Why do 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming?
Video from it’s Okay to be Smart • PBS
97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree
Do 97% of climate scientists really agree that humans are the main cause of climate change? Yep! Here’s what the 97 percent statistic *really* means.
Posted by It's Okay to be Smart • PBS on Monday, May 7, 2018
Interesting video about science and consensus. When scientists reach consensus it is based upon them agreeing that the FACTS found by large numbers of people lead to only one conclusion and that is humans are causing the problem. Money and wealth do not come into this decision. Many scientists wish that the data on Global Warming was wrong as it affects them personally but are HONEST enough to tell others of the dangers threatening us all based upon the DATA not opinions. The fossil fuel advocates are different. They may actually believe in global warming and the data confirming it but because it is likely to adversely affect their personal wealth, position or power gained by them being a part of the fossil fuel industry they are DISHONEST and HYPOCRITICAL in stating that in THEIR OPINION global warming won’t affect others therefore nobody should either worry or take action to stop it. Politicians gain much of their electoral funding from people who profit from the fossil fuel industry. This is a vested interest. This makes them DISHONEST and HYPOCRITICAL when they RESIST action on global warming. We need to eliminate all politicians with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry if we are to avoid a Global Warming catastrophe which could end life on Earth. What do you REALISTICALLY think are our chances?
If you had done any real homework Des, you would know that the consensus is false, and tens of thousands of scientists either are no where near convinced about Co2 being the problem or simply disagree with it. Your belief that anyone who disagrees with the false consensus is a fraud is terribly wrong.
Des Maddalena’s comments are valid. The realistic chances of human and many animals as a species is, at best, very precarious. We may still be able to mitigate these global warming processes to some degree, perhaps a large degree if we are lucky, but no one really knows as yet.
Denial of what is happening due to personal vested interest is like the smoker dying of lung cancer denying cigarettes were the problem. Denial is futile, is useless. Our actions to address the problems facing the world re global warming are all that counts now. We all need to be part of those actions in whatever way we can.
The chance of excluding politicians with vested interest – ie paid in one way or the other by the vested interests of the Fossil Fuel Lobbies. But we should keep pointing to their irrational and therefore ethically suspect positions
I have tried to find out whether logic is taught in schools these days; it wasn’t at my school in the seventies – I had to experience it at night school. Schools are however teaching more about human rights and politics. Sociology and psychology may also be of benefit in bringing society to understand human behaviour.
Many people do not have much of a concept of mathematics either. Reality is not about black and white. To me logic would say, “Even if global warming was largely a ‘natural phenomena’- that is no excuse not to do what we can about it.”
The idea that any species can dominate [populate] the Earth and not affect it is crazy. Insects can severely affect the ecology when they are in plague numbers and devour all or most of the other species.
The idea that because something is ‘natural’ we should let it happen – is also flawed. The idea that people are powerless – is a ploy, as is competition is good.
Young psychopaths [people who have no empathy for others] are now concerned about climate change – as anyone should – it will certainly affect us.
Are the super wealthy just going to barricade themselves in their own geo-domes? Will their skin peel off to reveal that they are really cockroaches underneath?