:
There is probably a higher percentage of AMS members gainfully employed in other than government funded jobs than the general population of scientists who consider themselves climate scientists. In other words, they aren't as reliant on keeping the BS alive for their daily bread.
Alan Tomalty says:
We will always need weather forecasters. WE DO NOT NEED CLIMATE FORECASTERS.
We do need short-term climate forecasters… ENSO and a few other teleconnections directly impact the weather over economically meaningful time scales.
prjindigo says:
ENSO isn't on land, thus not actually climate… odd but true statement.
Weather forecasters have to answer for bad predictions.
Climate forecasters, not so much.
Alan the Brit says:
As I have bringly said several times before, the climate forecasters make predictions for 30-35 years ahead, it they're in their later 30s/early 40s they'll be well retired by the time of reckoning on their predictions, thus unaccountable!
Alan Tomalty
Are you kidding? Our weather forecasters are about 90% incorrect. Typically they cannot even get their observations right!
In my country you generally get a better idea of the coming day by looking out the window.
If our forecasters actually did that, they might actually get a bit closer, but in my opinion, these people need to be cast off by the government and sent out to get a real job where you are paid according to their meager abilities and results.
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Darrin says:
Listening to your local farmer will give you better forecast than your local weatherman.
RyanS says:
Wildly incorrect.
I predict hurricanes by watching GOES eastern conus and I've been more accurate than NHC. The problem is once you start using a "global warming" inclusive modeling software your data goes to shit.
Don't believe me? I called the precise heading of Irma a half hour before she turned to it. To the goddamned degree.
meteorologist in research says:
Darrin – farmers and outdoorsmen are just funny. You could do what they do by just looking around and you could be just as funny as they are. It's another sad example of Dunning Kruger.
David Guy-Johnson says:
Not sure why they should be so bad. In the UK they are pretty accurate up to 48 hours ahead. A lot depends on the prevailing conditions at the time forecasts are made though.
"Not sure why they should be so bad. In the UK they are pretty accurate up to 48 hours ahead."
Learn about the weather in the UK and why it was the birthplace of forecasting. And why what was learned there didn't apply to many other places in the world.
old construction worker says:
I use a weather rock.
Steve O says:
That's a little harsh, I'd say. Up until the 1960's, the best weather forecast was that tomorrow would be like today. Now you can see radar maps of storm systems moving through. If the weatherman tell you there is a 100% chance of rain, it's going to rain.
Okay, okay, okay!!!!
I'm going to forecast an early start to winter, because I saw a huge flight of Canada geese yesterday, flying from northeast to southwest, at an elevation higher than training flights, and moving along while riding a good tailwind. This is well ahead of goose and duck hunting season.
It is not cold here, but the temperature has dropped from mid-80s overnight to mid-60s yesterday, because that rotten beast Gordon (a very bad date when I knew him, too) is sending a rain column this way out of Texas.
I already went to the grocery store and will go again next week, because there are more storms to come. And besides, ice cream is one of the major food groups. No, really!
I know I'll see more goose flights, too. Probably sandhill cranes. They always head toward the Mississippie flyway, anyway.
Edwin says:
Roger, more than a few times my life was put in extreme danger because we had to go to sea to do research based on weather forecasts that turned out to be completely wrong. Ever see the movie the "Perfect Storm?" While I never went to the Flemish Cap, but I did have a couple of near "Perfect Storm" trips. I knew the boat owner, captain and crew of the F/V Andrea Gail.
A colder world is a stormier world.
You want extreme WX, return to glacial conditions, when Flemish Cap was an island, thanks to lower sea level, surrounded by permanent sea ice. During the Last Glacial Maximum, the North Atlantic froze over in winter, like the Arctic Ocean does now.
DAN SAGE says:
Ditto for aviation weather forecasts. I don't think they even looked out the window, just at their computer forecast outputs. I lost my first plane, when I lost power and had to land it in a forest under an overcast at night. It was a tough plane, and it managed to take out quite a few trees, before it came to rest on the ground. (Always try to hit the softest part of the trees to lose momentum/slow down (the tops)). Another time they put me into some serious advancing thunderstorms, that were not supposed to be there in Utah. I could usually do better by looking at the satellite pictures myself.
Greg Cavanagh says:
It's been noted that if you take the premise "tomorrow will be just like today", you'll be correct 60% of the time. Which is a higher rate of correctness than the weather forecasters (which I believe is around 50%).
A 50% chance of rain means one of the two weather persons thinks it's going to rain. Nothing more.
Ed Reid says:
You have to wonder how much "virtue signaling" is involved in these numbers.
Probably a lot.
terrence22 says:
About 97% of them
Taylor Pohlman says:
It's worth remembering that even in the original 97% consensus paper, not all three of these assertions were claimed. This quote from Obama was a deliberate distortion of the original (flawed) paper, and therefore is best described as a LIE.
