Fun fact: lots of “global warming” charts only go back to the 1800s. But planet has been around longer than that…
Whenever you hear “a consensus of scientists agree” on anything, raise your hand and call them out on their pungent bovine feces. Science isn’t about polling, agreement, or popularity, it’s about truth and facts. At one time, a consensus of scientists agreed the Earth was flat. Didn’t make it flat. Later scientists agreed the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn’t make the Earth the center of the universe. Now we have a consensus of leftists who say Bruce Jenner is a woman because he feels like a woman. See where I’m going with this?
Science: finding truth and facts, not making agreements about feelings and public policy and guys wearing dresses while having penises.
Which isn’t to say consensus doesn’t have its place in the scientific process, but it should be used as a starting off point, better known as a “hypothesis,” which is either proven or disproven. The consensus cannot be the result. Results are the results. As in a dude with a Y-chromosome is still a dude, regardless of his brand of makeup or choices in handbags. True story.
Also, this is kind of inconvenient, but needs to be said. The “97% of Climate Scientists Agree” meme all the climate-change robots harp on and on about is actually a load of pure organic manure, better left to grow your weed than fuel your global warming climate change passions.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
In other words:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels (Adolf Hitler’s Propagandist)
Put that in your hookah and smoke it. Remember that little tidbit when you insist unborn babies are not humans, especially when you refuse to look at any evidence. Tell me again about how much you respect science.
Also good to remember anytime somebody is pushing anything on you? Follow the money. ‘Cause guess what, kids? There’s a lot of money in saying the Earth is warming and it’s totes our fault…
From The National Review: In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.
In other words, if your hypothesis is “Climate change is caused by man and SUVs and George W. Bush (either one) and cow farts” you’ll get fat stacks of cash. But if your hypothesis is “Is man responsible for climate change, or does maybe the sun and naturally occurring fluctuating weather patterns or natural disasters like exploding volcanos have more do do with it?” you’ll be taken out back and beaten with hemp ropes and then body-shamed. Because science is about finding truth, not agendas. Got it?
Lastly, isn’t it funny how climate-change believers will automatically accuse climate-change deniers of being supported by BigOil? Here they are, funded by BIG GOVERNMENT and people like George Soros, and then they accuse you of being supported by BigOil, whether or not it’s true or as false as Bruce Jenner’s eye-lashes. Though he she is beautiful and stunning. Lawsuit averted. Pretty sure there’s an adage for that. Something about pots and kettles and black lives matter or something. Give me a minute, I’ll think of it…
… Nope, I’m just a racist.
The truth is there is zero truth allowed in the climate change debate. Ask a question of a climate-change believer and they’ll evade the question or repeat their mantras. Like this idiot of the Sierra Club when talking with Ted Cruz. Trigger warning: Cruz murders the man. It’s cold, calculated and down right brilliant. They ought to lock him up for twenty-five to life. You’ll love it.
Whenever debate is silenced, whenever someone with an opposing viewpoint is labeled as a “denier,” and whenever “supporters” call for the “deniers” imprisonment, you’re not dealing with science. You’re dealing with ideology, and a dangerous one at that.
Yes really.
Written by Courtney Kirchoff and Steven Crowder
Thanks so much for sharing this! I am a meteorologist and I ASSURE you 97% of scientist DO NOT agree.
Steven Crowder What they don’t tell you is that the “97% of climate scientists who agree” are probably a handful of their crony scientists on their payroll. And maybe the janitor, too. They probably only polled about 20 or so scientists. So 97% of those scientists, about 17 or 18, agree there is global warming.The percentage they use is misleading. What I wanna know is how many scientists they polled- compared to how many scientists are in the world.
^^^ what John said!! You nailed it my friend.
It’s worse than that….
From: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded
The lead author of the 97% ‘Consensus’ paper here styled as Goebbels from his own website apparently.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1
Hitler’s Propaganda Minister was Joseph Goebbels,not “Joseph Boebells.” Otherwise, excellent article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
…but….but….but……Bill Nye…..
