97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

I've watched a number of John Robson's CDN videos on youtube, and found him always measured, credibly sourced, and entertaining. Here, he demolishes the claimed 97% scientific consensus on climate change:



The important point is not that the claim is indisputably false, but the clear dishonesty of the thought processes that led to it.

 

So...? The media is the one pushing the 97% claim, not scientists.

Are you capable of dealing with the science?

 

The climate has been changing since before dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Somebody wake me when "climate science" catches up with reality.

 

All of the hot air being spewed by the climate change cult, is worse than Auto exhaust

 

Show me a study where they have interviewed scientists and 97% agreed.

 

It is a claim ABOUT what the scientists say. Hello?

See my hundreds of posts on the topic. I am one of the few here who actually has some post-secondary education in planetary physics, including atmospheric physics.

 

Right. And the primary reasons folks know the media is full of BS is because of people questioning their (reporting of) 'the science.' Which, I bet, is the OPs point.

 

That study isn’t based on hard data and relies more on abstracts. The actual number of climate scientists that can show evidence for human kind being partially responsible for the levels of climate change hover around the 80% - 90% margin which is still a fairly broad consensus

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=367925281157

 

The science says the planet has always been warming. Are you capable of dealing with it?

 

Uh, the media collated the data FROM scientists.

 

If scientists claim 'evidence' of climate change, they get jobs, grants, and advance professionally. If not, they are shunned and significantly less employable. Most play the game, like politicians and Hollywood elites.

 

Do you have creditable data to refute theirs or is this just the easy way out? You do realize that not everything you don’t like is a fraud or conspiracy, yes?

 

I’m still waiting for the next global ice age we were promised by science in my younger years.

 

Talk to the media--I don't support Ad Populum arguments.

I spent years promoting political arguments to and with the media, but I never--and I mean never--stooped to advancing a specious argument based on logical fallacies.

 

What I'd really like to see is a breakdown of the projected cost of attaining 'net 0' carbon emissions (banning fossil fuels, throttling industry, population controls, etc, all relatively quickly) vs a breakdown of the projected cost of adapting to climate change (moving coastal cities inland, irrigating droughted regions, settling and farming thawed regions, etc, all over a far more gradual timespan). It seems the bulk of the 'climate alarmism' boils down to a rejection of the idea that we can adapt to higher temperatures. Hell, some people still seem to think there's actually enough ice to literally flood the whole planet ...not really indicative of a rational or informed basis for the hysteria.

 

Studies have shown that tomato plants fare 10 to 30 percent better with a 500 PPM CO2 atmosphere as compared to the current PPM of CO2. My garden will get planted in early March, so that doesn't give us much time to get the CO2 level up to where it needs to be. I'm doing my part, but I would appreciate some help, folks...

 

I have not seen numbers that high in an actual survey. But even those are a long way from 97%.

Man obviously has an effect on the environment and that effect is most likely warming. However, what is in dispute is how much and the ability to forecast it.

 

The media and AGW advocates keep trying to convince us that 97% of the scientists are in agreement. However, no such study where they just simply asked the scientists, exists.

 

Seriously, I don't think most people understand. These choose up sides, watch media consistent with their ideas, and think they're getting the straight story from their media while the other media lie.

It's ginned up conflict by all sides.

 

The relevant science includes rapid recent warming.

A particular concern in Canada is the melting permafrost releasing methane.

 

Did they? Or are they promoting conflict and crisis to keep people paying attentioin?

 

It's a scam. It's to try and build up support for the climate change religion.

If you question anything the religion calls you a science denier. To the point where that phrase doesn't mean anything anymore