In this case, I don't think he was lying. I think Obama, and the vast majority of Gorebots, believe that the so-called 97% consensus is that climate change is nearly entirely anthropogenic, an existential threat to the planet and could easily be fixed if we turned over control of our economy to a handful of government masterminds (AKA brain-dead bureaucrats).
honest liberty says:
well of course they believe it. They are politicians. Does anyone think they spend countless hours as we do, rifling through dry historical records and attempting to decipher between adjustments vs raw data, seriously considering the dark elements of communism/socialism/fascism that are attempting to wrestle final control over the individual? They don't care. They just care about pretending they are important.
But also, of course they are lying! They are politicians. sheesh.
Clyde Spencer says:
Well, do you know the old joke about what a politician and a used-car salesman have in common? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with their lips.
David, I think you are being too kind, but just in case you're right that Obama didn't deliberately lie, then somebody lied to him. There is simply no way to find any evidence or scientific paper that definitively demonstrates all three assertions.
He probably heard it on the news and didn't bother to ask his scientific adviser… Oh wait. His science adviser was John Holdren, who himself fully believed everything in Obama's quote.
Obama believed Holdren, a hard-core Leftist, to whom science cranks would point as an example of a science crank. He also believed in Energy Secretary Chu, an otherwise smart man who, according to Obama, assured him that they would soon develop a battery that would give a car 75 miles per gallon – or something like that, and it doesn't really matter that I can't remember the exact number. Obama did equate a battery with miles per gallon. So I think he was just spouting what he thought other people had said, whether they actually said it or not.
Mein Kampf, written by some German fella in the 1930s, he said, "the mass of the people are more likely to believe a big lie, than a small one!"
Menicholas says:
My money is on deliberate liar.
He is after all, a politician!
John Endicott says:
David, I'm sure Obama believed it just as much as he believed people could keep their Doctors. In short, he well knew what he was saying had no basis in fact but said it anyway. typical politician.
Climate changes … Who knew ?
So if humans stopped use of fossil fuels would the climate stop changing ?
Just ask those Wholly Mammoths and the former residents of Pompeii .
The scary global warming industry is all about money . You have it and they want it .
David N. says:
Pompeii ??? Realy ?Are you realy trying to connect a volcanic eruption to goreble warming?
R. Shearer says:
Mt Vesuvius's eruption changed the climate in Pompeii and very rapidly indeed. If you want to be literal about it though, I don't think the mammoths would answer back either.
Jeff Alberts says:
What about the Wholly Mammoths?
Gary Ashe says:
realy realy !.
It's a more valid connection than you think. Generally an ample supply of groundwater can delay an eruption or make it less violent than without.
Bruce Cobb says:
100% of rational people agree: Consensus science isn't science at all.
Martin457 says:
And surveys aren't proof of anything but, people lie on surveys.
Surveys carry zero weight, scientifically or factually.
You can tell that simply by the use of language. Every time a wretched survey is carried out they say the same thing, X% of people believe whatever, rarely telling us what number of people were actually questioned, or just showing a random figure in a bottom corner of the tv screen!
The moment you introduce statistics you are no longer doing science.
Thereby dismissing the entirety of quantum physics.
brians356 says:
"Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts" — Richard Feynman
Well this is good science then because the experts have demonstrated their ignorance.
Therefor it's easy for us to "believe in the ignorance of experts".
NorwegianSceptic says:
97% of 'Agree-ers' don't understand science.
KT66 says:
It is rather disappointing to see that 42% believe that mitigation may moderately advert additional climate change. It is these types of misconceptions that helps the thing keep going, and enriching the scammers.
Interesting tidbits. According to the survey, the survey was sent out to 7,682 people. Only 53.3% completed a portion of the survey, and only 51.4% completed the entire survey. Looks like almost half the people surveyed didn't give a rat's *ss.
Then… There's a 71% "consensus" that climate change can be ignored.
Not quite 97%, but I think it's significant and publishable. 🙂
If Cook's 0.3-0.6% is 97%… Then 71% is like eleventy-gazillion %… LOL!
I think the percentage is meaningless, and is insignificant and pishposhable.
Robert Kernodle says:
While we're dredging up, let's not forget these:
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-the-97-consensus-final-ab-ms-ap-04-2017.pdf
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
I'm going to do a survey now, where I CONSIDER asking every human on the planet what is their favorite color. So, the number of potential respondents is in the multiple billions. Alas, I only have enough money to mail out 30 surveys, and, since I cannot afford overseas postage, I have to limit where I mail them to the continental United States.
Crap! Only ten people of the 30, within the larger multiple billions, responded. So, I have ten people to work with. Based on these ten people, then, I will make all my T-shirts yellow, because seven out of ten respondents said that yellow was their favorite color. I anticipate a windfall of profits selling my yellow t-shirts, whose production run I shall start at 10,000 shirts — ALL yellow. How could I possibly fail?
Yellow *is* more popular than brown or red for T-shirts. Statistically if you also sell them as Green, Maize, yolk, tricky, invisible and safety then you should sell almost all of them.
Remember to flag all colors as "For Global Warming Awareness" and then print 90 of them with "The Mating Habits of the Western Red Squirrel" in large block Mustard on the back.
