Climate and the number of deniers

[jpl458]

The number of climatologists who deny climate change is very small compared to the overall scientific community. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is happening and that human activities are the primary cause. Various studies and surveys have shown that approximately 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree on the evidence of climate change and its anthropogenic causes.

For instance, a 2013 study published in the journal "Environmental Research Letters" reviewed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science and found that 97.1% of those that expressed a position endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing global warming. Other surveys and studies have consistently found similar levels of agreement among climate scientists.

While there are a few climatologists who might dispute the consensus, they represent a very small minority within the scientific community.

 

[Isaac]

Another fire starter I see.

The number of people who thought Zantac was killing people was zero for no fewer than forty years., during which time it was a blockbuster med. You never really know.

 

[Isaac]

For instance, a 2013 study published in the journal "Environmental Research Letters" reviewed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science and found that 97.1% of those that expressed a position endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing global warming.

Gatekeeping.

 

[MarkK]

Gatekeeping.

I wear a seat-belt in my car. The chance of actually being in an accident is vanishingly small, but the consequences are potentially disastrous.

In climate change, even if you believe the chance of it being caused by humans is vanishingly small, the consequences are potentially disastrous.

Do you wear a seat-belt in your car?

 

[Jon]

The number of climatologists who deny climate change is very small compared to the overall scientific community. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is happening and that human activities are the primary cause. Various studies and surveys have shown that approximately 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree on the evidence of climate change and its anthropogenic causes.

For instance, a 2013 study published in the journal "Environmental Research Letters" reviewed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science and found that 97.1% of those that expressed a position endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing global warming. Other surveys and studies have consistently found similar levels of agreement among climate scientists.

While there are a few climatologists who might dispute the consensus, they represent a very small minority within the scientific community.

That 97% report has been debunked endlessly. In fact the author even assumed positions that scientists took when they never explicitly stated those positions themselves. Scientists have come out and said they never said what the author claimed. But the politicians still ran with it. Why use fake reports if the arguments are so good?

 

[Jon]

I wear a seat-belt in my car. The chance of actually being in an accident is vanishingly small, but the consequences are potentially disastrous.

In climate change, even if you believe the chance of it being caused by humans is vanishingly small, the consequences are potentially disastrous.

Do you wear a seat-belt in your car?

What if you wearing your seat-belt actually somehow harmed others? What if diverting funds to climate change mitigation - and to follow your argument it might never happen - meant less money could go to healthcare, help the needy, overseas aid. You get it my drift? I think the right word for this is "opportunity cost."

Now before you jump down my neck and say I am a climate denier, or other Nazi associated loaded term, you don't actually know what my position is on the subject!

 

[Isaac]

I still remember when 90% of scientists thought it was "global warming". Notice when they realized they were wrong, they changed the name to Climate Change as it fit what people actually witnessed better. 100% of scientists used to think the earth was flat, too

 

[Isaac]

I wear a seat-belt in my car. The chance of actually being in an accident is vanishingly small, but the consequences are potentially disastrous.

In climate change, even if you believe the chance of it being caused by humans is vanishingly small, the consequences are potentially disastrous.

Do you wear a seat-belt in your car?

I do, except the chances of being in an accident is NOT vanishingly small. Almost 100% of people will be in a car accident in their lifetime, as demonstrated by experience.

As Jon said this is not a cost-free choice, it is an immense (vanishing? ) cost for something that very likely we have no way of telling whether this is a linear trend or just a cycle that we haven't had human records long enough to recognize the piece of the cycle that we're in.

If you were born in February, by August you would be 100% convinced - as would 100% of the others on your born-in-February island - that you were going to boil to death and that was it.
You'd have no idea you were in the middle of a yearly cycle, would you?

 

[jpl458]

That 97% report has been debunked endlessly. In fact the author even assumed positions that scientists took when they never explicitly stated those positions themselves. Scientists have come out and said they never said what the author claimed. But the politicians still ran with it. Why use fake reports if the arguments are so good?

Where is proof of what you say?

 

[Mike Krailo]

Putting on seat belt on is whole lot easier than stopping a fictional global disaster. Here come the gas lighters.

