Scientists With Vested Interest Confirm The 97% Consensus Or Something

Those who make their living by pushing a political position regarding ‘climate change’ are at it again

Scientists Just Confirmed The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change

Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, a research team confirmed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

The study, published Tuesday, brought together 16 scientists, including seven authors of consensus studies that documented similar conclusions over the years despite varying research approaches. While reaching this so-called “consensus on consensus,” authors concluded that scientific agreement on human-caused climate change is “robust” with a range of 90 to 100 percent, depending on the question and methodology.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

“It’s important to have [it] on the record,” said Will Cantrell, professor of physics at Michigan Technological University, who was not part of the study. “I don’t think any one study is going to change a lot of people’s minds, but it’s better to have the information than to not have it,” he told ThinkProgress.

Let’s start off by noting that consensus is not science. Secondly, many of the papers mentioned later in the missive have been proven to be frauds, such as the Cook 97% paper….say, isn’t it interesting that they all seem to arrive at the same number? Never 95, 96, 98. Always 97…..which has been shown to be even more of a fraud.

Techniques used to assess expert views on human-caused climate change include analyzing peer-reviewed climate papers, surveying members of the relevant scientific community, compiling public statements by scientists, and mathematically analyzing citation patterns. For this paper, authors used a statistical technique called meta-analysis, which is a way to combine the findings from independent studies, and essentially did a meta-study of meta-studies.

In other words, they simply looked at papers by those with similar beliefs (and monetary interests) and put them together. It is interesting that the Warmists try this consensus schtick constantly, rather than providing rock solid scientific proof. Correlation is not causation.

That’s from Watts Up With That?, regarding a different consensus chart.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!