Do the second run in Lemon to "freshen up the image"
My survey of three carefully selected people (family members I trust) say blue. Red is #2, yellow not mentioned at all!
ossqss says:
Reminded me of this read.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
Mumbles McGuirck says:
One thing to note about this and other surveys conducted by Maibach, it's an opinion poll. You aren't asked "What does the data show?" or "What can you prove?" only "What do you feel?". I would say a large portion of AMS membership has really not dug into the questions about climate change and human influence. They react the same way as the general public, by what they've read in the funny papers. So they fall back on what they 'feel' must be true because they saw it on a PBS documentary.
That's a good point. Even if the 97% figure were true (which it is NOT), it would be a 97% OPINION, and opinions can be molded by far more effective information than actual supporting data.
There's also the issue of data security and anonymity. How were the responses submitted (hardcopy or via Internet)? How were respondents assured their responses would remain secret in perpetuity? Why would anyone today trust 100% that their response to such a survey would never come back to be used against them, and possibly jeopardize their reputation and professional standing?
Dale S says:
Note that even the 38% who believe the local impact in the next 50 years will be primarily or exclusively harmful may not agree that AGW is "dangerous". There are lots of things that have negative impacts without being dangerous. For example, suppose that AGW increased sea level rise by an additional 1mm/year beyond the "natural" rate. This would be exclusively harmful, as there's no real benefit (AFAIK) to sea level rise. But it wouldn't remotely be "dangerous", as it threatens life not at all and threatens property so slowly that it is practically painless to adapt to.
Wiliam Haas says:
There is no consensus because scientist have never bee registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But such a consensus would be meaningless because science is not done that way. Science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process. This idea of consensus is not science but rather politics.
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change that we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
John F. Hultquist says:
There is a "no consensus" review in the booklet via The Heartland Institute titled:
"Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" by Idso, Carter, & Singer. [2nd. Ed., 2016]
Pages 7 – 30, Chapter 1 – No Consensus.
Four often cited studies are mentioned:
1. Oreskes, 2004;
2. Doran and Zimmerman, 2009;
3. Anderegg et al., 2010;
4. Cook et al., 2013
There is more about the issue in the chapter and other author's material is included.
The four items listed above seem to be where the majority of the 97% stuff comes from.
Stephen Heins says:
"The world is governed by opinion. "
John Hobbes
Once again, all I can say is this.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Guess who the real deniers of science are?
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE says:
My basic refutation of RGHE theory is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, 289 K, 16 C, inserted in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)
This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it requires thermodynamic violations, i.e. 333 W/m^2 created out of thin air, a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop, cold to hot energy flow w/o added work and 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limit the surface's LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.
In the spirit of R. W. Wood's 1909 experiment that disputed CO2's atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop invalidating RGHE theory, CO2 warming and man caused climate changing.
Seems to me that over RGHE's decades of decades my refutation would have been addressed long ago and a defense, an explanation of how & why I'm wrong, lying close at hand.
Guess not.
That's a shame.
Nick S.
Yes, there is now a video!!
ResourceGuy says:
Might as well go all the way and ask when the next recession starts. I'm sure there is a result for that too.
Upper Miocene to the Lower Pleistocene
As in clay, lignite, sand and gravel?
Quite often, gumbo (shale) and sand (sandstone)… The "rocks" in the Plio-Pleistocene are not always lithified enough to call them rocks… 😉
My old geology prof (UT-Austin) was a shoreline geologist. He used to joke that the best was to date the formations was the vintage of the Pepsi bottle caps found embedded…
My old igneous & metamorphic petrology professor lived in the mountains, commuted to my school (on the VA coastal plain) weekly, and thought that the coastal plain was nothing but boot-sucking ooze. Sometimes I had to agree with him.
Walt D. says:
Consensus is an "Eat Horse Manure – a Billion Flies can't all be Wrong" argument.
"But what if it turns out the flies are right – horse manure is good for us? Can we afford to be wrong?"
Sheldon Walker says:
❶①❶①❶①❶①
Global warming bleedin' well is dangerous, and I got proof!!!
Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?
A detailed analysis of global warming, in the different regions of the Earth.
– The Arctic region
– the Antarctic region
– the Land
– the Oceans
This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.
Can we save the Earth, and the human race?
Have the 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits, become irrelevant?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail
Dave Burton says:
Sheldon Walker wrote (about his own article, on his own web site), "This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming."
Isn't it important to know, that we are NOT going to be able to limit global warming to the 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits?
Isn't it important to know, that many parts of the Earth are already above the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Isn't it important to know, that the world didn't end, when the temperature went above the temperature limits that were set by the IPCC.
Isn't it important to know, that Alarmists and Warmists have based all of their beliefs about global warming, on these temperature limits. And that my article proves that they were wrong.
That is 5 important things, Dave.
Isn't that important?
The so-called warming limits are for the planet as a whole… But, it's an interesting analysis.
