Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

If you have already caught me on that bs and lies before, explain why you think I'm full of it... then the second time round when I repeat the same bs... there's no need to explain again.

Like I said, I've read the original article that guy referred to; have discussed it on this very threat before. So it's pretty reasonable for me to call bs when another guy made up stuff about the paper and its author I haven't read in the same paper he claimed to also have read; and he didn't provide any link or reference to his claims of retraction by Cook etc. etc.

Stop with these nonsense mate. You're pulling a Ted Cruz dude.

Hmm.. .mr smarty pants, I'm not a scientist but a sell out politician being given his talking points... so how dare you say climate change flooding poor neighbourhood, driving up food prices, washing away the poor's only livelihood and possibly all their life's savings... how can you as a scientist say that the fact that CC will affect poor and minority population being "close to debate".

I know it's obvious that it'll kill poor people first, but that conclusion being "close to debate", beyond doubt?... that's not scientific at all sir, so your climate hysteria is not scientific at all now is it? You cannot close anything to debate.

What a douche. At least he's paid to be a prick. What's your excuse?

So can I conclude from your response, that you deem yourself sufficiently qualified, by your own personal investigations,to be automatically entitled to dismiss as "bs", any contest, raised to your subscribed 97% consensus viewpoint?

Can I also conclude that you do not consider its detractors to merit that same entitlement?

If so, is your chosen doctrine, and opinion derived therefrom, truly so infallible as to warrant such a stance?

By the way, just so that you know, I am not seeking another tiresome repetition of the "even if my reasoning were somehow wrong, you're still going to be better off by taking my advice" style justification.

This is simply my opinion, but the stances people take in debates, sometimes become akin to "I know I am right! Therefore you are wrong!!"

Can you see how some might interpret your responses to criticism, of the purported consensus, as your very own personal brand of "bs"?

 

[luutzu]

Luu.you don't really know what you are talking about.......We have had as many a 5 cyclones here in NQ in one season.....some close to Cat 5 and others around cat 2or 3 ....This talk about them becoming more severe is just hear say to make the Green Global Warming alarmist feel good....

Say it often enough and the naive will believe you.

Yup, and if they happen more frequently, you'd be saying it happens all of the time, every month so what's the big deal.

Anyway... nothing to worry about.

 

[luutzu]

So can I conclude from your response, that you deem yourself sufficiently qualified, by your own personal investigations,to be automatically entitled to dismiss as "bs", any contest, raised to your subscribed 97% consensus viewpoint?

Can I also conclude that you do not consider its detractors to merit that same entitlement?

If so, is your chosen doctrine, and opinion derived therefrom, truly so infallible as to warrant such a stance?

By the way, just so that you know, I am not seeking another tiresome repetition of the "even if my reasoning were somehow wrong, you're still going to be better off by taking my advice" style justification.

This is simply my opinion, but the stances people take in debates, sometimes become akin to "I know I am right! Therefore you are wrong!!"

Can you see how some might interpret your responses to criticism, of the purported consensus, as your very own personal brand of "bs"?

That Moyleux guy says Cook and others admitted they were wrong about that 97% count. Didn't he?

He claim that Cook and others admit to all those 1200 [12000?] papers aren't at all related to climate science; that Cook admitted to falsely classifying them and they later admit that it was only 44 or something paper in their sample;

He claims that there are no methodology in their paper; that they hid away their data so we won't find out.

I've read the paper he's talking about, and yea, Moyleux just made those up.

And no, the climate scientist's warning being good for us either way is not to say that they're wrong... It is to say that they have no personal economic interests saying what they're saying.

You're listening to oil salesman telling you that it's all fine and good to keep buying and using their oil. Don't worry about it, it's harmless.

Did you also take the tobacco industry's advise on the health benefit of smoking too?

Your honor, who's to know whether smoking causes cancer or not; there are examples of very old people who smoke all their lives and have no problem. Most smokers suffer ill health, but we're sceptical.

 

[noco]

No one's saying bad weather is new.

What's new is its magnitude and the high frequency it's occuring. Like a decade weather event occuring every year; or a thousand year event occuring in less than 1 decade, and all at once across a few US states last year or so.

Don't know noco, if I had witnessed, or my family had lost their home, in a cyclone or a drought... I'd thank the people who's trying to warn that that kind of weather will get more severe, more frequent if such and such aren't done.

