Source: Skeptical Science

Category: Science

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

8 Responses to “97% Consensus (File Under Stuff You Should Know By Now)”

  1. Dogfish says:

    “When the direction of the wind changes, some people build walls, some people make windmills.” … optional substitution of “quality” for “direction”, and “astroturfing campaigns” for “walls”.

  2. theexpertisin says:

    It matters not.

    Wars, recessions, depressions and national interest (such as China’s new coal fired mega power plants) will trump any long term climate change planning.No Southeast Asian is going to stop heating food in their wood and coal fueled cooking pot. Cows will continue to fart. Fossil fuel, in large measure, will have no substitute for many decades or longer for practically all of the world’s population.

    As a casual observation, I see no decline in the elites of the world buying first row beach real estate, pleasure yachts and private jets. Maybe they drive a Tesla as a good will gesture to Mother Earth..

  3. IanMud says:

    And among those scientist that publish …

    “Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!
    One. Yes, one.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

    If you are keeping score, that is 9,135 to 1. Kinda makes the 97% figure look downright wishy-washy.

  4. Fehro says:

    97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warning agree global warning is happening and we are the cause… I’m more interested in what the 97% of papers on climate change state. A little confirmation bias?

    • SumDumGuy says:

      It actually works the opposite. If you can prove the consensus wrong, and have peer reviews confirm your findings, then you’ll be famous and make all sorts of $$.

  5. Molesworth says:

    @fehro, I am confused by you assertion.
    Do you understand the how the concept of confirmation bias works vis a vis scientific studies and findings?

  6. IanMud says:

    If you understand what scientists do, you understand that there job is to make assertions that can be supported and refute assertions that cannot. The idea that scientists are in some form of cabal runs completely contrary to the way science works. If you happen to be a skeptical climate scientist, the best thing you can do to make an impact and a name for yourself is to look at the peer reviewed literature and refute that which is unsupportable. The fact that those refutations are almost entirely behind us speaks to the underlying validity of the science, not some impossible to achieve conspiracy or bias on the part of scientists.

  7. kaleberg says:

    Personally, I agree that the climate is changing in response to our carbon fuel consumption, but I also don’t think the cause matters. Even if it turns out that the cause of our warming climate is an alien asshole with a gigantic magnifying glass, we still have to move away from carbon fuels. We can keep bumping up the supply, but the supply is not going to last forever, especially if all 8 or 9 or 10 billion of us move to higher energy using lifestyles. There are plenty of energy alternatives that are rapidly getting cheaper and more practical, and if we put in a small fraction of the money we spend subsidizing carbon fuels, we could move to these alternatives more quickly and, in the long run, more cheaply. If this slows global warming, great, but I wouldn’t take it to the bank. Moving beyond carbon fuels would be its own reward.

    Further, whether we believe that the changing planting zones in the Burpee catalog are just some hippy dippy plot to sell Big Boy tomato seeds to Alaskans, we are still going to have to deal with higher temperatures and rising sea levels. Even if we completely stopped adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we are not going to go back to the old climate regime any time soon. Already, people are looking at Manhattan and saying it will need flood gates to protect it, just like Venice. I’m not even sure what people are saying about Florida, except to keep your sump pump in order and get a backup unit.

    Granted, our prevailing anti-government, anti-anything-but-a-profit-making-corporation attitude has given us a can’t do, but we can lobby for handouts, attitude. All I can say is that I’m glad there are communists running China who actually take long range planning seriously. Maybe they’ll sell us the technology we need to pull through.