No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
It is not unique in science for incorrect views to hold forth for decades if not centuries before the crowds are turned back by incontrovertible evidence. Medical history is full of the minorities trying to make surgery safer by the simple effort of hand washing. Ulcers were long thought to be a result of type “A” personalities rather than requiring a specific bacteria to allow their development. Einstein himself fought an uphill battle with his theory of relativity when 100 German scientists collaborated on a consensus to defeat him. He said famously “If I were wrong one would have been enough”.
We are confident that none of our readers has failed to read or hear for a number of years that 97% of all scientists believe that mankind has played a role in changing the earth’s climate. While it should have been stored away long ago as an urban myth, you know those stories that hang around endlessly regardless of the lack of supporting facts. We doubt a day ever goes by now that some global warming alarmist does not use it to promote their cause of enlarging government and reducing personal freedom through the promotion of fear about our future.
One prominent web site WhatsUpWithThat.com, provided by meteorologists Anthony Watts actually collected 97 papers written to explain precisely why the conclusion that 97% of scientist believe in man caused warming was completely false. Why do we think the world needs a 98th? It is because nearly all of the other 97 articles delved into the erroneous statistics presented in the two papers that launched this truly insane conclusion, bandied about daily.
We will stay out of the weeds of statistics used to first present the illusion and then to dispel it. The readers can jump in there, if they wish, by reading the original papers by Naomi Oreskes that started it all in Science Magazine in December of 2004. Then the claim really exploded when John Cook and associates of Australia did some follow up statistical tricks in their paper in Environment Research Letters in 2013. Their fraud should become even more obvious as their study did not arrive at the same 97% that Naomi Oreskes did but rather theirs was 97.1%
The biased folks who concluded from a truly bizarre survey of science literature that 97% of all authors believe in man caused global warming would have actually been better served had they concluded that say 70% of all scientists believe in their premise as that would actually have been possible. However a little common sense, which we all know is no longer very common, should tell us that no large group of people on our planet could ever reach 97% agreement on anything. Yes anything, including the Earth being round rather than flat or the sun rising in the East rather than West, or even the Earth’s gravitational pull.
Sure proof of this erroneous talking point is provided by the Global Warming Petition Project at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2015. They obtained signatures on a Declaration from 31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.D.s that stated they did not believe mankind had a significant impact on his climate. The declaration included the words:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human releases of carbon dioxide methane or other greenhouse gases are causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”
They actually published all the names in a thick paper back book, sending copies free to anyone interested. It is rather doubtful that these people all comprise the 3% of non believers.
While we do not, we do not doubt there are many scientists who do believe that man plays a major role in the determination of his climate. However, among the unsuspecting public who do not stop to consider what we are saying, the near universal comment of “the 97%” has done a lot of damage. It leads to poor anti fossil fuel legislation in states all across the nation. It leads to some states embracing the Paris Accord which would redistribute $3 trillion of American dollars to nations who use little fossil fuel. These American states could have none but zero impact on the planets thermometer but they can and will damage their state’s economy and their citizens standard of living.
Of the 97 other articles disputing the 97% consensus on global warming, displayed on Anthony Watt’s web site, our favorite was Australian scientist, Joanne Nova’s. She named the consensus “a marketing ploy” that some journalists will fall for. It turns out the word “some” was a gross understatement and why you are reading it almost daily. She points out that “arguments from authority are not science they are only PR”. The thing that makes science different from religion is that only empirical evidence matters not opinion. While consensus does not matter a whit in science it often develops when that is where the government funding money is. There is none available to find unbiased information on the world’s climate, but rather it is everywhere where you state a desire to prove man the culprit in anything about climate one thinks to be unpleasant.
Governments across the globe have been spending billions to support the man caused global warming idea, now climate change, delusion, along with equal quantities to support forms of renewable energy. It takes a strong backbone to resist the siren call of money.
Even a once resistant Republican Party in Congress is slowly capitulating to the fraudulent scientific consensus. It has always been easier to go along with the crowd.
Give some thought to what we are saying next time you are confronted with this dangerous absurdity, which will likely be later today.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.