For one, they mean well. For two, they got nothing to gain from being right. In fact, they'd have a better chance of being right if they put it out there and walk away, coming back later to tell us they've told us so.

But instead of looking at scientists, you somehow want to believe the freaking oil and fossil industry who's saying... don't worry about it, it's not happening, not going to happen, just keep on using the stuff we have plenty of to make us richer.

And if you, or they, are wrong and people die? Opps?

If the climate scientists are wrong? What would happen? Oh, new jobs, new industry, renewable energy that would last practically forever... and clean water, fresh air.

Dam those scheming watermelon! Wanting us to live well. No thank you!

Yup, and if they happen more frequently, you'd be saying it happens all of the time, every month so what's the big deal.

Anyway... nothing to worry about.

For your information and lack of knowledge, the cyclone season in NQ can run from November to April and not every month...

You are really getting desperate now to have the final word....What is next Luu?

 

[noco]

How Global Warming is explained to the dummies.

 

[noco]

The true facts about Global Warming......There is lots more from where this came from.

 

[cynic]

That Moyleux guy says Cook and others admitted they were wrong about that 97% count. Didn't he?

He claim that Cook and others admit to all those 1200 [12000?] papers aren't at all related to climate science; that Cook admitted to falsely classifying them and they later admit that it was only 44 or something paper in their sample;

He claims that there are no methodology in their paper; that they hid away their data so we won't find out.

I've read the paper he's talking about, and yea, Moyleux just made those up.

And no, the climate scientist's warning being good for us either way is not to say that they're wrong... It is to say that they have no personal economic interests saying what they're saying.

You're listening to oil salesman telling you that it's all fine and good to keep buying and using their oil. Don't worry about it, it's harmless.

Did you also take the tobacco industry's advise on the health benefit of smoking too?

Your honor, who's to know whether smoking causes cancer or not; there are examples of very old people who smoke all their lives and have no problem. Most smokers suffer ill health, but we're sceptical.

It so happens that a dear friend of mine celebrated her 85th birthday earlier this year. She's been smoking on a daily basis, for the entirety of her adult life, and is more physically active than many non smokers half her age! But the populace sure does pester her with their insistence about it being unwise. Perhaps it is unhealthy, but she happens to have managed her life very well despite the perceived risks.

However, in answer to your question, no, I believe it pays to exercise discernment when viewing any proferred information, irrespective of the level of altruism underlying the agenda.

i.e. the evangelical preacher wants to save my immortal soul from eternal damnation! What an altruist! My supermarket wants to sell me groceries, including vitamins and specialised health foods, solely for reasons of profit! So selfish!

These probably aren't the best examples, but I hope you see what I am getting at here. In my experience, whenever something is being marketed, whether it be a material product, a philosophy or an opinion, there is, almost invariably, the presence of an underlying agenda.

Whilst the presence of an agenda can conceivably undermine the integrity of the marketed product, giving rise to the need for discernment, it needn't necessarily be the main issue. Before spurning the offerings of my supermarket, and donning ashes and sackcloth at the behest of my preacher, I consider it prudent to ponder matters, just a little more deeply, lest I make a costly mistake.

In the spirit of the above, would it be possible to delve just a little more deeply into the questions surrounding the integrity of that 97% consensus?

I have at times seen statements to the effect that "if it's science, then it's not consensus, and if it's consensus, then it's not science" being made. However, those citing the consensus, as the scientific basis for their convictions, seem to be of a quite different philosophy.

You've repeatedly defended the 97% consensus. Bearing in mind, my comments on agendas, some of the issues I've seen reported, by those criticising the consensus, are claims that many of the papers counted, didn't explicitly state agreement with, the catastrophic assertions of, the alarmists citing it as the "scientific" basis for their convictions.

Since you claim to have read it, perhaps, you could take us, step by step, through the process used by Cook et al. in the production of the paper.

By so doing, we might be able to finally discover the truth (or lack thereof) underlying the various claims and counter claims being made.

Hopefully, the true source of the "bs", you claim to have identified, might also be uncovered.

 

[GlobeTrekker]

So can I conclude from your response, that you deem yourself sufficiently qualified, by your own personal investigations,to be automatically entitled to dismiss as "bs", any contest, raised to your subscribed 97% consensus viewpoint?

Can I also conclude that you do not consider its detractors to merit that same entitlement?

