97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree

97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree


97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree “97 percent of climate scientists agree:
Humans are causing global warming.” It’s one of the most famous statistics in
all of science: That experts, the people who know the most about Earth’s climate, agree–almost
universally–that humans are warming the planet. Where does this 97% number come from? The most famous source of the 97% agreement
comes from a study in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook. He looked at almost 4,000 scientific papers
that made some statement about whether humans were the main cause of climate change. And 97% of those papers agreed with the consensus. To make sure nothing was misinterpreted, he
also asked scientists to rate the views of their own papers, and they found the same
97% agreement. It shouldn’t surprise you to learn that
people have attacked this study, saying its methods were wrong, and that it miscounted
things. But even if we ignore Cook’s study, turns
out lots of other people have looked at this question and found a similar answer. Between 90-100% of experts
agree the climate is changing, Earth is getting warmer, and we’re responsible for a lot
of it. What does it mean to measure consensus? First, you identify the experts. In this case, the experts are thousands of
scientists who study climate and publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review means that every finding that’s
published is analyzed by people working in the same field, people who really know what
they’re talking about. It’s not flawless. Mistakes occasionally happen, but this system
is built to correct those mistakes, and it’s by far the best process humans have ever come
up with for doing good science. Once we find this group of experts, we analyze
their opinion: for or against a particular idea. Sometimes this is done by studying what scientists
have written in their papers. Other times scientists are surveyed directly. This can even be done by listening to what
scientists say in public. Now some scientists don’t explicitly express
an opinion either way. They’re not included in the analysis. Consensus is the fraction who support an idea
divided by the sum of those who support plus those who reject the idea. All these different methods have ended up
with the same conclusion: The people who know the most almost universally agree about what’s
causing global warming. But if you ask everyday people what they think
the consensus is, they guess that only 55% of climate scientists agree. That’s way off from what experts actually
think. Why does this gap exist? Because–surprise!–there are people out
there who spend a lot of money and effort manufacturing doubt. A big argument among critics of the 97% agreement
is that in a lot of research papers, scientists never specifically write “humans are causing
most global warming”. These papers are usually excluded from studies
about consensus, because they don’t give a position either way. People draw different conclusions from this. Some say not giving a position is exactly
what you’d expect from scientists who agree that something’s basically settled, like
how physicists don’t write “gravity is real” in every single paper, biologists
aren’t regularly citing Darwin and natural selection. They’re accepted as true. But critics of global warming science claim
that any scientist who doesn’t specifically say in every paper that they agree with the
consensus, should be counted as uncertain, or even counted as rejecting it. And this is a very strange claim to make,
that any climate scientist who doesn’t write “I believe that humans are the main cause
of global warming” is actually uncertain or doesn’t believe that humans are the main
cause of global warming. To show you why this is flawed, let’s apply
the same logic to another scientific idea. Plate tectonics is the theory that Earth’s
crust is made up of several large chunks that move over time, and that new crust is made
at some places and eaten up at others. Not a controversial idea today, but you might
be surprised to learn that before the 1950s and 60s, most scientists didn’t accept it. Researchers looked at recent geology papers
using the same criteria the critics of global warming science claim should be used on climate
consensus: That any paper that doesn’t explicitly state that “plate tectonics is real” should
be counted as uncertain, or as rejecting it. Turns out, not one single paper, out of hundreds,
specifically endorsed the theory of plate tectonics. So clearly, plate tectonics is a hoax? Doubt about what’s causing climate change
really only exists among people who… how do i put this… aren’t experts. And that’s a big problem, because when we
think scientists are divided on an issue, we’re less likely to think the issue is
a problem. This also means if more people understood
how much agreement there really is about humans causing climate change, we could start paying
attention to more important questions like “what do we do about it?” People sometimes say that science doesn’t
work by consensus, or by agreement, and that every truth must be decided by experiment. But this is wrong. Consensus, or agreement, is a hugely important
part of science. When scientists do experiments, they don’t
repeat or re-establish every single bit of knowledge that got them to that point. They, and I hope we, trust in the process
of science. In every field, there are things that are
well-enough proven, that are agreed upon, and these are where scientists start from
to journey out into what’s actually unknown. And when it comes to the science of global
warming and climate change, experts agree overwhelmingly on the cause. maybe it’s time we accept the consensus,
I think it’s time we start talking about what’s really important. That’s why I’m excited today to announce
a new project here on YouTube, one I’ve been working on for most of the last year. It’s a new channel dedicated to stories
about climate change and climate science, called Hot Mess. Have a look: It’s brought to you by the same amazing
people that make these awesome videos here on It’s Okay To Be Smart, along with a few
new faces Hot Mess is going to be the best channel on
YouTube for stories about our planet’s changing climate. I know that’s something that a lot of you
care about. So come join us over at Hot Mess. Stay Curious.