Off base on this one guys.
The idea that the earth was flat and the center of the universe came from religious doctrine, not scientific claims. It was precisely the use of the scientific method that allowed scientistis to debunk those claims, with the use of evidence instead of arguments from authority.
You misrepresented what consensus means in this context. It’s not a bunch of people who weren’t sure which way to go, and arbitrarily decided to go in the direction of global warming is real and manmade. Research based on scientific method and peer review, has shown that 97% of the studies say that global warming is happening and caused by human activity.
Evidence based consensus is not the same as opinion based consensus.
The data goes back to the 1880s because that’s when the tecnology that regularly monitors global temperatures began to be available. Evidence shows that vulcanic and solar activity influences the climate, but those factors have been accounted for, and in the time period when the measurements have been made these activities have been normal and not a factor in the warming.
That fact that the government funds certain research is not evidence that the results are fake. CDC is government funded and that is not evidence that the notion that “vaccines are safe” is false.
True science is apolitical, and the evidence speaks for it self. People on the left politicize science issues (vaccines, gmo’s) and people on the right do it (global warming, evolution). I just wish everyone stopped with these political diatribes and educated themselves on science.
But you’re ignoring the fact, as many proponents do, that records from years prior to the 1950s or so are extremely limited and contain many assumptions based on current trends. The earth could be warming or cook, there’s just limited evidence to establish a true baseline for comparison.
You are so naive, Daniel. The scientific method is not about making an hypothesis and then going out and cherry picking evidence consistent with the hypothesis to proclaim it as fact. It is specifically about looking for evidence that would tend to contradict the hypothesis and, finding none, provisionally accept the hypothesis as long as it bears fruit or is not contradicted by new data. It is most assuredly NOT about accepting the claims of soi disant “experts” as holy writ. Nullius in Verba is the motto – accept no opinion as fact.
There are several lines of evidence which are, in fact, NOT consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. In particular, the failure of global temperatures to rise in the past two decades while CO2 rose an additional 30% above purported pre-industrial levels alone completely demolishes the hypothesis that CO2 is a dominant factor in global temperatures.
The signal, if there is one, is very clearly buried in the noise. When the data are so uncertain, and the system is complex, it is always possible to claim cherry picked consistency with whatever hypothesis you care to produce. As there is no contradiction of the null hypothesis possible, the decision to “go in the direction of global warming is real and manmade” is, indeed, arbitrary. 97% of the studies DO NOT say that global warming is happening and caused by human activity”. See Gabe October 10, 2015 at 6:31 pm above. Such numbers, pulled out of a hat, are intended to sway the gullible, among whose ranks you have self-identified.
If 33% support anthropogenic global warming and 34% support natural global warming, you should add the two numbers, not divide one by the other. The notion that the 97% figure was obtained by dividing one number by the other is beyond ludicrous. How bad do you think scientists are at math?
The number is obtained from actual comparing the studies that support anthropogenic global warming and those that don’t, and it’s calculated additively, not by division.
The last 15 years were the hottest on record, and temperature anomalies have increased in this time frame along with increase in CO2 levels. It’s not only climate scientists, all fields of science support global warming. I’m a biology major so I can attest to the fact that species are migrating further north every year, they mate sooner in year, flowers blossom earlier.
I take my cue from nature, not from human sophostry regardless the source of it.
Daniel, using your methodology would render a 98.1% number (77/78*100).
Actually no, it was widely known by the secular world the world was flat. The bible even says the world was a sphere. Nice try though.