If so, is your chosen doctrine, and opinion derived therefrom, truly so infallible as to warrant such a stance?

Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view? By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?

Seriously, 97%! Imagine if your child was showing symptoms of heart disease. You're no medical expert, so you take them to see the top 33 heart specialists in the world. Of those 33 specialists, 32 of them say its heart disease and requires immediate treatment (with not a lot of side effects) or your child's health will deteriorate at an accelerating rate, possibly irreversibly very soon. Perhaps they'll survive but their health will be poorer for the rest of their lives; But the last specialist says he isn't sure and will really need to keep monitoring for the next five or maybe ten years just to be absolutely sure - would you really take the risk and go with that option? Especially if there was very little, if any, side effects in undertaking the treatment and really not all that much additional cost (maybe 1 or 2 % of your income) either?

 

[ghotib]

...

I hope you watch the video below from beginning to end of which may give you a different perspective of on the this Global Warming scam.....This presentation gives you some real data which debunks all the information presented by alarmists who follow their creed for the sake of funding.

AAAAAAAAARRRRGH!! Zombie Videos!!!

Wayne posted a link to The Great Global Warming Swindle to ASF way way back when it was new and maybe even Noco was young and I was just old enough to get into An Inconvenient Truth and ignorant enough to think that everyone who talked about global climate was interested in finding the truth of it. I've learnt a bit about climate science and a lot about climate change denial since then. I'm grateful for the science. I'm desperately sad about the denial.

As for Swindle: it was well named.
http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517444.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

 

[noco]

Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view? By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?

Seriously, 97%! Imagine if your child was showing symptoms of heart disease. You're no medical expert, so you take them to see the top 33 heart specialists in the world. Of those 33 specialists, 32 of them say its heart disease and requires immediate treatment (with not a lot of side effects) or your child's health will deteriorate at an accelerating rate, possibly irreversibly very soon. Perhaps they'll survive but their health will be poorer for the rest of their lives; But the last specialist says he isn't sure and will really need to keep monitoring for the next five or maybe ten years just to be absolutely sure - would you really take the risk and go with that option? Especially if there was very little, if any, side effects in undertaking the treatment and really not all that much additional cost (maybe 1 or 2 % of your income) either?

Globe Trekker, how many times do I have to post on this thread about that 97%....It is a farce and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.......Just watch the videos and then make your comments.

I have also posted lots of videos which illustrates the difference between the Alarmists modelling and the actual happenings.......In those videos, if you care to watch them, you will learn from the graphic illustrations just what I mean.

BTW how have you come up with the videos being zombie videos?...Instead of making unfounded terse remarks perhaps you should explain yourself as to the reason why you made that statement

 

[ghotib]

... In the spirit of the above, would it be possible to delve just a little more deeply into the questions surrounding the integrity of that 97% consensus?

I have at times seen statements to the effect that "if it's science, then it's not consensus, and if it's consensus, then it's not science" being made. However, those citing the consensus, as the scientific basis for their convictions, seem to be of a quite different philosophy.

You've repeatedly defended the 97% consensus. Bearing in mind, my comments on agendas, some of the issues I've seen reported, by those criticising the consensus, are claims that many of the papers counted, didn't explicitly state agreement with, the catastrophic assertions of, the alarmists citing it as the "scientific" basis for their convictions.

Since you claim to have read it, perhaps, you could take us, step by step, through the process used by Cook et al. in the production of the paper.

By so doing, we might be able to finally discover the truth (or lack thereof) underlying the various claims and counter claims being made.

Hopefully, the true source of the "bs", you claim to have identified, might also be uncovered.

Cynic, You don't need to waste Luutzu's time getting him to walk you through the process of Cook et al. (2013). Not only does the paper itself describe the methods, but the authors have published everything you need to try out the rating process for yourself. You might even enjoy some contact with real science as a change from the hand waving armchair abstractions you like to share with ASF.

The 97% consensus figure does not come from only one paper. But you probably know that.

 

[luutzu]

It so happens that a dear friend of mine celebrated her 85th birthday earlier this year. She's been smoking on a daily basis, for the entirety of her adult life, and is more physically active than many non smokers half her age! But the populace sure does pester her with their insistence about it being unwise. Perhaps it is unhealthy, but she happens to have managed her life very well despite the perceived risks.

