l
Firstly, the difficulties involved in statistically quantifying consensus and what is included in the climate science literature have generated intense disagreement. The messaging strategy has also promoted confusion over whether consensus extends to various impacts such as extreme weather events. Rather than ending conflict over the reality of human-caused climate change, these efforts have fueled further debate.
Secondly, the studies evaluating the impact of consensus messaging on public attitudes have been published by a relatively small group of affiliated researchers and challenged by other social scientists, resulting in an uncertain evidence-base around which to invest funding on behalf of expensive communication campaigns.
Thirdly, past scholarship suggests that acceptance of scientific consensus is not needed for the public to support solutions to environmental problems. For example, the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the ozone layer was signed in the face of the shocking discovery of the ozone hole. However, a decade earlier the US public had already started to shift from using spray cans containing ozone destroying chemicals, at a time when no scientific consensus on ozone layer protection existed.
The final point discussed highlights how narrowly focusing on scientific consensus displaces debate over the wider issues posed by climate change, which involve many different, and often conflicting, policy options.
Co-author, Reiner Grundmann, from the School of Sociology and Social Policy at University of Nottingham in the UK, commented: “The ‘97% consensus’ has become a popular slogan for climate campaigners, but the strategy is self-defeating. There is a danger of overreach in that numbers like the 97% consensus are implicitly extended to all areas of climate science, and used to close down debate over complex topics like extreme weather events. This approach also makes the implausible assumption that publics will follow the correct policy path once given the relevant scientific information, and that acceptance of scientific consensus is needed to support specific solutions.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Then there is that peer-review gambit …
https://twitter.com/Neuro_Skeptic/status/888700467613749248
I’m a sceptic, but come on. These were rouge journals that published that paper, and the object of the exercise was to expose them. They would have published anything controversial, even sceptical papers. Nor do I believe the papers were peer reviewed, although I stand to be corrected on that.
The BEST paper was published in one of these “rouge” (pay-for-play) journals, long after the Mueller PR tour, and after the paper was rejected by all respectable, mainstream scientific journals.
Alarmists still cite this paper as proof of something (Mueller lied about being a skeptic). Pretty sad and pathetic really.
My favourite reply to that is “peer-reviewed, published research shows that about 50% of peer-reviewed, published research is wrong.”
All any skeptic need do is to display that graph that contains the predictions of temperatures by a large number of global warming models, along with the actual Earth temperatures. Those predictive lines are all over the place and wildly disagree with one another- this is NOT the picture of a consensus.
Interesting a purported sociologist quoted the 97% theme. This is either an example of sloppyness or deception, as the comments describe in depth.
Yeah, you say these things publically you increase the chances that someone might actually remember what you said, increases exponentially.
Okay – butchered the grammar on that sentence, but you get the point.
That was cruel. But true, if you tell untruths publicly, people may notice.
Yeah, “correcting” public beliefs. This from the people who *need* the 97% consensus.
All very well and good to criticize those saving the planet for arguing from consensus, but what else can you do if none of the facts support the cause?
“97% consensus. It’s real, it’s here, and it’s dangerous.” Consensus on what? Why, the intelligence agency conclusion that the Russians meddled in our election, of course. Please note one striking similarity- in both cases, a bit of truth is conflated with a lie. “Russians meddled” (a bit true) lets the reader infer that Russia actually made a difference (a lie) with “collusion” (another lie). In CAGW, climate change (true, it does seem to change) lets the reader infer that it’s all man caused (a lie). And the progressive activists in white smocks can count on their friends in the progressive press to never, ever to correct the inference.
Has the US/UK/Germany/France etc. ever interfered with a Russian election?
Will we ever know?
And if the Russians found it so easy to interfere, why wouldn’t the Chinese, Koreans, or even Cuban’s be in there like Flynn.
Scot: Yes, as I recall Obama told US press what he wanted, was surprised Russian media missed the story, and took credit when Putin only won 95%-5% (later the opponent as killed for making it too close). If it gets any easier, maybe even americans will interfere in US elections. As in, US press reporting on dark doings of democrat party rather than leaving it to wikileaks.
Who are the 3% of the published climate scientists that disagree and what papers did they publish?
I know they don’t mean any of the people they call shills and paid deniers… if it was 100 scientists the they could point out the three respected scientists that disagree…
It’s sun that does it (no consensus required)
credit NASA
What is worrying is that its taken these ‘brain-boxes’ so long to realise what most peeps instinctively know, on 2 fronts.
1. Western (ordinary) folks, certainly UK peeps anyway, always tend to ‘back the underdog’
So, in a 2 horse race, most folks will be egging on the nag with the 3% chance of winning.
2. Also (western) folks have been relentlessly bombarded by advertising (media messages) about (typically) household products that “Clean 97 more dishes” or “Remove 97 more stains” or “Kill 97 more germs”
After these much hyped things have been tried/tested/used for a while, it becomes entirely obvious to the consumers that they have been had. Actual experience reveals that the ‘97%’ products are just the same as ‘non97%’ products yet are a stack more expensive.
IOW, they are not to be trusted and/or stink.
That the 97% meme has been pushed so hard is very revealing. Not only about the naivete of whoever created it but that of the folks who pushed it so hard.
We may not be in a new Dark Age quite yet but we are certainly going through some very Dim Times right now.
3. Also (western) folks are doomed to extinction
“Study reveals 60% drop in fertility since 1970 – driven by the unhealthy Western lifestyle”
Well, it’s just one of many Dim Ages, but we’re certainly in one.
Proper spelling is … CON–SINS–us.
Thus, a 97% CON–SINS–us is completely valid, since the statistic is a sinful con imposed upon us.
Maybe you should.
It could include failed predictions/projections and the scares that demand action now to prevent future failed predictions/projections.
Call it “The Mann Who Cried Wolf”?
(Too bad Hansen’s last name wasn’t “Mann”.)
Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so there is no consensus. Even if there were it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some form of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process.
The AGW conjecture sounds plausable at first but upon closer inspection, the AGW conjecture is full of holes and based upon only partial science. The AGW conjecture is based upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
I disagree with the Boy Who Cried Wolf,parable.
This entire swindle has been the “Emperors New Clothes”
1990’s version.
The conmen have used the very words of the original swindle ‘As in if you cannot see and feel the fabric of this beautiful lie, you are obviously unfit to hold any position of trust or authority in modern society.”.
The rerun is a very faithful reproduction.
We can all agree climate changes . The deniers are the ones who think
Mother Nature is some how giving up her job after 6 billion years because a failed politician with no scientific credentials claims the earth has a fever caused by the portion of CO2 attributed to human use of fossil fuels .
Science isn’t sausage making . Consensus is sausage making .
The Climate Swindle is over …killed by it’s own overhyped lies .
The shocking discovery of the ozone hole, that has existed since Antarctica moved over the southern pole.
“resulting in an uncertain evidence-base”
Is that the social science term for “bullsh-t”?
I always use the 97% consensus against the alarmist, by advising them “there is no consensus on catastrophic, dangerous or even inconvenient AGW, many 97% studies have been done and none claim this”
The Anderegg(2010) papers claims 97% support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Ask an alarmist to list the tenets, with a source, it can’t be done, they all come up with varying answers, none of which are supported with a source, some just try linking to the IPCC itself.
Why bother, when not one single hard-data-based study in the peer-reviewed climate-related literature actually confirms the generally accepted link between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and global warming? A little thought offers the far more credible model of anthropogenic thinning of the ozone shield as the principal cause of climate change, which was stabilized by the Montreal Protocol and will gradually diminish as the long-lived, catalytic chlorine we introduced into the atmosphere in CFCs eventually dissipates.