Climate scientists pushing this agenda are not engaged in science, but rather using the language of science to advance a fraud in furtherance of a political agenda. Facts: 1) The atmosphere and a greenhouse have no thermal mechanisms in common. This is irrefutable. 2) Even the climate alarmists agree that the total CO2 present from all sources is about 400 PPM, and man-made contributions only constitute 1% of that total. In now way can this 1% somehow dominate or drive the thermal behavior of the atmosphere. Even the 400 PPM total is so minuscule that it can not drive the thermal behavior of the atmosphere. Not only are the methods, integrity, and analyses of data not in keeping with actual scientific study, but the community has preferred an explanation which violates the very well known and well tested laws of thermodynamics. There is absolutely no theoretical underpinning for the notion that CO2 is somehow a factor in the temperature of our atmosphere. And, thank you for pointing out the misquote everyone continues to use, it is not “97% of scientists”, but rather “97% of CLIMATE scientists”. Considering the behavior of this community, peer review for example becomes a meaningless exercise – only that which adheres to the accepted narrative is allowed to be disseminated, contrary argument and evidence is suppressed.
Why are there no comments about the fact that humans are the first and only(so far) animals to burn fossil fuels and that could contribute to the speeding up of a natural occuring process?
The 97% figure is … mathematically… impossible.
I went back to a petition in 2008…. 30,000 plus scientists – BY NAME – declared their disbelief of a Climate Change Crisis caused by human activity.
If these scientists – even broken down by category of Earth Scientist, PhD or garden variety scientist (their individual CVs can be checked for competency) – are applied to the 3% figure (i.e. those morons who don’t believe) there would need be be orders of magnitude more scientists that agreed – based on the 97% – THAN SCIENTISTS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST.
Which is not a surprise because the studies’ results were pre-determined. This also proves how stupid that Cook and the others are.
http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.ca/2015/10/simple-numbers-prove-that-consensus.html
What I find interesting is that very few people want to submit to the idea that BOTH warming and cooling are happening… Why can’t the answer to this question be that the earth is at somewhat a homeostasis? That there are portions that heat and portions that cool and that had happened forever? Oh that’s right politics… I forgot, that supersedes truth…
Great article, I have it bookmarked! One thing – check the spelling on Joseph Goebells… (not Boebells)
I agree with the article with the exception of the statement that science “is about truth and facts”. Actually science is not a body of facts and its not in the business of proving things so it cant be relied upon as a source of truth. To believe otherwise is called scientism and its a major problem in our society, which is exactly why so many folks are duped by the climate change hoax.
It’s not climate change we have to fear, that’s been going on forever and will continue to go on after mankind has long disappeared from this earth. It’s the FEAR of climate change, and the scenarios that fear births in our minds, that plague us. That’s a liberal construct, one that puts us right where they want us.
Fear mongering is one thing they are good at. Climate change is a cash cow for liberal politicians and scientists. Just throw more fuel on the fear fire and ride it all the way to the bank.
4 Out of 5 Dentists Surveyed Recommend Trident, and people still have bad breath and cavities……
But then, Dentists are not scientists.
You seem very concerned about Jenner’s penis. You couldn’t be a racist because racism about ethnicity not a penis. You can however be a bigot. Merriam-Webster definition — “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” which seems to be your fascination with Jenner’s penis. Science is not a belief and scientific results do not have an agenda.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
Good message overall but Goebbels never said that. It’s a misattributed quote (and used unfortunately in this context). He did say, “Good propoganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that the people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannon be successul in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along that serves a good cause.” (Nuremburg Rally 1934)
‘He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: “Everybody must know what the situation is.” He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American and neutral opinion) — and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.’
-Jacques Ellul, “The Characteristics of Propaganda” in Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classic Essays by Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, eds., (SAGE, 2006) p. 48, note 47.
With all due respect
Could I not go into a middle school science classroom and definitively observe the reaction of burning any fossil fuel and rightly come to the conclusion that it produces co2? Is it too much of an extrapolation to say “well with several billion cars and fossil fuel machines on the planet..there will probably be an observable increase in co2 in the atmosphere”? We know this is how the greenhouse effect works so…Therefore we are increasing the greenhouse effect? No agenda…just common sense brother..real simple common sense. Science doesnt give a damn whether you are left or right wing…it simply is what it is…and if you don’t listen to mother nature..she can be a real bitch.
Human produced CO2 is a small fraction of all CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 also makes up a small fraction of all greenhouse gases