In Case You Doubted the Global Warming Consensus...

[Aramas]

... You could be on to something.

The most commonly reported statistic about the purported consensus on anthropogenic climate change is the 97% number. I've been reading about this statistic for a while and done some of my own investigation into how this conclusion came about. There have been a few different studies saying that agreement among climate scientists is nearly unanimous. A closer look at the methodology for the studies supporting this supposed consensus reveals a methodology that's utterly ridiculous or laughable. Some of the studies amount to a database search for specific keywords and recording the number of papers that result from that search. This method is something like googling and recording the number of hits. In other cases, like one I'm linking below, the author of the study delegated responsibility for the content of the study to a bunch of other people who could easily have biased the result.

Link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...a-real-survey/


In case you were wondering about the other studies concerning the supposed consensus, check out this link: http://www.populartechnology.net/201...efuted-by.html

So, in conclusion, the "consensus" about global warming isn't really much of a consensus. The reason why we don't hear much about the true lack of consensus in media is that many people involved in the scientific process have been corrupted by easy and plentiful government funding, provided that the scientists who accept that funding toe the line that politicians and social activists want. It's a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship: the politicians get to impose regulation that impedes social mobility, individual freedom, and gain more power for themselves, and the scientists who prostitute themselves for the cause get recognition for "fighting the good fight" and boatloads of money.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...te-denial.html

Link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wi...rticle/2608456