Climate Change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead

[Bar Sinister]

Is technophobia driving climate change denial? At CC climate change has been debated for a number of years and it seems to me that a good deal of the denial of climate change is connected to technophobia. Technophobia is not a particularly new problem. In fact we've had it for centuries, going back to to attacks by Luddites on the new textile machines that threatened their jobs. In that there is a modern parallel. Many of those opposing renewable energy sources and more efficient technology see their jobs being threatened. This would be especially true of anyone connected with the oil industry. However, rather than accept that change happens they deny that such change is possible or even necessary, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.

Let's look at their arguments:
1. Renewables - there will never be enough renewable energy sources to replace oil and coal. That seems pretty weak considering that renewables now constitute almost 20% of energy in the US and grew at a 15% rate last year.
2. No one is making electric cars and if they do make them there are no recharging stations. - Pure BS - electric car production is ramping up and every electric car that is purchased means one less internal combustion engine that is needed. And there are already thousands of recharging stations in the US and Canada.
3. Making electric cars uses more energy and resources than making conventional cars. Well, that is partly true. Electric cars do use slightly more resources and energy in their manufacture. However, they use far less in their use, so that once a year of ownership has passed electric cars have more than paid their debt.
4. Mining materials for advanced batteries is destructive. Well, no doubt it is. But is it more destructive than extracting oil or coal? Probably not. Also, the current battery of choice, the lithium ion battery, may not be around too much longer. There are better and cheaper batteries currently being designed and tested.

I've already posted multiple links to prove my points regarding these issue, so I am not going to post them again. I know that the technophobes won't accept any of this, but they can enjoy their irrational denial. It is only going to be a matter of time before everyone of my points is proven true.

 

[Cliffy]

The entire republican party & the evangelicals will fail to heed this entirely! Sad! - James Buik

Conservatives as well.

 

[Danbones]

Right...but it was progressive liebarrels like hitler stalin and mao that wrecked the place...

and had to blame everyone else like bad children.

 

[Cliffy]

Huh?

 

[mentalfloss]

What's complicated? It's not a consensus.

It's meaningless.

Yes, yes.

Of course little petey.

And oil subsidies don't exist either.

 

[taxslave]

Is technophobia driving climate change denial? At CC climate change has been debated for a number of years and it seems to me that a good deal of the denial of climate change is connected to technophobia. Technophobia is not a particularly new problem. In fact we've had it for centuries, going back to to attacks by Luddites on the new textile machines that threatened their jobs. In that there is a modern parallel. Many of those opposing renewable energy sources and more efficient technology see their jobs being threatened. This would be especially true of anyone connected with the oil industry. However, rather than accept that change happens they deny that such change is possible or even necessary, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.

Let's look at their arguments:
1. Renewables - there will never be enough renewable energy sources to replace oil and coal. That seems pretty weak considering that renewables now constitute almost 20% of energy in the US and grew at a 15% rate last year.
2. No one is making electric cars and if they do make them there are no recharging stations. - Pure BS - electric car production is ramping up and every electric car that is purchased means one less internal combustion engine that is needed. And there are already thousands of recharging stations in the US and Canada.
3. Making electric cars uses more energy and resources than making conventional cars. Well, that is partly true. Electric cars do use slightly more resources and energy in their manufacture. However, they use far less in their use, so that once a year of ownership has passed electric cars have more than paid their debt.
4. Mining materials for advanced batteries is destructive. Well, no doubt it is. But is it more destructive than extracting oil or coal? Probably not. Also, the current battery of choice, the lithium ion battery, may not be around too much longer. There are better and cheaper batteries currently being designed and tested.

I've already posted multiple links to prove my points regarding these issue, so I am not going to post them again. I know that the technophobes won't accept any of this, but they can enjoy their irrational denial. It is only going to be a matter of time before everyone of my points is proven true.

So you are still denying reality.

Even the BCgovernment, which is chock full of truthers has accepted that this winter is longer and colder than what we have experienced in the last few years.