100 comments

  1. There's consensus around the consensus. That should settle that, right? Check out my new show HOT MESS for more!

  2. From your perspective "Natural Science" is a "Social Science", therefore you do not understand "Natural Science" at all. In other words this is FAKE INFORMATION presented by a complete idiot.

  3. Just so you know scientists do not use I in their scientific papers.
    There for I believe….. shouldn't be for a scientific paper.

  4. The more I look into it, the more the Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming theory looks like the religious point of view.

  5. They didn't ask anyone. They looked at 100% funded climate studies looking for co2 and 97% found it and got another grant. The consensus is really about 99.5 to .5 of scientist that have expertise in climate studies. The 99.5% say co2 is not driving climate change. There is truth to be found. Here's a start:

    The goal of science is truth. The role of government is power.
    Weather you believe in conservative ideas of limiting the governments power, or progressive ideas of expanding government; science does not work when guided by government. Governments have agendas and that's how science becomes untrue.

    Let's talk the co2 science. In the history of the earth, the co2 averages around 2500-2600 ppm. In this time, co2 and temperature have had no correlation except in recent times (300K years) where co2 lags temperature. Meaning the temperature goes up and then co2 is released from warming oceans. Not the other way around. This is a fact and not in dispute in the scientific community. co2 is a greenhouse gas along with methane and water vapor. When they say 97% say co2 is warming the planet, it's true and i'm surprised 3% disagreed with it. Let's talk about how much. The greenhouse effect is not the primary control on temps. This falls in the face of known science. There are cycles that are more important. The shape of earth's orbit around the sun (milankovitch cycle 100k years) and the suns output phase (solar cycle is about a decade). The latest strong push for legislation comes from an understanding that these cycles are about to put us in a extended cooling trend.

    The argument: Climate change is primarily man made and driven by co2. Man made co2 is about 3% of the co2 of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is 95% water vapor and 4% co2 and tiny bits of other gases. So humans are responsible for .0012 of the total greenhouse effect that isn't a primary factor in temperatures. Before we inadvertently added co2 to the atmosphere, the co2 level was at 180 ppm. The co2 level had been steadily declining due to the natural cycle. Plants die at 150 ppm. We have accidentally changed our planet from yellow to green, but we have a ways to go. We are at 400 ppm. Plants best thrive with co2 over 1200 ppm.

    Now lets talk politics. Governments (especially the UN) have been looking for doomsday issues for most of my lifetime. I would go through the list, but if your over 20, you should have a clue. The climate "scientist" ar are scaring our children are not always lying, but they are creative in their delivery of the facts. So let's look at what they are saying and why.

    what they say: They show things like a "hockey stick" graph that shows temps skyrocketing. Well the data is fudged. The grapgh timeline is over 1000 years, it should look like a odd W, but they conveniently left out periods of warming early in the millenia. Most of the other graphs are not lies, but they are at a timescale that in climate terms are irrelevant. I saw a graph of glacier reduction that has an origin point is 1985. It looks scary, but in terms of the big picture, it's meaningless. In fact, if you zoom out of each of the alarmist generated graphs, it ALWAYS looks exactly as expected. If there existed a single data observation outside what's expected then sound the alarm. The fact is, that doesn't exist.

    Why they say this stuff: Two reasons why this is happening. 1) the government studies are written with a scope or in a way as to get a predetermined answer. 2) The "alarmist" know if they tell the truth, they lose their job and get no more money. Many of them believe what they are saying and think that it's their duty to mislead the public because it's for a good cause. Understanding the context of alarmist information isn't hard, but the fact is the common person really only has access to one viewpoint. The sheer volume of misinformation created by the Soros/moveon machine is enormous.