However, in answer to your question, no, I believe it pays to exercise discernment when viewing any proferred information, irrespective of the level of altruism underlying the agenda.

i.e. the evangelical preacher wants to save my immortal soul from eternal damnation! What an altruist! My supermarket wants to sell me groceries, including vitamins and specialised health foods, solely for reasons of profit! So selfish!

These probably aren't the best examples, but I hope you see what I am getting at here. In my experience, whenever something is being marketed, whether it be a material product, a philosophy or an opinion, there is, almost invariably, the presence of an underlying agenda.

Whilst the presence of an agenda can conceivably undermine the integrity of the marketed product, giving rise to the need for discernment, it needn't necessarily be the main issue. Before spurning the offerings of my supermarket, and donning ashes and sackcloth at the behest of my preacher, I consider it prudent to ponder matters, just a little more deeply, lest I make a costly mistake.

In the spirit of the above, would it be possible to delve just a little more deeply into the questions surrounding the integrity of that 97% consensus?

I have at times seen statements to the effect that "if it's science, then it's not consensus, and if it's consensus, then it's not science" being made. However, those citing the consensus, as the scientific basis for their convictions, seem to be of a quite different philosophy.

You've repeatedly defended the 97% consensus. Bearing in mind, my comments on agendas, some of the issues I've seen reported, by those criticising the consensus, are claims that many of the papers counted, didn't explicitly state agreement with, the catastrophic assertions of, the alarmists citing it as the "scientific" basis for their convictions.

Since you claim to have read it, perhaps, you could take us, step by step, through the process used by Cook et al. in the production of the paper.

By so doing, we might be able to finally discover the truth (or lack thereof) underlying the various claims and counter claims being made.

Hopefully, the true source of the "bs", you claim to have identified, might also be uncovered.

My paternal grandfather smoked all his life since he was a teen, he died of old age at 92. My wife's great grandfather smoked since he was in his preteen, he passed away at 101 years of age.

My maternal grandfather on the other hand, died of lung cancer at 55; my own father almost lost his life due to smoking.

Should I look at these four examples and say it's more about genetic, exercise than smoking poisonous chemical?


As to this scepticism about the 97% "consensus"... It's not a consensus in that scientists getting together and vote on it. No peer pressure and kickbacks from the UN and China [yea, it's also a Chinese hoax too].

It became a consensus because a study of all the various published research on climate science showed that 97% of them came to the same conclusion.

Do you realise the scientific, mathematical, probabilistic significance of that?

That almost all papers published at different times, on different aspect of the climate, by different authors, across the world... came to the same conclusion. What are the chances of that being an accident? A fraud?

It's like me giving thousands of arborists different samples from different part of your tree. They analysed it and 97% says the tree's cactus. Then your councilor says.. .what about the other 3%? I'm still a bit sceptical as to the health of your tree because it's still standing and 3% aren't sure.

You'd say what to that councillor? Well fark head, one of those 3% didn't conclude either way because the sample weren't clear to them; the other 2% are either your mamma or retards.


As to the "costs" of being "alarmist".

Did any climate scientist ever say to stop fossil fuel right now, go dark and move back to our caves?

They're saying that if we keep going the way we have, the world will face catastrophic weather events. So we better start to move towards clean and renewable sources.

So using your examples about intention and agendas.... will a clean, renewable and eventually cheap, sources of energy a good or a bad thing?

Does it make sense to be so dependent on a finite resource that will run out in a hundred or so years? Will become ever more expensive and destructive to find and extract? And further add to pollution in both the sea, air, land, ocean.

I've already discussed that paper here before, look it up. Or search and read the original for yourself to see if that guy was honest or not.

 

[luutzu]

Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view? By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?

Seriously, 97%! Imagine if your child was showing symptoms of heart disease. You're no medical expert, so you take them to see the top 33 heart specialists in the world. Of those 33 specialists, 32 of them say its heart disease and requires immediate treatment (with not a lot of side effects) or your child's health will deteriorate at an accelerating rate, possibly irreversibly very soon. Perhaps they'll survive but their health will be poorer for the rest of their lives; But the last specialist says he isn't sure and will really need to keep monitoring for the next five or maybe ten years just to be absolutely sure - would you really take the risk and go with that option? Especially if there was very little, if any, side effects in undertaking the treatment and really not all that much additional cost (maybe 1 or 2 % of your income) either?