My article is very long. You may have missed where I analysed the planet as a whole. I reported that:
• 19.7% of the earth (nearly 1/5), has already increased by more than +1.5 degrees Celsius, since 1880. [Note that this percentage also includes the parts that have increased by more than +2.0 degrees Celsius, since 1880.]
• And that 9.6% of the earth (nearly 1/10), has already increased by more than +2.0 degrees Celsius, since 1880.
There are bar graphs for the Arctic region, the Antarctic region, the Land, and the Oceans. Underneath those 4 bar graphs, there is another bar graph, for the whole planet.
I am trying to come up with a better way to show these results. I will try to write another article soon.
Sheldon Walker
Sheldon,
Breaking down the planet into regions isn't analyzing it as a whole. 20% of the planet already having warmed by more than 1.5 C has little bearing on the planet as a whole.
Central Greenland has routinely warmed and cooled by more than 1.5 C on a centennial scale throughout the Holocene…
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/holocene-1.png
The basis of the 1.5 or 2.0 C limit is the notion that if the overall average surface temperature of the Earth rises beyond that limit a climatic catastrophe will ensue. Even though there is no scientific basis for this speculative idea, the 1.5 or 2.0 C limit applies to the average surface temperature of the Earth.
Your map indicates that 80% of Earth surface either hasn't warmed or has warmed less than by 1.5 C and that the vast majority of the >1.5 C warming has occurred in Earth's coldest air masses (which is consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect).
https://i0.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Theoretical-Temperature-Increase-since-1880.png
It's an interesting analysis; but it doesn't really tell us whether or not the 1.5 or 2.0 C limit is achievable.
The average surface temperature of the Earth has risen by 0.8-0.9 C since 1880 and is on track to a total warming of 1-2 C by the end of this century… without any significant mitigation measures, indicating that the 1.5-2.0 C limit might be achievable by ignoring climate change.
are you affected by the average temperature of the Earth, or by your local temperature?
You can call me selfish, but I am more concerned about what global warming will do to ME, rather than what it will do to the planet as a whole. The 2 things are connected, but I am my number 1 priority.
I have a theory, that Alarmists start squealing, when you warm them to 40 degrees Celsius.
I decided to do an experiment. Don't worry about the ethical issues. I got a "science experiment" license, from Peter Gleick.
I am not silly. I checked it carefully to make sure that it was real. When I checked it, it turned out to be a "Dog" license, but the word "Dog" had been crossed out with a crayon, and the words "Science experiment", had been written in.
I went back to see Peter Gleick, to find out what the story was. He told me that their printer had run out of ink, so they had to use a crayon instead. That sounded reasonable to me, so I started my experiment.
I took 100 Alarmists, and warmed them all to 40 degrees Celsius. 97% of them started squealing.
Then I took another 100 Alarmists, and warmed 50 of them to 38 degrees Celsius, and warmed the other 50, to 40 degrees Celsius.
None of the Alarmists who were warmed to 38 degrees Celsius started sqealing, but exactly 97% of the 50 Alarmists who were warmed to 40 degrees Celsius, started squealing.
Because 97% of 50 Alarmists, is 48.5 Alarmists, you might wonder why I said EXACTLY 97%. One of the Alarmists was very short, so we only counted him as a half.
In that last experiment, the average temperature that we warmed Alarmists to, was 39 degrees Celsius. This is below the squeal temperature for Alarmists. So why did 48.5 Alarmists begin squealing?
The same thing applies to your "planet as a whole" situation.
There is an important lesson to be learned, from my experiment.
Make sure that you get some ear-plugs, before global warming gets to 40 degrees Celsius.
Otherwise, you won't be able to get any sleep.
Your sense of humor is Python-worthy… 🍻
Now you are claiming a right to your own facts.
— Absolutely. I agree with that 100%. The important question is what should we do based on what we know. Whatever mankind's impact on the climate, we are not going to reduce it, except for maybe a little. Even if we completely eliminated our own impact, we still have the natural warming trend which will still "take us over the limit."
This tells us that building windmills, carbon taxes, and wealth transfers are all wasteful, futile gestures. If everything the alarmists say about CAGW is true, then we should immediately stop all subsidies on alternative energies and save our resources for when we need to adapt to the changes in the climate.
Are those pre- or post- adjustments degrees Celsius?
None of your 5 important things come even close to being true.
I don't know, seeing as we are all here, I think we can take it as read that the world didn't end. 😉
We're off to outer space
Protecting mother Earth
To save, the human race
Our Star Blazers
We have the DVD series… so bad, it's good… 😎
"Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. "
The settled science canard/oxymoron.
And what if the 3% happen to be right?
Sometimes science advances by people thinking outside of the box.
Go back to 1970.
No movement of Continents.
Neutrinos travelled at the speed of light.
and Quantum Physics.
Pat Frank says:
The only answer to those questions entirely consistent with the current state of knowledge in climate science is "don't know" to every single one of them.
Even for the first question, "Regardless of cause, do you think climate change is happening?", a 'yes' answer is just an inductive inference.
'Did Climate Change happen?' – fairly easy question to answer
'Is Climate Change happening?' – harder question
'Will Climate Change happen?' Now there's a REALLY hard question
Of course, those who can answer the first question are convinced they know the other two answers, but count me as a skeptic.