    Where is the dissent? There's a bunch of it out there and by real climate scientists. The problem is they don't get much airtime and are harassed for their views. Here is a short list of smart folks that can better explain this than I can: Tim Ball, Pat Moore, Pat Michaels, Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen…

    The urge to save the planet is almost always a false front to rule -HL Mencken

    It's a power grab and not even very unique. Remember the cow farts are going to doom the planet.. I do.

    God bless and don't let these people give your kids need for therapy. Tell them the truth (that means no TV in this era)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE

    I argue about the role of co2 and after the talking points run dry, I am accused of working for the oil industry. Where is all of this oil money and why can't we get some on main stream TV to debunk the billions being paid for by my tax dollars? I know science and know who's "playing scientist" when I see it. Why aren't the co2 skeptics being funded to put the truth on air? Internet is fine, but so many people think that they are seeing truth on the news.

  6. Who is paying for this BS? 80% of humans live in cities and 80% of humans agree cities are getting warmer. This phenomenon has a name. It is something one can measure by driving your IC car from the city into the cool countryside. Try this experiment and enlighten yourself. 97% of Climate Scientists means the conflicted geeks who are paid big bucks to repeat the misinformation required for further employment. Please, 'Smarty Pants' try something outside the outrageous statements of the climate cabal. If this was 12th century you would support the Spanish Inquisition because the Catholic Church was the curator of all knowledge. Turn to Protestantism instead. Forget journalism and go back to school.

  7. Yeah… I wonder how many scientists believed flies originated out of nowhere back when Luis Pasteur proved them wrong …

  8. We are taking as a true assumption that humans are causing the climate change. Where are the studies that back up this affirmation?

  9. What a surprise asking the wrong questions results misrepresents views.

    Media: ‘just agree’

    Questions that vastly generalize tend to show that everyone agrees hence politicians only answer if they are able to generalize it enough so nobody can disagree

    Rather misleading, though not surprising as this is the trend.

  10. in the 1500's everyone believed the earth was flat. The majority is rarely right. Luckily we didn't face an existential threat from whether the Earth was flat or not. Climate change is an existential threat. Can we afford to doubt it? Even if it isn't as serious as predicted, kicking the fossil fuel habit must absolutely happen because its a finite resource. We need to advance our civilization and one good way is to invest in cleaner energy. Its just common sense.

  11. For those of you truly believe that global warming is caused by human, do yourself a favor, in order of keep bitching, put it into actions. Stop doing or using things that you think it causes global warming. IE, stop flying, stop driving gasoline car, stop buying clothes every season, stop using bottled water, stop watching race cars, stop heating or cooling your home, install solar panel, etccc… I can go on and on . If you have enough people doing it, it will put a dent on that industry economically, and it will go extinct in a hurry. I have been driving an electric car since 2011, and enjoying it.

  12. Yeah well, in Galileo's days, 99.99% of all scientists believed earth to be flat. If "Consensus" is scientific, the earth would be flat by popular belief…..

  13. Question. Scientists who don’t take a position either way are excluded from the analysis, but research papers that don’t take a position are considered to confirm anthropogenic warming? How does that make sense for data collection?

  14. no the consensus thing is wrong. Say I ask a thousand+3 football pundits who they though would win the league and 100 said Man united and 3 said Liverpool and 900 said they did not know. the Consensus is about 10% think man U would win the league not 97%.

  15. Why is so hard to put a stake in this false belief. Listen to the video helps explain it. Peer review by others whose funding depends on the climate change industry. Once a belief system like global warming has its believers it will stay around forever if if it has to morph a thousand times. Over population >>> Acid rain >>> Global warming >>> Climate change >>> Climate crisis >>> a thousand more inventions of imagination. Just send us all your money, give up all your money, and shut up and don't ask any questions. A different generation but game plan stays the same.

