May 10, 2016

Do “97 per cent of scientists” REALLY believe in man-made climate change?

Corey HolmesRebel Blogger
 

Even when I made my big shift to conservatism, I was still a believer in the idea of climate change, and thought the best mechanism to handle it would be the free market.

I mean, if so many scientists believed that our world was being slowly destroyed by the actions of humans, then it only followed that the market should change to compensate for that.

Of course, if I find myself believing in something so fervently, I try to find other opinions so I can see all sides of the argument.

I found myself watching a video of Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace.

Moore decided to leave when he realized the organization was no longer fighting for truth. The international directors of Greenpeace were taking action against all chemical and human interaction with nature. As the only Greenpeace director who even had a formal science background, Moore knew these actions were wrongheaded.

Patrick Moore’s story has always interested me, and it created a seed of doubt in my mind, but my mind was completely turned upside down when I listened to Alex Epstein:

Epstein's well constructed arguments, using meticulously checked data, were so refreshing.

For example, he debunks the claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe in climate change.

The "97 per cent" figure in the oft-cited Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

Meanwhile, Epstein uses data from the UN and NASA, a branch of the very same government that Obama manages:

Alex Epstein is independent, and doesn't take donations from the big energy companies.

In the video above, you can see Senator Boxer getting upset by Epstein's testimony. He is a man who is paid to think and she is a woman who is paid to appease the interests of the public so she can get back in office.

If given the choice between the two, I would choose the thinker over the appeaser any day.

PS: The Rebel has a petition to stop the Ontario Carbon Tax and I encourage all to sign it especially if you're from the province known worldwide for its debt. We need policy that's based in fact and not speculation.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-13 17:26:18 -0400
Phillip I remember way back in the late 90s thinking about this global warming thing. It just seemed like too convenient of a bat to bludgeon commerce and industry; but I didn’t know enough to question the science behind it. It has taken then to now to realize there is no basis in fact for this so called crisis.
commented 2016-05-12 02:10:09 -0400
“Sigh” CAMERON, there is no proof that “we have”… That’s the point… While controlling local sources of pollution is always valid, it is a grandiose presumption that man made CO2 emissions have now skewed the climate “worldwide”… England’s woes during the Industrial Revolution were caused by widespread burning of soft coal, but that didn’t mean the effects affected anyone outside of Great Britain… In the 1970s the lower Great Lakes suffered from eutrophication due in large part to uncontrolled industrial pollution, farm fertilizer runoff into streams, and uncontrolled use of phosphates in laundry detergents… But that didn’t affect “all” the oceans of the world… The air in India and especially China is heavily polluted today because of similar scenarios, but doesn’t affect the air I breathe here in Canada… Indeed, “learn from history”… Climate change is constant and the odds are much better that variations in annual solar radiation, or emissions from active volcanoes, or the north-south drift of the El Nino current, contribute more to any perceived changes than manmade CO2, or cattle farting …
commented 2016-05-12 01:46:54 -0400
Acid rain is caused by sulphur dioxide, I agree we made headway mitigating it by changing how we did things. (as an aside, sulphur dioxide doesn’t cause warming)

Global warming is blamed on carbon dioxide. Man just doesn’t contribute enough to make any significant difference. There is also no definitive proof that carbon dioxide causes warming. In fact there is more proof that it may not, as seen by scientists charting carbon dioxide levels and temperature rise correlations or lack thereof. Certainly not enough proof to be making policy based on the supposition.

So unlike the acid rain problem, it just doesn’t look like human intervention will help or hinder climate warming to any degree. However it won’t stop social engineering politicians from ramming their agenda down our throats and trying to change how we live.
commented 2016-05-11 21:45:33 -0400
Remember in the 1970s all the acid rain we caused? We fixed it by changing our human actions. In early 1900’s industrial revolution caused most trees in Britain to turn deep black and caused huge lung cancer increases. But people keep fighting saying we don’t or can’t change the weather of the world… Sigh we have. Just learn history. You don’t even need to be smart to understand that.
commented 2016-05-11 20:22:08 -0400
I guess I must be clairvoyant. I knew it was a scam from the get go. It has to do with knowing that God set up the earth as a self regulating ecosystem. The speed of the rotation, the distance from the sun, the variations in the tilt and the fact the air is 78% nitrogen (green house gas) and 21 % oxygen while CO2 is only 0.04%.. I just asked myself how 0.04% could steer the whole earth.
commented 2016-05-11 18:08:17 -0400
What a treat it was to watch Alex Epstein ‘enlighten’ that Environment and Public Works Committee, and that ‘Senator’ Boxer…what an attitude on that imperious cow – a perfect example of the entrenched elite that is the imperialism of the Obama regime. Someone chain that pinko shrew to the nearest stove and give ‘er a good smack…How did Ralph used to put it? ’Bang, Zoom to the moon Alice…’
commented 2016-05-11 17:45:07 -0400
The simple truth is this. The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. The fact is, there is nothing abnormal happening in the climate today, absolutely nothing. The fact is, human caused climate change from CO2 exists only in computer models. There is no empirical evidence linking CO2 to climate change.
commented 2016-05-11 16:49:52 -0400
Yes mantooth, that is because in North America we are grownups that indeed do realize that there is no black and white issue here. It is the elitists who want to break this down to a one question argument. That is so much simpler to deal with of course instead of the obvious questions. Is the climate unusually warm or warming at an unusual rate than in previous periods? We do no know. If so, what are we forecasting in global increases? My understanding the consensus is 1 to 2 degrees. Is the warming a net gain or net loss to the environment or mankind. That has barely been discussed or proven one way or the other. And in all these questions, is man and his activities contributing in any significant way to this warming? That has not been answered. And if he is, does it even matter? Is it worth making short sighted sacrifices or is the cost much larger than the reward?
commented 2016-05-11 16:44:44 -0400
Well it is unfair that Epstein trotted up there and Gatling gunned poor Miss Boxer with a slew of logic. Poor girl was beside herself. He made a great case for not being ashamed to be in support (morally) of fuel companies – who are regarded as some sort of scurge in the political classes.
commented 2016-05-11 16:13:12 -0400
Daniel Devries reminds me of a good point, “How many scientists support any given theory is irrelevant.”

No where in the scientific method does democracy determine the validity of a hypothesis.
commented 2016-05-11 16:08:02 -0400
Mantooth Szabo said, “Sorry Flat-Earthers …”

Sorry, Mantooth, there are no “Flat-Earthers” here on this website. Your insult is misplaced, and you are a dunce.
commented 2016-05-11 10:26:47 -0400
This farce has been really bad for science. No one respects the science anymore. Damaged credibility by all this bluster and bluff. Many scientists have discredited their own profession by jumping onto the the anthropogenic climate change industry bandwagon. People are fed up with the bull and don’t buy it anymore.
commented 2016-05-11 03:18:50 -0400
MANTOOTH… Your level of analysis and perception of reality is – to quote your own words – that anybody who questions the “97 per cent” mantra does so because a) I am “protecting my wealth”, or b) my career was built through the fossil fuel industry…. " I think you’ll all agree that you will fall into one or both of those categories…" OK Guru Szabo, but the reality is that I’m an old geezer on small fixed pension – so no “wealth” – and I built my working career via journalism and government information services, not working for Shell Oil… So where does that put your fundamental argument?… I would suggest that you should take a look in the mirror one of these days and see if the word DIPUTS is tattooed on your forehead…
commented 2016-05-11 01:11:55 -0400
Bravo Zulu posted, “Not only do I not believe that 97% of scientist believe in man made climate change – I believe some that are working on it are only doing so out of fear of being labelled a denier.”
I would add out of fear of losing their funding.
commented 2016-05-10 21:11:04 -0400
How many scientists support any given theory is irrelevant. Science once believed that the universe revolved around the earth, and look where that view is now. Also, Einstein’so theory of relativity was challenged by 100 other scientists in a published paper. When he heard about it he said “Why 100? If I was wrong, one would be enough.”
commented 2016-05-10 20:48:15 -0400
Mantooth, judging by your comments you want to live in a cave without any of the luxuries of a modern society. but you couldn’t could you? I bet you’ve never worked a day in your life to produce a product or service any body would buy. You could no more survive outside the modern world than you could outside your parents basement or your mothers teat. In my humble estimation you are just another rabble rousing hypocrite who should shut their fucking mouths, fall to their knees and thank the Lord that better men than they have created a world where retards can get on their computers and whine about shit they now absolutely nothing about!
commented 2016-05-10 20:11:11 -0400
mantooth
100% of your computer is made from petroleum. (sorry, there is some lead content, and mercury)
And Patrick Moore, not qualified to speak on this issue either ?
Please post your PHd credentials, area of study and institution attended.
commented 2016-05-10 18:50:45 -0400
I don’t think fossil energy is our best long term option, but it is the most efficient energy resource until Vulcans appear bearing the magic dilithium crystals to help harness cosmic energy.

AS for the 97% consensus myth, that was busted back in 09 as a shoddy study – I can tell you there are at least 34K scientists who signed a petition doubting the validity of the AGW theory.
commented 2016-05-10 16:27:20 -0400
“Alex Epstein is independent” Are you having a F***ing laugh?!?

“Critical reviews note Epstein’s close association with conservative advocacy groups, funding by the Koch Brothers and Epstein’s pro-carbon opinions that run counter to the prevailing scientific conclusion that the rise of greenhouse gasses is bad rather than good for the future of the globe.”

The guy has a BA from Duke University… He’s as qualified to comment on climate science as he is to be a doctor or an accountant. Does that mean you’d also let him operate on you or do your taxes?

Your column is laughable, Corey. Maybe aspire to do something else.
commented 2016-05-10 16:04:52 -0400
Sorry Flat-Earthers, there’s consensus that there’s consensus – https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/research-shows-yet-again-that-theres-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change/

And if you’re looking for that 100% figure, don’t get your hopes up. 100% of doctors don’t even agree that cigarettes cause cancer, meaning based on your twisted logic you should be out buying a carton of Marlboro Reds for your kids (though your ignorant views on climate change are probably just as damaging to them.)

Keep on basing your views on a) obsessively protecting your wealth or b) the fact that your career is/was built through the fossil fuel industry. I think you’ll all agree that you will fall into one or both of those categories (as well as the wrong side of history).

Lastly, North American conservatives are the only ones who en masse question climate change (it’s true, look it up). They also seem to be the only people dumb enough to support Donald Trump.
commented 2016-05-10 15:44:49 -0400
If indeed 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, which I seriously doubt, it is only a belief of convenience.

I tend to believe that there would be very few that would be actual believers, but would benefit either financially, politically, or influentially … or some combination thereof.

I think it probably would be similar to, are all Liberal voters lovers of Justine “Puff Puff” Trudeau, or are there a number that voted Liberal because they benefit one way or another, usually financially.

It is sad that so many scientists would sell out the free Western world for monetary, political and/or influential gain.
commented 2016-05-10 15:21:46 -0400
Quote – Do “97 per cent of scientists” REALLY believe in man-made climate change? – end quote

Not only do I not believe that 97% of scientist believe in man made climate change – I believe some that are working on it are only doing so out of fear of being labelled a denier.