None of those are hard questions. Yes to all. The question is, are the changes caused primarily by humans.
And… is that dangerous. If not, who cares.
Taylor, none of those questions are hard. Climate changes. It always has it always will. SO:
'Did Climate Change happen?' yes, the climate has been changing ever since it first existed on this little mudball
'Is Climate Change happening?' yes, the climate is always changing, it has ever since it first existed on this little mudball
'Will Climate Change happen?' yes, the climate will continue to change, it has ever since it first existed on this little mudball.
The harder question is what amount does man's activities contribute to the changing of the climate (no ones knows, and anyone that claims they do is lying) and is that amount a net harm or a net benefit (indications appear to be the later, despite what the doomsayers claim)?
Mark Lee says:
Polls are closely related to click-bait quizzes on FaceBook. You get a poorly written question with multiple choice answers that composed in an equally poor manner. It would be more difficult to tabulate, but the answers would probably be much more useful if you gave an essay question and let the respondent answer what they thought, not try to shoe horn their answer into the given molds.
Johannes S. Herbst says:
Scientifically the survey is a Nothing-Burger. An Opinion is never a Scientific Proof, even if it is done among scientists. PERIOD.
A lot of people have expressed that view, but just because a survey isn't science, and doesn't offer scientific proof, doesn't mean that such surveys don't have tremendous value.
The survey doesn't support science in the scientific realm where we try to establish facts, but rather it supports decision-making in the political realm where we try to develop plans of action. Knowing the views of scientists regarding climate change is very relevant to those decisions.
CMS says:
The original conclusion of 97% comes from a paper published by Cook, et. al. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article You will note that they use the 97% figure as those who study issues concerning Climate Science and, who explicitly or implicitly address the thesis that at least some climate change is caused by human emissions. They looked at 11,944 abstracts from 1991 to 2011. 66.4% of Climate related papers were thrown out because those papers did not think it important enough that they should address even by implication or in passing that humans caused Global Warming. Also included were papers by non climate scientist such as psychological or economic studies. I would suggest that it is not too surprising, that a scientist who thought AGW was important enough to discuss, would believe that it exists.
Tellingly, those papers they chose to address mentioned that some human emissions might have caused some global warming. Thus they set a rather low bar, that humans emissions probably had some unspecified effect. The 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that its effects are potentially devastating. While it is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. The authors – who did have that figure – choose not to publish it. By the researchers own methodology, the vast majority of skeptics would also be members of the 97%. Interestingly. Cook et. al.'s own graphs show that over time, the percent of articles published by scientists mentioning Anthropological Global Warming has fallen from its high in 1993 to something approach half of that in 2011 when the paper was published, while scientist have apparently deemed other aspects of the climate more important for their attention as articles focused non Anthropogenic problems have increased by approximately 50%.
Any scientist who agrees with Arrhenius, the first scientist to propose the Green House theory of CO2, would certainly be considered a denier by most ideologues. " By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (p63) Arrhenius, S., Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. New York, Harper & Row, 1908 see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
This comment went bust in the middle of editing it. Please refer to the finished version. If the blog master would take this down, it would be helpful as I am not able to do so.
[It is not clear which comment should be removed. .mod]
Nope, the original "97% consensus" paper was not Cook 2013, it was actually just an article (apparently not peer-reviewed), by Dr. Peter Doran, in 2009. Here's what he did.
#1. Doran EXCLUDED (for being insufficiently specialized) 97% of the geoscientsts who responded to his poll, and
#2. He EXCLUDED scientists who worked in private industry (who tend to be more conservative than those in government & academia), and
#3. He EXCLUDED scientists who thought that "When compared with pre-1800s levels… mean global temperatures have generally… remained relatively constant."
Note that Doran & his student did not ask any question to distinguish between climate alarmists like Mann & Hansen, and climate realists like of the most folks here. If they had asked such a question (like whether, in the succinct words of President Obama, "Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?") there would have been nothing resembling a "consensus."
Very few scientists would disagree with the fact that it is generally warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age, and human activity has probably contributed to that modest warming. But so what? That's a pretty meaningless "consensus," in the context of the climate debate. It does not help make a case for the sorts of public policy measures which climate activists advocate. After all, anyone sane would have to agree that the current climate is better than the "pre-industrial" Little Ice Age climate.
The best evidence is that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is real, but modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful.
Expanded:
FIRST, Dr. Doran wrote just two "opinion" questions for his survey, both of which were "gimmies," designed to elicit the answers he wanted. (There were also some demographic & background questions.)
The survey PRETENDED to be an attempt to learn about scientists' opinions, but it wasn't. Neither question was designed to actually learn anything about scientists' opinions. Both of the questions were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other skeptics of climate alarmism (a/k/a "climate realists" or "lukewarmers") would have given the answers he wanted.