  16. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-9/

  17. There is so much disinformation in this presentation that I question a anything this clown has ever said. Just read the story behind the absurd "Great Barrier Reef Dying" scam that Dr. Peter Ridd was fired from James Cook University for exposing…… https://youtu.be/3WbGVAo1hyQ

  18. Climate scientists don't know all there is to know about what drives the climate. There are 100s of branches of science that are involved. If you took a consensus on how many physicists or astrophysicists believe CO2 is driving the climate you would get a much different result.
    Water vapour and the sun has much more of an affect on climate than CO2.

  19. "97% of Climate Scientists Really Do NOT Agree." You know the saddest thing about the climate "debate" is there is no debate. The claim is based on a paper by John Cook Uni ofQ whose own abstract said he read the abstract of 11,000 papers on climate change. Apparently 64% expressed no opinion and the 97% came from the remaining 32%. Not surprisingly there were no papers included from well known climate sceptics. How pathetic!!
    I firmly believe after watching a few dozen videos that those, who "believe" in man induced climate change, have shut up shop and are not interested in listening to an alternate assessments of the facts. The only argument they know and then regurgitate is basically the same LIE "I believe the science is in," "the consensus proves it", "97% of scientists believe in global warning." When asked to explain 1) what exactly is the carbon cycle, 2) how CO2 is a pollutant 3) if CO2 is plant food what is an ideal atmospheric level to sustain life 4) to present one piece of credible evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is not natural and caused solely by fossil fuels "They havent got a clue.*
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAuHzcexcM&t=2446s

  20. Well, you are not smart at all. Otherwise, you would have better arguments and have looked to more information regarding the "consensus" (just read the comments here, and you will find lots of info that shows this consensus is not real).
    In Canada, the government (Environment Canada) stated that it was going to be a warm fall (due to "climate change")… So far it is very cold.

  21. If all of those 'scientists' cease using cars, stop using coal/fossil fuel powered appliances and electricity and has continued to plant trees left and right and every single material they use are renewable then maybe perhaps I will follow suit. Actions speak louder than words.

  22. Once politics infiltrates into any branch of human endeavour, that endeavour is perverted. The UN and IPCC have completely poisoned Climate Science. They expect us to simply ‘believe’ because their ‘experts’ tell us there is an emergency. Science, unlike politics, welcomes questions and skepticism. That’s one reason it should be crystal clear that what is being rammed down our throats is Climate Politics and NOT Climate Science!

  23. But… They don't though? This is a fact. If there is a consensus within the scientific community, it's not science.

  24. 500 scientists just Debunk climate emergency. Democrats are just trying to scare us to make more money. Democrats are lying. 1970 there was a show saying that climate change was happening back then but it was getting colder. Now they're using hotter. 1972, 1978 there was a show that we will live in ice age in the next 22 years. 1990 same thing. Democrats are just trying to scare us.

  25. 98% of chiropractors agree that they can cure scoliosis by cracking your back, according to all the peer-reviewed chiropractic journals. 99% of homeopaths say they can cure cancer with water, according to peer-reviewed homeopathy journals. Why only 97% for climate scientists, can't you people get together and agree on something in your own journals, reviewed by your own peers?

  26. I think this consensus is statistically correct however the stats can be manipulated by unscrupulous people. Here is a consensus that I would like to see is, the exact percentage of human caused climate change. If you are using models well that’s bogus. If they can show data in the last hundred years and use real time data through the increase of climate change I might not call it a fantasy. But the data that I have viewed states if humans are a cause of climate change it is less than 1% over the period of 100years and is not increasing in any dramatic way. So all said scientists on said papers should state this percentage and prove it. I myself don’t view carbon dioxide as pollution and if it does cause some heat retention on the planet it’s very small and it appears that doubling or tripling the over all amount does not really increase its ability to retain more heat. How long is it gonna take for the oceans to rise and polar ice disappear. Well it should have happened by now according to these same scientists and it has not. So is it possible that the consensus is incorrect and if it is how can you prove that. For instance polar bear die outs didn’t happen in fact they have the highest population right now of the last 100 years. So that is a bogus prediction, world wide tropical reef destruction, well it appears the Great Barrier Reef is flourishing, another bogus prediction. Ice caps disappearing well they are just fine another bogus prediction islands sinking not happening in fact Mr Obama bought huge mansion on the beach. So from what I can see with my own two eyes is a bunch of wrong data being used by hypocrites to control people with no save the world agenda but to line their pockets and to control the masses for power. If others can’t see this eat more protein to fix your brains and investigate yourselves and quit being lead around like sheep to the slaughter.

