Survey of scientists debunks global warming ‘consensus’
The facts continue to discredit the left’s fraudulent “consensus of experts.” This time, it is in the form of a recent survey of climate scientists by George Mason University. More than four thousand American Meteorological Society (AMS) members were recently asked about their positions on global warming (or ‘climate change,’ now that we know zero actual warminghas occurred for decades). And the results predictably fly in the face of everything we have been told.
Approximately one-third acknowledged that global warming “is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half man-made … or simply think we ‘don’t know.'” This number explodes to the vast majority once climate scientists are asked about catastrophic global warming—the absurdly hysterical Al Gore branch of alarmist fear-mongering, in which liberals relentlessly insist that their ideological war on science is about a full-blown crisis that somehow urgently threatens all of humanity.
As explained by Forbes:
“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that ‘…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.’ Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”
Responding to the findings, University of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer said, “For something that is supposed to be ‘settled science,’ I find that rather remarkable.” In other words, as has now been confirmed by multiple surveys of scientists and peer-reviewed, scientific journals, this elusive “consensus” simply does not exist.
Additionally, this fallacy of changing the subject to how many scientists supposedly agree with one side (i.e., debating to who is more likely to be right, rather than simply defending one’s own position with actual facts and logic) has been used by the left to silence dissent and to justify sweeping government power grabs for decades. Resorting to such bogus fallacies, while branding free-thinkers (a.k.a., heretics) with vindictive Orwellian “denier” labels and utterly baseless attacks on their motives (it is actually alarmists who profit from lying about global warming), is the signature of a demagogue, not some truth-seeking champion of science.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” —Socrates
Incidentally, the left’s jaw-droppingly dishonest “ninety-seven percent of experts” fallacy wasinvented out of thin air in 2013 by now-discredited Australian “researcher” John Cook. This left-wing activist pretended to discover that the overwhelming majority of climate-related scientific papers endorse the notion of man-made global warming.
From the Daily Caller:
“But the definition Cook used to get his consensus was over-simplified. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
‘It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117},’ Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware, said about a study he and four other prominent researchers authored debunking Cook’s consensus claim.”
For the record, Democrats have now literally criminalized organizations disagreeing with their easily-debunked, anti-science talking points in public (heresy trials coming soon). Never mind the fact that the American people consistently rank the left’s extremist environmental crusade approximately dead-last among their priorities.
Read more at www.examiner.com
Trackback from your site.