SECOND, Doran had his graduate student send the survey to over 10,000 geophysical scientists, but ONLY to people working in academia or government — known bastions of left-of-center politics. Scientists working in private industry, who tend to be more conservative, were not surveyed. That biased the sample, because the climate debate is highly politicized: most conservatives "lean skeptical" and most liberals "lean alarmist" in the climate debate.
They got 3,146 responses.
THIRD, to calculate his supposed "consensus" Prof. Doran excluded all but the most biased respondents: the most specialized specialists in climate science.
That's a massive, fundamental blunder. That's like asking ONLY homeopaths about the efficacy of homeopathy, rather than the broader medical community. It's like asking ONLY people working on cold fusion about whether cold fusion works, rather than asking all physicists. As Rick C PE & David Middleton noted, above, the most specialized specialists in every field will report a "consensus" agreeing with the presuppositions and the efficacy of the methods of that field — even for fields that are complete hokum. (In this case, the question at issue is whether the unverifiable CMIP "GCMs" [climate models] are trustworthy or GIGO.)
That process excluded over 97% of the geophysical scientists who answered the survey! Only 79 were left.
That's right: he pruned 3,146 responses down to just 79.
But even that didn't get his desired "consensus" figure up to 97%. So,
FOURTH, to calculate his final "97.4%" result, Doran EXCLUDED respondents who gave one of the "skeptical" answers to the first of his two questions.
I'm not kidding, he really did.
The first "gimme" question was:
"When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
(I would have said "risen.")
Those who answered "remained relatively constant" were not asked the 2nd question, and THEY WERE NOT COUNTED when calculating his percentage of consensus.
That left him with just 77 out of 3,146 responses. He used only those 77 for the "97.4%" calculation.
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Well, of course it is! That encompasses both GHG-driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling. It could also be understood to include Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.
Since just about everyone acknowledges at least one of those effects, I would have expected nearly everyone to answer "yes" to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.
It is unfortunate that Doran and his graduate student didn't ask an actual, legitimate question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, "Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?" or (paraphrasing President Obama) "Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?"
Of course, the reason he didn't ask "real" questions like those is that his survey was a scam: Its purpose was NOT to discover anything, it was to support a propaganda talking point.
BTW, I bought his graduate student's thesis project report, so if anyone here has any questions about it let me know. My contact info can be found on my SeaLevel.info web site.
You can find much more information about the various surveys of scientific opinion on climate change, including source references for everything I've written here, on my web page, here:
http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct
RACookPE1978 says:
Another "human factor" often added to man's release of CO2 is forest/jungle clearing, rain forest burning, and agriculture/tree harvesting.
And, as you point out, the Urban Heat Island effect on local/micro-climate changes.
Thanks for that. I was not aware of that study. I looked at it and your critique seems to be a valid one, and it does predate Cook et.al. And, there is a 97% figure in there. But if you look at the literature this is not one which received much public awareness. In fact this paper refers to a previous one and seems to be the first commonly cited, that would be Oreskes 2004 paper. That consensus being that GHGs have resulted in rising temperatures. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
Forbes has an interesting and in depth article on the subject which discusses both Cook and Oreskes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#53a6adaa1157
You have to dig down deep for the 97%…
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
The "funny" thing is that only 96% of "the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents" thought temperatures had risen… While 97% blamed people.
Anderegg et al., 2010 also pushed the 97% meme…
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
Dana Nuccitelli, one of Cook's coauthors, was pushing the 97% based on Doran and Anderegg, years before they published their paper.
So basically, he found that of those scientists who believe the earth is warming, 97% believe that it is warming?
The first survey of scientific opinion on the topic, AFAIK, was Doran and Zimmerman, 2009, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change":
Doran and Zimmerman invited 10,257 academic and government Earth scientists to participate in their poll. No private sector scientists allowed. They received 3146 responses to these two questions:
"1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
"2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Note that a third question, asking whether whatever man-made warming might have occurred be good, bad or indifferent, wasn't included.
The authors managed to derive the canonical 97%, concocted by Oreskes' bogus abstract review in 2004, by cherry-picking from the 3146 respondents, the 79 "most specialized and knowledgeable…who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change".
"Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2." So the actual share of even this selective group was 94.9%, ie 74/79, affirmatively answering both questions.
The category with the lowest faith in the alleged consensus was those respondents whose area of expertise was economic geology. Of them, 47% (48 of 103) answered yes to question 2.
But of course the media reported the phony 97% figure, which in the popular imagination, as intended, became the share of opinion of "all scientists", not of 75 individuals with a career stake in the supposed consensus.
{Huh. Looks like this comment didn't post, when I first tried it.}
AMS has done a lot of surveys. I keep a collection of them, here:
http://sealevel.info/AMS/
If someone knows of one that I missed, please tell me.
The original categorization of papers had three different grouping of pro AGW papers. One was those who believed that humans were the primary source of global warming, and two those who simply believed that humans contributed at least some small part to global warming and thirdly, those who implicitly assumed human effects of some kind. Thus they set a rather low bar, that humans emissions probably had some unspecified effect. The authors choose to collapse those three categories and report them as one. Thus by design, the 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that its effects are potentially devastating. While it is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. Cook, et. al. decided we did not need to have that figure. By the researchers own very broad methodology, the vast majority of skeptics would also be members of the 97%. Interestingly. Cook et. al.'s own graphs show that over time, the percent of articles published by scientists mentioning Anthropological Global Warming has fallen from its high in 1993 to something approach half of that in 2011 when the paper was published, while scientist have apparently deemed other aspects of the climate more important for their attention as articles focused non Anthropogenic problems have increased by approximately 50%.
CMS, that's not the original 97%. You haven't been paying attention.
But I have Jeff. And you are right other studies predate Cook. However, I suggest that when people refer to the 97% Cook is the one they refer to. Oreskes is second. For support for that conclusion, I would suggest that you might look at the Forbes article "Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change" https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#53a6adaa1157
The 97% meme predates both of those. I'd say Oreskes and Cook were attempts to support the original assertion.
Pathway says:
When there is a mile [of] ice covering lower Manhattan then I will know the climate has changed.
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/that-70s.png
🤙
Meanwhile…our grids grow ever more unreliable:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/06/new-england-electricity-market-in-crisis/
Franco Zavatti says:
I would like to bring to your knowledge a couple of comments of a reader (Gianluca) of the Italian skeptical blog http://www.climatemonitor.it -translation under my only responsibility- about the 97% consensus on AGW.
http://www.zafzaf.it/clima/97en.html
These comments give an ~30% consensus on AGW and less than 10% consensus among self-defined climate scientists.
All those graphs mean absolutely nothing.
How can you "agree" that the climate is changing when our current definition of climate is a silly joke. All that can be agreed on is that the weather may have changed (shifted) a little lately. That's it!
Climate to me is very long period of stable weather. Very long…like a thousands of years. It was still dry and hot in the summer in the Mediterranean 5,000 years ago. And it's still dry and hot in the summer now, and it will still be dry and hot for the foreseeable future. No climate change that can be at all determined.
M__ S__ says:
Polls are not science, no matter what the results
Larry Faria says:
I'm so far behind, I'm still calling it "global warming".
Sam Grove says:
I want to see a list of these scientists' names.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy says:
The basic "climate change is real", is itself faulty. If global warming is referred to climate change, then the results may be different from climate change it entirity. For example I support climate change is real but I opposite global warming is real. Here 96% split in to two parts.
Secondly, Is climate change is man-made. Again here are also two options: global warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases and ecological changes. — urban-heat-island effect & rural-cold-island effect I support ecological changes but I oppose global warming . Here 67% split in to two parts.
Same is the case with the other two on danger —
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Steven Mosher says:
If that sample is suggested as a random sample of 'scientists', then it is clear that the "alarmists'
people are worried about dont exist
It's not "random" or even genuinely representative. It's a survey of 7,682 members of the American Meteorological Society (half of whom didn't respond), conducted by an asshat who wants RICO prosecutions for anyone who disagrees with him.
Bloke down the pub says:
To be noted that the question asking if the climate change has been caused by humans, does not specify that that change is caused by our emissions of CO₂ . I think most reasonable people on both sides of the argument would agree that deforestation, irrigation and concreting over large areas of the globe will have an effect on climate.
Bryan A says:
That and a Gathering of too many Eco-Activists in one place will also have a negative effect on Climate
I would present this as "Six Times as Many Scientists Now Doubt the Consensus."
"As new data and analysis come in, consensus is quickly disappearing with a huge increase moving to the skeptics camp. It was previously reported that only 3% of scientists doubted the consensus view on global warming, that warming is primarily caused by human activity. Today, 12% actively disagree and twice as many report that they don't know."
Let the alarmist side claim that there has not really been a shift because the original metric was spiked.
Buck Wheaton says:
This is just one more proof that for woke Progressives truth and facts are malleable and plastic. Reality is inverted: the arc of facts is bent to justify the Progressive socialist agenda. Any contrary fact is ignored or discredited as H8.
Michael Reed says:
Here in Australia a similar "study "was conducted
by a phsycologist academic -John Cook who
managed get his 97 percent by rejecting over 1000
Responses in the 1100 he surveyed so in reality
less than 10 percent when along with the so called
framed question on the Climate change meme.
If he did it on public money that counts as fraud and mail-fraud.
If you're referring to the John Cook of Skeptical Science, he's not a psychologist, just a psycho who fancies himself an SS officer.
Joe - the non climate scientist says:
The 97% canard – Keeps getting repated ad nausuem by the activists and grossly misrepresented by the activists.
Gotta wonder how someone so mathematically deficient to be unable to understand what those surveys actually show, somehow possesses the superior intellectual capacity to understand the validity of climate science.
knr says:
The whole 97% was BS from the start in reality even taken it at its extreme it was 97% of selected paper from a selected time period broadly agree with an slight defined idea.
That is as good as it got .