 

[Jinentonix]

Forbes put the number at somewhat lower than 97%. The "study" is also flawed. To put it bluntly, there can't be much more consensus than getting all the lead consensus study authors together to write a consensus on the consensus study.

The other problem with your numbers there Flosstard is the study does NOT differentiate between those who believe AGW is the problem and those who see climate change as a more naturally occurring event.
You'll be hard pressed to find an actual scientist who doesn't agree that the climate is changing. It's always changing. We don't live in a static environment. It's not like Nature went, "Oh, there's the first modern humans, time to stabilize the environment for them so it never changes."

But Cook et al are being incredibly disingenuous making the claim that 99.94% of scientist believe AGW is the problem. It's the reason the kooks switched from calling it AGW to climate change because when it comes to the idea of AGW, the consensus isn't anywhere near 97%

 

[captain morgan]

It really doesn't matter what the ecoweenies push as their agenda and 'proof'.

fact is, no one cares anymore, due to the many frauds and the lack of accuracy in projections, predictions and models.

... But I do enjoy watching them flounder and wallow in their own filth in a desperate attempt to be seen as relevant.

 

[mentalfloss]

Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause

The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.

Widespread scientific consensus

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it.

The scientific consensus is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans.

A more recent peer-reviewed paper examined existing studies on consensus in climate research, and concluded that the 97 percent estimate is robust.

This level of consensus is equivalent to the level of agreement among scientists that smoking causes cancer – a statement that very few people, if any, contest today.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...g-happening-humans-primary-cause#.Wst1oRZE3YU

 

[pgs]

Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause

The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.

Widespread scientific consensus

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it.

The scientific consensus is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans.

A more recent peer-reviewed paper examined existing studies on consensus in climate research, and concluded that the 97 percent estimate is robust.

This level of consensus is equivalent to the level of agreement among scientists that smoking causes cancer – a statement that very few people, if any, contest today.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...g-happening-humans-primary-cause#.Wst1oRZE3YU

I personally knew many non smokers that died of lung cancer . Did smoking cause their deaths ?

 

[Cliffy]

 

[pgs]

Fudge is so good the climate scientists make a habit of using it to shape there figures .

 

[darkbeaver]

Is technophobia driving climate change denial? At CC climate change has been debated for a number of years and it seems to me that a good deal of the denial of climate change is connected to technophobia. Technophobia is not a particularly new problem. In fact we've had it for centuries, going back to to attacks by Luddites on the new textile machines that threatened their jobs. In that there is a modern parallel. Many of those opposing renewable energy sources and more efficient technology see their jobs being threatened. This would be especially true of anyone connected with the oil industry. However, rather than accept that change happens they deny that such change is possible or even necessary, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.

I've already posted multiple links to prove my points regarding these issue, so I am not going to post them again. I know that the technophobes won't accept any of this, but they can enjoy their irrational denial. It is only going to be a matter of time before everyone of my points is proven true.

Climate change denial is virtually non existant. It,s Global Warming that,s being denied because of the very real technological evidence that you claim the opponents of AGW loath and fear. It,s you who are the Luddite BS and you,ve posting nothing but irrational evidence proving that point and no other. I have no doubt that a fanatic like you will be someday chipped out of a block of ice.

 

[pgs]

Climate change denial is virtually non existant. It,s Global Warming that,s being denied because of the very real technological evidence that you claim the opponents of AGW loath and fear. It,s you who are the Luddite BS and you,ve posting nothing but irrational evidence proving that point and no other. I have no doubt that a fanatic like you will be someday chipped out of a block of ice.

Yes good ole climate change . How is the weather today ? Did it change ?

 

[mentalfloss]

I personally knew many non smokers that died of lung cancer . Did smoking cause their deaths ?

How does smoking cause cancer?

The main way that smoking causes cancer is by damaging our DNA, including key genes that protect us against cancer. Many of the chemicals found in cigarettes have been shown to cause DNA damage, including benzene, polonium-210, benzo(a)pyrene and nitrosamines.

This is already bad news, but it’s made worse by other chemicals in cigarettes. For example chromium makes poisons like benzo(a)pyrene stick more strongly to DNA, increasing the chances of serious damage. And chemicals like arsenic and nickel interfere with pathways for repairing damaged DNA. This makes it even more likely that damaged cells will eventually turn cancerous.

Smokers are also less able to handle toxic chemicals than those with healthy lungs and blood. Chemicals in cigarette smoke make it harder for smokers to neutralise or remove toxins, and can make their immune systems less effective too.

How long does it take for smoking to cause cancer?

It usually takes many years, or decades, for the DNA damage from smoking to cause cancer. Our bodies are designed to deal with a bit of damage but it’s hard for the body to cope with the number of harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke. Each cigarette can damage DNA in many lung cells, but it is the build up of damage in the same cell that can lead to cancer. However research has shown that for every 15 cigarettes smoked there is a DNA change which could cause a cell to become cancerous. This is why it’s better to give up smoking sooner rather than later.

How smoking causes cancer | Cancer Research UK

 

[petros]

That's great but he said nonsmokers.

Are you aware Cook and Green created the 97% as a publicity stunt?

"If the public think that climate scientists agree about what is causing global warming, then the public thinks we need to act on it," he said. "If the public thinks scientists disagree, then we might as well wait until the scientists work it out before we do anything about it."

 

[coldstream]

American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus



Americans are gradually becoming better-informed
Public awareness about climate change realities has improved over the long-term. For example, about two-thirds of Americans now realize that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, up from less than half in 1997.

John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, who previously published The Debunking Handbook, teamed up with Sander van der Linden and Edward Maibach to write The Consensus Handbook. It’s a concise and definitive summary of everything related to the expert climate consensus, including how we know 90–100% of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, efforts to manufacture doubt about the consensus, its role as a gateway belief, its neutralizing effect on political ideology, and how to inoculate people against misinformation.

Those last points are particularly important in light of the Gallup survey data. There’s an intense battle over public opinion on climate change, with cues from political elites having a polarizing effect that’s largely offset when people become aware of the expert consensus.

Thus, there’s been a concerted campaign to misinform people about the consensus. That was a key issue that major oil companies accepted in a recent court case, while their fossil fuel-funded supporters denied the consensus in briefs submitted to the court. Meanwhile, the Trump EPA is distributing misleading statements about scientific uncertainty on climate change, helping create this tribal identity that ‘Team Conservative’ denies the realities and dangers associated with human-caused global warming.

However, as the Consensus Handbook discusses, research has shown that inoculating people against misinformation can largely offset its influence... and on..

Everyone knows that the business world lack the least bit of conscience or common sense. They'll endorse anything that seems to appeal to current fads and tastes. Hence its no surprise that it quickly captulated to the zeitgeist of AGW irregardless of how shallow, transient, nonsensical and downright dangerous it is.

Same with many in the political class.

Anyone who looks at this issue beyond fear mongering and pseudo-scientific postulates of the AGW industry... which are buoyed by tens of billions of dollars in investments interests.. realize this an obvious scam. Without an ounce of real scientific credibility or integrity.

And after three decades of this, that industry still hasn't convinced people this is an apocalyptic threat. Most people look at the talking heads supporting this as hysterics and fools. And all of that blather will not hide the fact that this is purely and solely a political and ideogical frame up.. a scam.

 

[Twin_Moose]

That's great but he said nonsmokers.

Are you aware Cook and Green created the 97% as a publicity stunt?

"If the public think that climate scientists agree about what is causing global warming, then the public thinks we need to act on it," he said. "If the public thinks scientists disagree, then we might as well wait until the scientists work it out before we do anything about it."

It was really funny when Scientists where starting to get laid off due to the settled science

 

[captain morgan]

It was really funny when Scientists where starting to get laid off due to the settled science

... And such an overwhelming consensus to boot

 

[petros]

It gets better Cook did it because of his Christian morals.

"As a father, I realized that we are handing over a world to our children that is worse than the world we were given," he said over the phone from Brisbane, Australia. "And as a Christian, I saw climate change as a social justice issue."