  27. hmmmm no. 97% of scientist agree we are responsible for the rise in C02, which is one factor and not even proven to drive global warming. So no. Just stop with this dogma.

    Richard Lindzen on the politization of climate science
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBrV0VFcbY

  28. This video is misleading. I rather believe that there is a god than that human capable of causing some magical global warming effect. We do CONTRIBUTE to it yes. But we don't CAUSE it. There are billions processes on this planet that would be here despite our existence and temperature changed every now and then cause of them. Planet itself gives way more to the climate CHANGE than humans do.
    It would be great if all countries start recycling stuff, just to be sure that planet isn't polluted with trash, but in terms of GLOBAL WAAAAARMIIING WHOOooOOOoo (scary?) humans can fart as much as they like.
    Alsp planet is a rock it doesn't care about you being antyhuman. It will live on after humanity dies many many drifting through space milleniums.

    Also what about this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4&list=PLNf8bpcm04PCsSJLAUVGlJSv79lP3d0H6&index=18&t=0s

  29. There's a big difference between cause and contribution.

    First you say 'humans are warming the planet' like it's only our fault, but then when you cite the other studies for confirmation you say 'planet is warming up and we contribute'.

  30. well, what about the consens about NASA "adjusting" the temperature data?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r4x8RCAAww&t=8s

  31. I expect this is the sort of nonsense they show in schools.
    No real evidence or facts, just self-righteousness, hyperbole, and an unwillingness to listen to the scientists who aren’t being funded by governments/big businesses.

  32. Myths of the 97% : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJujb-VnaCM . Consensus means the models are irrefutable truths. But a principle of science is : A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
    Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. (Karl Popper).

  33. What is consensus?
    Consensus is where you agree with the dogma we put out or:
    1) You won't have a job
    2) You won't get published
    3) You'll be ridiculed non stop and relegated to the intellectual dustbin
    Just ask Copernicus. In 1500 the "settled science" (dare I suggest 97%?) concluded all the heavens orbited the earth.

  34. Some agree on some things. some agree on other things. They rarely agree on everything or there wouldn't be so much controversy

  35. Climate change scientists are politically motivated, always in search of their next government grant and if there's no man-made climate crisis then there's no money for climate crisis scientists. Who are these climate change scientists anyway? I know who Greta Thunberg, Al Gore and Bill Nye the science are but I can't name one real climate change scientist, not one out of 97%. I can although, produce a letter signed by 500 scientists stating to the UN that there is no Climate Emergency. If you don't believe these scientists then do your own research. I would start with the Ice Ages, note the plural and then move on to sunspot activities and Milankovitch cycles, also check-out the NASA story on how the earth is greening because of the increased CO2 levels.
    Here's my prediction, the earth will continue to warm and coastal cities will be flooded despite man's efforts. After this warming cycle ends the earth will start to cool to a point where much of North America and Europe will be under vast sheets of ice, miles thick and the Sahara Desert will be the great Oasis it once was.

  36. The question is…. 97% of how many? Did they ask ALL scientists or ONLY THOSE that would give the answer they want? Polls and statistics. LOL.

  37. John Cook — "a cognitive scientist". A cognitive scientist is the "scientist" which delivered the basis for the so-called consensus. ?????

  38. Just can’t stand that jingling stupid noise behind a great talk. Shame but I am no longer following this Chanel! Bye.

  39. 97% agree that humans play a small non-catastrophic role in climate. Please do the research and stop spreading the nonsense.

  40. Climate scientists eh ! If they didn't agree Ide say they'de be out of a job pretty quick and no longer be "Climate Scientists" Not much actual science is involved with it apart for guesswork on models which are consistently wrong.

  41. It´s Okay to be Smart: CO2 is a trace gas with few bands of IR absorption. There is no physics that support the thinking that the CO2 drives the climate on Earth. Because this will never be a consensus. Scientists that agree the human influence on climate, not necessarily agree with IPCC claims ! Science it´s not binary thinking. Climate is not exact science, it´s stochastic. You need to study more.

