During last week’s Natural Resources Committee climate hearings, an alarmist witness – I believe it was Deborah Bronk – smugly proclaimed that a ‘fair’ hearing would have 97 of her warmist allies testifying against three skeptics.
This is a common rhetorical tactic in global warming debates.
It is certainly true that it takes merely one person, and just one scientific piece of evidence, to disprove a theory. However, most members of the public don’t know enough about the underlying science to weigh such evidence.
So for many of them, they simply defer to what they believe the scientific consensus is.
So how can skeptics respond in a concise, powerful, memorable manner to the concise and cutting assertion made by Bronk and other alarmists? Here is one way:
“Actually, a fair hearing would have two of me for every one of you. Sure, most scientists believe the Earth is warming and humans are playing some role. I agree with that position. But surveys show only one in three scientists report primarily negative impacts from climate change and only one in three are very worried about climate change.”
A 2016 survey of American Meteorological Society members – the only scientific body whose full membership has been polled – found only 36 percent report primarily negative impacts from climate change in the area they cover (which, cumulatively, is the whole country).
The same survey found only 50 percent expect the impacts of climate change to be entirely or primarily negative during the next 50 years.
Moreover, a 2012 survey of AMS members found only 30 percent are “very worried” about global warming. That question was not asked again in the 2016 survey.
The long and short of it is climate alarmists have their checklist of smug soundbites ready for climate hearings and public debates.
Don’t let them score cheap points by claiming a ‘fair’ debate would be 97 of them versus three skeptics. Have a powerful, concise answer ready for delivery.
Read more at CFACT
I used to get all the stuff from the various Eco-Wacko groups like Sierra Club,Greenpeace, with their usial load of Malarkey and i mean after the 2001 Unconstitution cut off of water to the Klamath Basin Farmers over some Fish i want nothing to do with these Eco-Nazis/Watermelons
What Anthony said . I’m thrilled to be in a warming period .
Ni más ni menos que más de 31.000 científicos (exactamente son 31.487) de estos más de 9.000 cientificos son “doctores” (son unos 9.029) han firmado un memorándum donde se afirma que el calentamiento global es un mito.
Referencias y Enlaces documentales: naturalnews.com/2017-09-21-over-31000-scientists-say-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax-now-theyre-speaking-out-against-junk-science.html
https://youtu.be/ZAl_Fq-BghA
Ni más ni menos que más de 31.000 científicos (exactamente son 31.487) de estos más de 9.000 cientificos son “doctores” (son unos 9.029) han firmado un memorándum donde se afirma que el calentamiento global es un mito.
Referencias y Enlaces documentales: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-21-over-31000-scientists-say-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax-now-theyre-speaking-out-against-junk-science.html
https://youtu.be/ZAl_Fq-BghA
Where did the impressive figure of 97% come from? Enter, Australian John Cook. Cook is a cartoonist by profession. He is also a blogger. Although he has a degree in physics, he has no background or qualifications in climate science.
In 2013, he recruited a team of 24 volunteers. These amateur Environmental activists were recruited from those who made supportive comments on Cook’s alarmist blog, quite inappropriately called ‘Skeptical Science’. These would naturally have a bias in favour of the thrust of the survey. The survey had barely begun before 12 of the volunteers dropped out, leaving the other 12 to look at 11,944 papers. Clearly, they could not have time to read and evaluate the full papers; instead, they used a computer search engine to scan the papers’ extracts, the short summary that precedes most papers.
One thing to note: this ‘survey’ was done only on papers printed in academic journals. Sceptics or anyone challenging the ‘consensus’ finds it difficult to the point of near impossibility to get published in any of them.
The computer searched the extracts for the phrases ‘Global Warming’, or ‘Global Climate Change. The choice of papers was not limited to those specifically dealing with climate. Some of them were on different topics altogether, such as ‘Livestock Waste’, International Journal of Vehicle Design’ and ‘Waste Management’.
The results of the survey which sought to see if the scientific community did or did not endorse the proposition that man’s activities are changing the climate to a harmful extent were:
Response No of extracts % of total
Yes, more than 50% of the warming 65 0.54%
Contributes to warming, but don’t know how much 3,831 32.07%
Uncertain 40 0.33%
No 78 0.66%
No opinion either way 7,930 66.40%
Total 11,944 100%
See how he got his 97% figure? Yep, he just ignored the 7,930 papers that had no position
either way. The 3,896 that ‘endorse’ the position amounts to 97% only when the ‘no opinion either way’ 7,930 are taken out. This is a flagrant abuse of the proper method of compiling statistics.
