Didn’t I tell skeptics this was a scam? I mean, really? Didn’t I state this was the Nigerian email scam posted on the internets? I don’t even want to know who the dumba$$ was who plunked down $250 only to get rejected. We knew that was going to happen! Now, I realize I’m not the most read skeptical site, but, I know people active in skepticism move from site to site! Come on, guys! Don’t fall for the scam!!! Warn your neighbors! (Of course, we do expect fellow skeptics to be smarter than this.)
This is an update to the imbecilic Truth Market/Nigerian scam campaign. As readers may recall, there is a $5000 bounty offered for someone who can prove that the statement, “Over 95% of American scientists believe climate change is real and is most likely caused by humans.” is a false statement.
Well, I recently received an email from these people. Apparently, someone was stupid enough to pay the $250 in a grab for the $5000.
The question was entirely vague, open ended, and literally impossible to prove the negative. It assumes the question has already been proven, when clearly, it has not.
They sent me an “adjudication” of the challenge. Read it here. (4 page pdf.)
Apparently, the challenger submitted, in part, the Doran paper. Here’s what the “Truth Market” had to say about it…..
The only data provided are the Doran study, published in 2009, and apparently conducted in 2007. The data support the challenger’s claim that fewer than 95% of American scientists collectively believe the claim. However, there are serious deficiencies in those data that make them of questionable value. (1) The data were collected by an invitation to a survey, with about a 30% response rate. The survey is likely subject to self-reporting, self-selection biases, and there is no control for that. (2) The data are 5 years old, and one cannot assume that opinions have remained
constant during that time. Richard Muller, for example, a prominent scientific critic of human-caused global warming arguments, has gone from skeptic to proponent, in a major public argument, and has published the data that he believed would convince other scientific skeptics. Other events and international publications since 2007 have almost uniformly supported the scientific consensus.The challenge refers, in part, to the lack of specificity as to what scientists ought to be considered and data about which scientists would falsify the claim. We find the claim to be poorly expressed, and have referred to the only evidence package the campaign provided for context.
They go on to site all of the garbage we’re used to seeing. Anthony Leiserowitz’ recent poll, which hasn’t much to do with anything in regards to the question, but simply reasserts the unverified claim about 97% whatever…… It goes on to say….
We do not have the raw data Leiserowitz based his 2012 assertion on, that 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, but we use it for context.
And, they note that Ralph Cicerone stated essentially the same thing.
The NPR report confirms the basic argument they make by citing Cicerone, repeated
here in part: Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most
recent report on the subject. “The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes,” he said.
They then state this regarding the Doran paper…….
The data presented do not refute those components because they are out of date, not obtained from a reliable methodology, and not narrowed to the same American scientists the evidence package refers to. It is clear from the cited NPR report that the context means the American scientists Leiserowitz and Cicerone were referring to.
Now, this is fascinating. Now, there’s an arbitrary date, not mentioned in the challenge, and not specified by the ruling that challengers must adhere to. Further, the “scientists” refuting this claim must adhere to Cicerone’s and the NPR’s definition of “American scientists”. Again, not stated in the challenge and vague about what Cicerone’s definition of an American scientist is. But, they’re nice enough to say this was unfortunate……
We think it unfortunate that the campaign did not make that selection criteria explicit, but our attempt is to help illuminate the truth, not to inadvertently have campaigns further contribute to misleading public opinion. For this reason, we stipulate that the appropriate interpretation of “American scientists” would be that intended by the cited sources, Leiserowitz and Cicerone. Any other interpretation would imply that the campaign was putting forth inappropriate evidence. This leads to the following most reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the evidence provided: The interpretation of “American scientists” would be the same as that intended and conveyed by the cited speakers, specifically: “American climate scientists that have been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer reviewed climate science.” That was the original basis for the first variant of this claim, originating from a 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey.
This is pure, unadulterated horse sh*t. How would a challenger ever come to know if any scientist had more than 1/2 of their papers accepted by peer review or not? Then, prove that the total number of those would amount to “substantially” more than 5% of the scientists, who have more than 1/2 of their papers recently accepted.
These people have no intentions of paying regardless how much proof is offered. It is a scam!
Interestingly enough, they actually mention the paper which disproves their challenge.
One important paper, by Anderegg et al., appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The basic point of that paper was to clarify which scientists defined the group who were most in support of this campaign’s claim. Their definitions and assertions appear in the abstract:
“97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
See the game they just played? They moved the goal posts from 95% of American scientists, to most actively publishing. This is an entirely different question. And hadn’t anything to do with the challenge. In fact, Anderegg, himself came up with the ratio of 903:472 alarmists vs skeptics in their paper. Even for scientists with more than 20 publications (with the word “climate” in it) they came up with the ratio of 817: 93. For the math challenged, that’s right at 9%, but we don’t know if that meets their criteria, because it was never stated what the cut off would be. It wasn’t until they whittled down to the top 50 most published and cited did they get to 98%.
The reasoning for invalidating Doran is another fascinating trip to liar land. Anyone with even the slightest cognitive ability knows Muller was never a skeptic.
November 3, 2011
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post.
December 17, 2003
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” –
But, because he “changed his mind” is why Doran doesn’t stand? These people will never pay they $5000. Even if you did conduct a poll more legitimate than Doran, they will not recognize it as valid.
suyts space 
While we’re at markets, there’s still some money to be made on intrade.
Odds for Romney becoming prez at 39%, but rising fast.
I have never traded on intrade so I can’t say anything about how it works etc but I wanted to see what the crowd sentiment for that bet is.
Boy, it is rising fast! The other day after the debate it was up to something like 26%! I don’t play there either.