  42. The fact they are highlighting there’s a consensus should tell something. The need to convince shouldn’t even be there if it was such a clear cut issue.

  43. 97% is totally wrong. It's 97% of the 32.6% of papers that mentioned AGW so really 31.62% of scientists. Don't believe me? Here's the proof:

    Cook et al 2013 –

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
    change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
    AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
    a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
    phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
    self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
    97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
    among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
    the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

  44. 97% of scientists who write papers saying humans cause warming agree that humans cause warming. The curious part is that 3% of scientists who write papers saying humans cause warming don’t believe it.

  45. Why should we humans ever expect climate or weather to be forever "beautiful" perfect or unchanging,, let alone be in a position to control it? We are merely one very small speck of dust hurtling thru space around an average star that converts 5mill tonnes of mass into energy every second? There are some 30 unique, parameters that make our fragile earth life supporting, not least our ever diminishing rainforests and carbon cycle. That some alarmists or control freaks think we can manipulate just one tiny component of one almost irrelevant parameter (CO2) and "save" the planet (from what?) , is laughable.

    Of course under a banner of "saving the planet" what they really want is to control it, to control governments and thus where your taxes go. It's just a clever charade to change the power base of world politics, by scare-mongering, and force if necessary. CO2, that single atmospheric component is barely 1 part in 2500, 0.04%. To claim it is partly or solely responsible, is merely a conclusion drawn from highly speculative virtual computer models, not real science data. In fact, CO2 is not a pollutant but food for all plants and reason all carbon based lifeforms like us, exist.

    Morever, to expect the "average" temperature to not vary 1 degree C in 100years when it ranges between minus 50 to plus 50c across the planet, is madness. If this obsession wasn't so tragic and dangerous, it would be laughable. In another post I'll discuss how that "average" temp' is fudged.

  46. The Scientology of climate change:

    If u want irrefutable proof of Correlation being proof of Causation, consider this classic example. Shark attacks show exactly the same statistical distribution in summer as ice cream consumption. If we could only discourage people from eating ice cream at the beach, we could save 100s of lives. Conversely if we could half CO2 to perhaps150ppm, all plant life would die, then humans would follow not long after. Alas sharks would then have nothing to eat, Damn!

    Conclusion: in order to maintain funding and tenure let’s design a virtual computer model with parameters including shark attacks, ice cream and atmospheric CO2, with the intention of making predictions about future population growth. This is the stark reality and sad state of climagate and the failed, flawed and fudged evidence base, for predicting how man is adversely affecting climate change.

  47. Real science is based on truth derived from experiments and not on consensus. I bet 99% of scientists believed the earth is flat before Galileo.

  48. Feckin eejit lost his own argument.
    He said that The consensus was, plate tectonics might not be true. The consensus turned out to be wrong. Consensus isn't science.
    Science = hypothesis, prediction, observation. If the predictions from your hypothesis dont match your observation, your hypothesis is wrong.
    So what specific prediction does the hypothesis of global warming due to man made co2 make?
    Answers on a postcard please!

  49. Yes, scientists do base their theories on work previously conducted by other scientists. That, however, does not mean that they are working based on an agreement. Something that has been scientifically proven is essentially irrefutable. The fact that gravity exists is something that everyone can easily observe, and therefore everyone knows it is real. They don't agree that it's real. They know it is real because it affects them every single day. It is scientifically proven through clearly observable data. Putting it in simple terms, I could gather up a bunch of impressionable individuals and convince them that the flying spaghetti monster is going to descend from the heavens on a UFO made From corn stalks, but just because I manage to convince them that it's real doesn't mean that it is. Their agreement does not bring this thing into reality. Scientific proof Is vastly different and vastly superior to consensus.

  50. So, let's assume that human caused global warning is accepted by most scientist, then we can conclude that human caused global warning is accepted by most scientists. If we don't assume it, then we can't, but that would be incorrect, because we just assumed that it's true in the first place. I would rather want to see a reasoning where it doesn't need to be preassumed that what we want to show is true.