And the weird thing is, the economic costs will be much less than staying with fossil but some still just don't want to risk it.

I guess there is such a thing as being too careful.

Take solar energy... the sun will always be there as far as human live is concern. Technology will mean it will get cheaper, more efficient. The Sun being a source of energy that's available everywhere on earth - no need to dig, mine, find, extract, transport...

It's just insane.

 

[cynic]

Even if there is no absolute certainty yet, surely you can look at it from purely a risk assessment point of view? By all means keep checking the science, but with 97% consensus is it really worth the risk to do nothing, particularly given that there is not a lot of downside in taking action?
...

There is no absolute certainty yet on many theories. Unprecedented actions taken, based upon misinformation, do hold the potential to prove costly in unexpected ways.

If you don't understand what I am driving at here, consider the implications of racing into a new, and previously, unknown situation, based upon faulty information, about the theorised risk of inaction.

The consequences cannot truly be quantified, due to the lack of certainty underlying the basis for action, and the action in and of itself.
At times, I've made reference to some of the things that are being overlooked in these calls to action!
In particular the possibility that, elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, arose consequent to a natural biological (rather than artificial technological) necessity.
Concerns about the impacts of a sudden widespread implementation of "renewable energy" technology, have also been alluded to within some posts.

Whilst a theory is uncertain, and proposed actions unprecedented, how can anyone, truly claim to be able to make valid risk assessments?

My evangelical preacher analogy was introduced to highlight(amongst other things) an obvious issue with the "we'd all better do something, just in case it turns out to be true!" assertion.

There are so many people eagerly making that same "just in case" assertion, and yet so few queuing for the confessional!

But then again, unlike some of the unprecedented actions being proposed, confession is a well established practice. So a trip to the confessional probably wouldn't do too much harm, you know "just in case"

 

[luutzu]

There is no absolute certainty yet on many theories. Unprecedented actions taken, based upon misinformation, do hold the potential to prove costly in unexpected ways.

If you don't understand what I am driving at here, consider the implications of racing into a new, and previously, unknown situation, based upon faulty information, about the theorised risk of inaction.

The consequences cannot truly be quantified, due to the lack of certainty underlying the basis for action, and the action in and of itself.
At times, I've made reference to some of the things that are being overlooked in these calls to action!
In particular the possibility that, elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, arose consequent to a natural biological (rather than artificial technological) necessity.
Concerns about the impacts of a sudden widespread implementation of "renewable energy" technology, have also been alluded to within some posts.

Whilst a theory is uncertain, and proposed actions unprecedented, how can anyone, truly claim to be able to make valid risk assessments?

My evangelical preacher analogy was introduced to highlight(amongst other things) an obvious issue with the "we'd all better do something, just in case it turns out to be true!" assertion.

There are so many people eagerly making that same "just in case" assertion, and yet so few queuing for the confessional!

But then again, unlike some of the unprecedented actions being proposed, confession is a well established practice. So a trip to the confessional probably wouldn't do too much harm, you know "just in case"

What!

Climate Scientists are saying CC is real, is happening, will get worst.

Part of the argument people like myself are making, and it is only part of it, done for argument's sake, is that even IF, if CC is a hoax; IF it won't be as bad as is predicted, having cheap, renewable source of energy; clean air and water isn't a bad thing either.

Anyway...

 

[cynic]

Cynic, You don't need to waste Luutzu's time getting him to walk you through the process of Cook et al. (2013). Not only does the paper itself describe the methods, but the authors have published everything you need to try out the rating process for yourself. You might even enjoy some contact with real science as a change from the hand waving armchair abstractions you like to share with ASF.

The 97% consensus figure does not come from only one paper. But you probably know that.

My understanding is that, contrary to the insistence of many alarmists, consensus isn't science.

What!

Climate Scientists are saying CC is real, is happening, will get worst.

Part of the argument people like myself are making, and it is only part of it, done for argument's sake, is that even IF, if CC is a hoax; IF it won't be as bad as is predicted, having cheap, renewable source of energy; clean air and water isn't a bad thing either.

Anyway...

What scientists may or may not have opined, and what scientists have been able to prove, are, to my understanding, distinctly separate things. And I am really, for reasons already stated, not at all impressed by these lame "action will be beneficial even if we're wrong" type justifications.

Some scientists in climate related fields may believe the things you say, others may not!