The true figure of those that endorse the position – either explicitly or implicitly – 3,896 actually amounts to only 32.6% of the total number of papers, just under one in three. And those who believe that CO2 is dangerous by causing more than half the warming of the world comprise a measly half of one percent.
Cook was not the only one to come up with the 97% figure.
The United States Academy of Science surveyed the papers of 1,372 climate researchers actively publishing in journals. They found that 97% agreed with the IPCC line. Since sceptical (realist) scientists find it almost impossible to have their work published, this is hardly surprising.
A paper published in the journal of the American Geophysical Union entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’ was the result of an on-line poll of climate scientists. A mere 79 scientists responded. Surprise, surprise, 75 of them (97.9%) agreed with the IPCC.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-21-over-31000-scientists-say-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax-now-theyre-speaking-out-against-junk-science.html
https://youtu.be/ZAl_Fq-BghA
Ni más ni menos que más de 31.000 científicos (exactamente son 31.487) de estos más de 9.000 cientificos son “doctores” (son unos 9.029) han firmado un memorándum donde se afirma que el calentamiento global es un mito.
The 97% figure is a Hail Mary for earth has a fever promoters who are out of ammo . Debunked already, the fact is the models used to promote the overblown hoax have proven to be wrong more than 97%of the time and unsurprisingly consistently overstating any warming . I know shocking . So with the models crap we are left with promoters like Al Gore who a Judge determined told about 20 inconvenient lies in his global warming science fiction movie .
Oh we could go back to the hockey stick but it was broke years ago and there are no instructions on how it was put together again .
The Scary global warming industry is like the Mueller witch hunt … a great big nothing burger where the only people getting screwed are tax payers . Mueller will no doubt have banked millions more than leaker Commey on this their latest escapade . Uranium One delivery boy should be
subject to the next real collusion with Russia investigation . FISA abuse ,
and an “insurance ” plan to frame a newly elected President .
Trumps only big mistake was hiring Mr. Magoo .
When a hundred physicists signed a letter disputing Einstein’s theory of relativity, he said that if he was right, only one would matter. My chemistry teacher said that science is not a democracy.
One problem we have is many, maybe most, leftists are educated in the social sciences. Here consensus is important. I was once told by a professor in one of theses fields that I should support a certain view point because everyone publishing literature supported it.
There are two rigged studies that resulted in the claim that 97% of scientist believe that climate change is a threat. One polled over a thousand scientists. They didn’t get the results they wanted. What they did was find one subgroup where 77 out of 79 considered climate change to be a threat, and used that for the results of their study.
Another study reviewed over a thousand scientific papers on meteorology. If paper disputed anthropological climate change, then it was counted against it. All other papers were counted supporting the movement. This included papers that made no mention of climate change, which was most of them. Also, don’t forget the Oregon petition that was signed by 38,000+ scientists stating that carbon dioxide has no or very little impact on the climate.
I would give your article more creedence if you reported facts without the heavy layer of contemporary journalistic propagandized “opinion”. “‘Only’ 50%”, for example. 50% is 50%, no need to plaster opinions everywhere unless you are trying to sway public belief with lies. Is that the true intention of the article?
While I would agree to leave out the “opinion” portion as you describe it, calling it a “lie” is completely disingenuous on your part.
Our carbon dioxide output isn’t mentioned in the article, but I’ll assume that’s the defendant on trial. A significant number of American meteorologists believe we’re changing the climate for the worse. If they admit that’s just a hunch, I’d leave it at that. If they allow that there’s both benefits and negatives, I’d respect that. I’d like to ask them if their opinion has been influenced by the last 20 years of warmist propaganda. Are their minds still receptive to more evidence ? If we stopped using fossil fuels all together now, when do we get our meteorological benefit cheque?
I would like to ask;
Can you show a time in our climate past when it was warmer than now? .. can you demonstrate any negative impacts of that warming? ..
Can you show a time in our climate past when it was colder than now? .. can you demonstrate any negative impacts of that cooling?
The answer to the first is yes and then no
The answer to the second is yes and then a resounding YES
In other words, we have no records of adverse effects from a warmer world but we have mountains of records of the adverse effects of a colder world. Millions have died from a colder world. Not true for a warmer world and our historical records absolutely prove this.
Case closed…