  51. Consensus is not science.
    At one time there was consensus among scientist that:
    The earth was flat
    The earth was the center of the universe
    The sun rotated around the earth
    And a host of other items.
    Not to mention that some of those articles did not place climate change on man specifically, but your Australian friend assumed then did so he added them to the list.
    The scientific method is not consensus
    But repeatability of results.
    And
    So far
    Every future prediction has been dramatically wrong

  52. Doran & Zimmerman
    10.000 essays over climate change waar alleen de samenvatting van gelezen is.
    3.000 daarvan zijn handmatig uitgekozen en in ze geheel gelezen.
    Daar zijn er 100 van uitgekozen.
    97 gaven aan dat het door de mensheid komt, waarvan 95% van de eassays uit de USA kwamen.

    3 daarvan gaven aan dat het door een komende ijstijd is dat het klimaat heel langzaam veranderd.

    En dat maakt je 97%.
    Dus nee.
    Ik geloof niet dat Global Warming door de mensheid komt.
    En ik geloof niet dat Climate Change door de mensheid komt.
    Het kost alleen maar geld. Geld dat je beter aan Afrika kan geven, want dat gaat het beloofde land worden als de ijstijd er is over 1000 jaar…. misschien.

  53. .people donot know that the weather has been manipulated since the 50's by technologies such as Haarp + Chemtrails – "1976 United Nations Weather Weapons Treaty"

    Senator Claiborne Pell, Senate Intelligence Committee USA/USSR, 1978:

    – “Now that we control the weather, create earthquakes and tidal waves and, use it as a weapon of war, we do not need a treaty.”

    William Cohen, former secretary of defense of the Clinton Administration, “Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and US Strategy”, 1977:

    – “Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set of earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves…so there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts [counter-terrorism].”

    Zbigniew Brzezinsky, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, quoted by Chossudovsky, “The Elephant in the Room at Copenhagen: Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the ability to trigger climate change”:

    – “The emerging techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.”

    James Schlesinger, US Secretary of Defence informing 'the Pell Committee”, 1974:

    – “There is reason to argue for the use of localized weather modification where possible, as a humane replacement for modern weaponry.” – (so instead of killing people with weapons, freak 'natural disasters' are created)

    United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques”, Convention May 1977, Geneva, Article 2:

    – “It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer and changes in the state of the ionosphere.” – (so here we see that it's not our CO2 emissions which are damaging the ozone layer – it's chemtrails and Haarp)

    – “The term 'environmental modification techniques' refer to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.”

    Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, economist, “The Elephant in the Room at Copenhagen: Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the ability to trigger climate change:

    -”The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department of Defense to further developing these capabilities. Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the world's climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus.”

    US Air Force Document, “AF 2025 Final Report”:

    – “Weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary and, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally…It could have defensive and offensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth to modify space weather,…and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in us, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach and power.”

    International Committee of the Red Cross, “Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons”, Lucerne, Geneva, 18th October, 1974:

    – “The expert who put forward the subject of geophysical warfare for consideration stated that it included such activities as the modification of weather or climate and the causing of earthquakes. He stated that man already possessed the ability to bring about on a limited scale certain geophysical changes for which military applications were conceivable. In his view these would inevitable be indiscriminate, and could give rise to unforeseeable environmental changes of prolonged duration.”

    Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, from the liberal think tank 'Club of Rome', “The First Global Revolution”, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations:

    – "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself…we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is ‘a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

    Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports:

    – "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

    David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member:

    – "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…"

    Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation:

    – "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

    Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment:

    – "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

    Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research:

    – “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

    Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University:

    – “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

    Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace:

    – "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

    Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor:

    – "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

    Al Gore, Climate Change activist:

    – "I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

    Kahn, “World Federal Government”:

    – “A world government could only be created out of war or crisis – an emergency that provided an appropriate combination of the motivations of fear and opportunity.”

  54. Just watched speech (I look at all opinions/sides) and fellow said following: "A paper called the Cook paper found 66,4 % abstracts (the paragraph summary top of a paper or science article) from 11,000 climate articles expressed NO opinion on man-made global warming. Of those that did (remaining 1/3) – 97% said there is likely a strong connection.” As a know-nothing I'd like to know from scientists – is he lying or telling the truth or ill informed etc? Just would like to know the truth. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *