The 97% consensus claim on climate change is political propaganda.

The 97% figure is also completely fraudulent.

Not exactly. What it means is that only 3 percent of scientists are actively contesting it. Much of the data does support that the earth is has been warming, but the data is not consistent at to how extreme the warming is and (this is the big one) whether or not the warming is caused by human activity. Most research is neutral as to whether or not it is man made, primarily because as a scientist it is career suicide to say warming is not man made. The climate alarmist count any climate science that doesn't contest climate change as supporting it.

No poll I know of has said 97%.

Try NASA’s statement on the issue

https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp

They back the 97% figure as do other organizations referenced in the link

I already deal with your appeal to irreverent authority before. As I explained, none of the citations from NASA support the 97% number. Trying this fallacy again with the debunked citations and pretending that your argument wasn't shown to be flawed makes you intellectually dishonest

Also just checking the first of the other organisations citations sent me to a study that had nothing to do with the claim of scientists' opinions.

You must have just not looked hard enough because I know that at least the Cook study is cited there

Anyway here’s another guide for your research

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

One thing I learned here is that some climate scientists question whether it’s even valuable to promote the “97% consensus” figure anymore because even this messaging is too charitable toward the skeptics.

As we’ve seen in this very comments thread!

As I explained last time, Cook's own data proves him wrong. Furthermore Cook doesn't try to evaluate the percent of scientist that agree either making it completely irrelevant in addition to being wrong.. Your new link also proves nothing as it relies on Cook's flawed study.

So basically you're thumping your sacred texts and complaining about the heretics that want proof.

I don’t think Cook’s study is flawed — but anyway it’s not all that important to me whether the “proper” consensus figure is 90%, 97% or whatever it might be if we found a paper on this topic with an exact methodology we could both agree on

Bottom-line, I accept the theory not because authorities tell me to, but because it is plausible, makes sense on its own terms, and corresponds with the real-world data

I demand more from the “heretics who want proof” than their mere willingness to stand apart and shout: “more proof!”

At this point, those heretics had better advance a solid theory of their own that explains the changes we see. So far, I have seen them bring no explanation to the table that would withstand an iota of the scrutiny they gleefully apply to others.

What happens when you do just that? Interesting stuff!

https://skepticalscience.com/

A good place to start if you’re willing to be equally skeptical toward the claims of skeptics, which is what anyone professing themselves to be an honest-to-god skeptic would do

Whatever you feel about the study doesn't change the facts. You should offer actual any actual proof when questioned, because so far you only thumped your sacred texts instead. Doing such will not only fail to convenience skeptics, it will converse them that the actual science is a cult like mentality.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

That’s my proof: in a nutshell, and in easily-enough digestible format that I figure folks tooling around on a meme site might actually read it. As with most sources I provide, there are additional links to follow if you care to and you can read along with the supports as long as you want.

Now: where’s yours?

When it comes to proposing an alternate theory, I see no real alternative to citing “sacred texts” of your own, or else just winging it.

And if your answer is something along the lines of: “Well, I don’t need to provide an answer, because I’m not proposing anything: you still bear the burden of proof” then that is essentially an admission that you got nothing.

As I believe in man-made global warming, I do not need to offer an alternative. Thanks for assuming my opinion and attacking me for views I do not hold. As I have told you this before, you should pay more attention to the facts, rather than stuff me in that box.
3lu3z1.jpg (click to show)

Not exactly. Most research is neutral as to whether it is man-made because it is practically impossible to show a causal relationship between something like spiking in temperature variation and one or two of a large number of factors that logically should affect it, like industrial CO2 production and deforestation. Of course this DOES NOT mean that such human factors are not largely responsible. The intelligent thing to do is to reduce the factors that likely contribute, rather than keep on plowing ahead and hoping they don't until it's too late.

I'm more interested in your ideas for gathering and analyzing data and solving the problem

I ageee it is intelligent to reduce factors that mat contribute. But most people Screeching only suggest setting unrealistic limits in the countries with the lowest co2 output, and then fining them for not doing the impossible. It's a money extorting scheme that in reality has nothing to do with lowering carbon emissions (in countries that have lowered them, but not "enough")

What's an unrealistic limit? New technology comes out every year for reducing co2 emissions. Without low limits, no one would be motivated to improve. It can be taken to zero. You'll see.

Except the flat earthers are the climate change supporters and the ones who think gender can be changed...

All science deniers.

That would be a generalization and a very wrong one.

Upvote!
https://i.imgflip.com/3o7wtj.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/3oaziy.jpg

The eyes of corpses do not roll.

A brilliant man that unfortunately passed too soon.

I regret I have but one upvote to give.
3lrmy7.gif (click to show)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw&t=48s

https://i.imgflip.com/3oa192.jpg

Maybe there was a reason that Mike decided to write fiction instead of being a scientist.

*was; *said; *was

Crichton wasn't saying that a majority didn't agree with E= MC2. He was making the point that know one who wishes to be taken as a serious scientist should ever use the term "consensus" when trying to prove the credibility of something. It's not about consensus, it's about what can be tested repeatedly with proven results.

yes i realize that. my point is that he was wrong in saying that nobody in science says things like "the consensus agrees that e = mc^2". we do say that specifically, and we say that kind of thing all the time. we ALWAYS question generally accepted theories because NO theory is ever a sure thing. he should have known that, but on that day at least, he didn't.

Wow I didn't know you needed to have 5 related phds to have credibility when making a philosophical statement.

Just check with me first next time.