Very few scientists agree that climate change is driven by human activity
You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on the question of whether climate change is man-made, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer.
Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change. And when surveyed, only 18% of scientists believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.
There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of temperature change since 1900 was caused by humans. We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces.
https://expose-news.com/2023/01/23/few-scientists-say-climate-is-driven-by-man/
“Agnotology has the strong potential for misuse whereby a ‘manufactured’ consensus view can be used to stifle discussion, debate, and critical thinking.” — Legates 2013
It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic human-caused warming.
Note that the official “consensus” position – supported though it was by just 0.3% of the 11,944 papers reviewed – says nothing more than recent warming was mostly man-made. Even if that were the case – and the overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on that question, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer – it would not indicate that global warming is dangerous.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels
Eurika …The new Word of the day
Agnotology… is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse.
“Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change.”
Is that a correct restatement?
My guess is that less than 3% of all science papers PERTAIN to climate.
So that statement would be meaningless.
Humans UNDENIABLY cause local climate change, via heat islands and deforestation (and erosion). Beyond that, pollution is the bigger issue for me. In the ocean, water, microplastics, heavy metals, etc.
This analysis of almost 12,000 papers is limited to Climate change ( It is not a survey of all scientific papers)
from the article explaining where this 97% figure came from…Hint…Algore
The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change
A+
The ease with which United Nation types conned western institutions into believing their claims about anthropomorphic global warming, by giving them a false scientific imprimatur, was copied to con those same institutions into believing in the covid emergency, and the clot shots that followed. They overestimated the public’s fear of climate change and covid. Real science about mRNA technology is now bubbling up. It’s not pretty. Ironically, as people turn against those institutions that fraudulently pushed poison shots, they will also turn against them as regards fraudulent climate policies. The tyrants are being outed. It’s time for them to be charged, tried and punished!
HEAR HEAR
I think the word is “Eureka!”
Undeniably to whom, Pedro? The climate has been changing since the world was created.
Was on an Alaska ship, led by a U.S. Forest Service Ranger. She talked about “climate change” – back then, simply global warming. Oh, we are losing our glaciers, oh, we are losing our forest, oh we are losing our wildlife.
what
(Completely ignoring the facts that a) there are glaciers growing as well as receding, and b) that polar bear population was expanding and quite healthy)
So, I asked her. All this tremendous sea life and wildlife and forest growth you have pointed out to us – it relies on melting glaciers to provide nutrients and minerals and water for that wildlife and forest to grow and flourish, right? Yup, she says. So, if you stop the glacier from melting, what will happen to the marine life here, the wildlife here, the expanding forests here?
Crickets.
People who believe in such bogus crap (likely the same nut jobs who believe in covid clot shots) have a terrible time answering logical questions.
Who is man to understand the mind and ways of God…..
“Undeniably to whom, Pedro? The climate has been changing since the world was created.”
If you read my remark again I said
“Humans UNDENIABLY cause local climate change”, alternately
“Humans undeniably cause LOCAL climate change”