 

[Jon]

The problem with the whole climate debate debacle is that politics has gotten involved with the science. If it were just scientists arguing the toss amongst themselves, then it would be a different matter. However, social justice and save=the=planet virtue signalers have invaded the space. The left-wing politicians flood the narrative, and provide research budgets accordingly. With so much money thrown at the problem, you get tons of people finding out why human caused climate change is real, rather than if it is caused more by other factors, like cyclical variations that have happened throughout the earths history. You don't get the funding if you go down that route.

Ultimately, I think the AI revolution will solve many of these potential climate issues, if they are indeed possible to solve or mitigate. Wait until we get to AI super-intelligence. We are currently like single cell organisms in comparisons to what these new beasts will be able to compute.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I still remember when 90% of scientists thought it was "global warming"

That was after 90% of scientists thought it was the advent of a new ice age. After they were called out by switching their song to "warming", was when they decided they had to call it "change" because they had no freaking idea what the weather would be tomorrow let alone in 50 years.

What I want to know is why are the people who believe humans are the proximate cause of "climate change" not calling for population control? Why did they not laud China for its one child policy?

I wonder if gas emissions from dinosaurs produced enough methane to cause global warming and led to their extinction? Maybe they're not as gassy as cows.

I was in a car accident yesterday. The idiot behind me thought the red light meant go. Luckily he wasn't going that fast so it didn't wreak my car as the last idiot who rear ended me when I was stopped for a light did. So, I pulled over, and so he passed me and was gone in a flash. Somebody a few cars behind him stopped to see if I was OK (the world contains many good people) and someone else saw the whole thing and got a partial plate. So, I encountered two of them in a 1-minute span. The cop who wrote up the accident report for my insurance company told me about the phone call. I don't know if they got enough numbers to find the criminal though but it was really nice of the lady to try.

 

[Jon]

Where is proof of what you say?

I could ask you the same question. But since you asked so nicely...

Here is an example video explaining some of it:

Several years ago, I watched a long in-depth video on John Cook's report where he concluded that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real. But YouTube being run by a left-leaning organisation, I can no longer find that video. I did try though because it was thorough, interesting and eye-opening.

 

[Isaac]

Wow that stinks - coincidentally my brother in law was just rear ended yesterday (minor, $1k damages maybe), and thankfully the lady stopped and exchanged supposed insurnace information - but now State Farm says they cannot get ahold of her! over and over for days. called her and it picked up and hung up.

My old debt collection days triggered an instinct. Decided to use a minor scare tactic. Texted her very nice at first - would she please call State Farm, etc., then added something about I called the State Patrol but they said you have a week to respond before they get involved. Totally made up, but boy - she texted me back REAL nicely in about 30 seconds. It's sad you have to scare people to get them to do the right thing, but she figured she could disappear into thin air.

glad you weren't hurt apparently

 

[jpl458]

The problem with the whole climate debate debacle is that politics has gotten involved with the science. If it were just scientists arguing the toss amongst themselves, then it would be a different matter. However, social justice and save=the=planet virtue signalers have invaded the space. The left-wing politicians flood the narrative, and provide research budgets accordingly. With so much money thrown at the problem, you get tons of people finding out why human caused climate change is real, rather than if it is caused more by other factors, like cyclical variations that have happened throughout the earths history. You don't get the funding if you go down that route.

Ultimately, I think the AI revolution will solve many of these potential climate issues, if they are indeed possible to solve or mitigate. Wait until we get to AI super-intelligence. We are currently like single cell organisms in comparisons to what these new beasts will be able to compute.

Is your argument that climate change is not caused by humans? Or that there is no climate change. They are different positions.

 

[Mike Krailo]

This thread is pointless. All gas lighting.

 

[jpl458]

I could ask you the same question. But since you asked so nicely...

Here is an example video explaining some of it:

Several years ago, I watched a long in-depth video on John Cook's report where he concluded that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real. But YouTube being run by a left-leaning organisation, I can no longer find that video. I did try though because it was thorough, interesting and eye-opening.

Interesting. Do you have more?

 

[Jon]

Interesting. Do you have more?

I don't have time to find more. But you can search Google to see a counter perspective of the usual narrative on this.

 

[Jon]

Is your argument that climate change is not caused by humans? Or that there is no climate change. They are different positions.

My argument is that the argument has become polluted by politics.

The climate does change. There is likely to be some human element. How much is up for debate.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Interesting. Do you have more?

Do you believe dairy cows play a part in climate change do to flatulence?