Is there even a consensus of agreement, on the criteria used, to categorise a person as belonging within the field of climate science?

I was hoping that, this question, amongst others, might be answered during our exploration of Cook's consensus determining process.

Surely, in the absence of rigorous scientific proof, the questions surrounding what may or may not be happening, would need to remain open!

My reason for inviting you to step me through the process that Cook et al. used to produce his paper, was to ensure that we are both referring to the same information whilst discussing concerns, about said consensus, and its construction, thereby improving our prospects of resolving this impasse.

Whilst I do recall mention of the paper, throughout these years, I do not recall seeing any specific explorations of its process of construction, by your good self.

Given your passionate defense, of the purported consensus, and your eagerness to extol the virtues of this religion, I am just a little perplexed by your reluctance to accept my invitation.

 

[luutzu]

My understanding is that, contrary to the insistence of many alarmists, consensus isn't science.

What scientists may or may not have opined, and what scientists have been able to prove, are, to my understanding, distinctly separate things. And I am really, for reasons already stated, not at all impressed by these lame "action will be beneficial even if we're wrong" type justifications.

Some scientists in climate related fields may believe the things you say, others may not!

Is there even a consensus of agreement, on the criteria used, to categorise a person as belonging within the field of climate science?

I was hoping that, this question, amongst others, might be answered during our exploration of Cook's consensus determining process.

Surely, in the absence of rigorous scientific proof, the questions surrounding what may or may not be happening, would need to remain open!

My reason for inviting you to step me through the process that Cook et al. used to produce his paper, was to ensure that we are both referring to the same information whilst discussing concerns, about said consensus, and its construction, thereby improving our prospects of resolving this impasse.

Whilst I do recall mention of the paper, throughout these years, I do not recall seeing any specific explorations of its process of construction, by your good self.

Given your passionate defense, of the purported consensus, and your eagerness to extol the virtues of this religion, I am just a little perplexed by your reluctance to accept my invitation.

Should ask noco for the links, or maybe use the search feature. Or better yet, read the research yourself.

Again, repeating it again here... it was not a polling, dial in, tick the box, raise your hand kind of "consensus". Cook and others did a simple literature review of Climate Science studies - I can't remember whether it was all research that has ever been done, but it was a substantial amount.

They had a set criteria of whose paper would be consider in the count. Such criteria includes publishing x amount of papers on climate science in peer-reviewed journals; maybe also include how much kickback China and Green Peace donate to them, don't know, go check it out.

Then they tallied up the conclusions as they understand it from the abstract. They further contacted the original researchers to as for confirmation as to whether this understanding of their conclusion is correct.

Then they report the findings... that came to what you'd call a "consensus" of 97%.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Only paid spokesmans for the fossil industry, and their fellow sceptics, managed to spin that "consensus" into a ... oh, so science need a consesus now...

anyway, have fun man.

 

[cynic]

Should ask noco for the links, or maybe use the search feature. Or better yet, read the research yourself.

Again, repeating it again here... it was not a polling, dial in, tick the box, raise your hand kind of "consensus". Cook and others did a simple literature review of Climate Science studies - I can't remember whether it was all research that has ever been done, but it was a substantial amount.

They had a set criteria of whose paper would be consider in the count. Such criteria includes publishing x amount of papers on climate science in peer-reviewed journals; maybe also include how much kickback China and Green Peace donate to them, don't know, go check it out.

Then they tallied up the conclusions as they understand it from the abstract. They further contacted the original researchers to as for confirmation as to whether this understanding of their conclusion is correct.

Then they report the findings... that came to what you'd call a "consensus" of 97%.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Only paid spokesmans for the fossil industry, and their fellow sceptics, managed to spin that "consensus" into a ... oh, so science need a consesus now...

anyway, have fun man.

So they had a set of criteria! That's great!

What were the criteria?

And how were those criteria applied?

 

[noco]

And the weird thing is, the economic costs will be much less than staying with fossil but some still just don't want to risk it.

I guess there is such a thing as being too careful.

Take solar energy... the sun will always be there as far as human live is concern. Technology will mean it will get cheaper, more efficient. The Sun being a source of energy that's available everywhere on earth - no need to dig, mine, find, extract, transport...

It's just insane.

It is a shame the Sun does not shine 24 hours per day and of course don't forget those real cloudy days....What happens then?

 

[noco]

The great 97% consensus fraud.