I looked at that 97% number as it is often used in marketing, reporting etc:
https://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-ubiquitous-97/
Who were the three percent that said the climate wasn't changing or didn't know? Early days when I saw the survey I looked at how the questions were asked. Almost everyone with any sense of history, especially with science, knows that Earth's climate nature is to change. Yet seldom did any news media outlet point that out. Nope, they all claimed that 97% were saying that climate change was all about anthropogenic forcing and, more bizarrely, seemed to infer that climate had been in some wonderful equilibrium for some long period of time.
Erik Pedersen says:
Of course, the climate changes, it has always done it and will always do it and there is nothing we can do about it. The stable climate is a myth …
It changes yes, but at the same time it is and has been very stable. Stable enough for life to happily continue to thrive over eons with perhaps the odd interruption. The often repeated "climate always changes" is just as meaningless as "the climate is changing"
Obviously Earth's climate has been stable enough for life to survive and thrive, but it really hasn't been all that stable.
During the worst Snowball Earth episodes, average global temperature has probably been around -50 degrees C. During the hottest hothouse intervals, it has gotten over 25 degrees C. Not to mention the oceans of molten lava on the surface before live developed here.
How do you explain living fossils like Gingko biloba. 270 million years and still going.
Dr. Strangelove says:
Elon Musk smokes marijuana while talking about how climate change poses a risk to humanity. Marijuana and climate delusion go together
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2018/09/07/elon-musk-smoked-marijuana-and-chatted-cybernetic-collectives-with-joe-rogan/#3747b8e82777
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960×0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fsamshead%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F09%2FScreen-Shot-2018-09-08-at-12.47.18-1200×692.jpg
MJ could be a hyuuuge carbon sink.
Until smoked.


text:
The Juniper Tree (1990)
Watch The Juniper Tree (1990) Online
Margit and her older sister, Katla, flee their homeland in Iceland after their mother is killed for practicing witchcraft. Needing a place to stay, Katla casts a spell over a young farmer named Jóhann which makes him fall in love with her, ensuring the wellbeing of herself and Margit. Jóhann's son, Jóhas, sees through Katla's plan and pleads for his father to make her go away. To help Jóhas in his struggle, Margit's mother appears to Margit in visions and provides a magic amulet of protection for the boy. Will Jóhas be able to rid his family of Katla or will she continue to control them with her witchcraft?
Genre: Drama, Fantasy
Director: Nietzchka Keene
Actors: Björk, Bryndis Petra Bragadóttir, Geirlaug Sunna Þormar, Guðrún Gísladóttir, Valdimar Örn Flygenring
Bad Santa 2 (2016)
Fueled by cheap whiskey, greed and hatred, Willie Soke teams up with his angry little sidekick, Marcus, to knock off a Chicago charity on Christmas Eve. Along for the ride…
Genre: Comedy, Crime, Drama
Gantz:O (2016)
Somewhere in Tokyo, there is a room. In that room is a black sphere. Periodically, people who should otherwise have died are transferred to the room. There, the sphere gives…
Genre: Action, Animation, Drama, Fantasy, Horror, Science Fiction, Thriller
The Realm (2018)
Manuel is a crooked politician who enjoys the lifestyle that kickbacks afford. He eats at fancy restaurants, parties with his friends on yachts, and provides a very luxurious lifestyle for…
The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)
Upon moving into the run-down Spiderwick Estate with their mother, twin brothers Jared and Simon Grace, along with their sister Mallory, find themselves pulled into an alternate world full of…
Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Family, Fantasy
Escape From Alcatraz (1979)
San Francisco Bay, January 18, 1960. Frank Lee Morris is transferred to Alcatraz, a maximum security prison located on a rocky island. Although no one has ever managed to escape…
Genre: Action, Biography, Crime, Drama, Thriller
Hunger (2008)
The story of Bobby Sands, the IRA member who led the 1981 hunger strike in which Republican prisoners tried to win political status. It dramatises events in the Maze prison…
Making Contact (1985)
A nine year old boy named Joey, who after the tragic death of his father, begins to experience psychic powers such as allowing him to move inanimate objects with his…
Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Family, Fantasy, Horror, Mystery, Science Fiction
Made in Britain (1982)
Trevor sometimes-violent skinhead with no regard for authority, and would rather spend his time stealing cars than sitting in the detention centre to which he is sent. His social worker,…
W. (2008)
The story of the eventful life of George W. Bush—his struggles and triumphs, how he found both his wife and his faith—and the critical days leading up to his decision…
Country: Australia, China, Hong Kong, Switzerland, USA
Genre: Biography, Comedy, Drama, History
Break Night (2017)
A lifetime hood has one night to repay a debt to an up and coming shot caller before he can leave town, all the while trying to duck a crooked…
Lionheart (1990)
Lyon Gaultier is a deserter in the Foreign Legion arriving in the USA entirely hard up. He finds his brother between life and death and his sister-in-law without the money…
Genre: Action, Crime, Drama, Sport
A chronicle of the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden after the September 2001 attacks, and his death at the hands of the Navy S.E.A.L. Team 6…
Country: United Arab Emirates, USA
Genre: Drama, History, Thriller, War
Trailer: The Juniper Tree (1990)