Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016    Login | Register        

Climate change: 97% of scientists agree

There has been a heated battle for years between the backers of scientific climate change and the deniers.

A much cited peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991 to 2011 matching the topics “global climate change” or “global warming” determined that among abstracts they expressed a position on, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Wow, I would think only the theory of gravity may have a higher consensus.

I realize that almost everything of merit has been politicized and polarized to the point that “only 47 percent of the public hewed to the scientific consensus” (and even less for scientists in general — 35 percent). Could it be due to the overall dumbing down and apathy of America or the consensus trance of mainstream media and (un)reality TV?

In a recent published paper, “U.S. Students Slide In Global Ranking On Math, Reading, Science” American 15-year-olds continue to turn in flat results in a test that measures students’ proficiency in reading, math and science worldwide, failing to crack the global top 20 (despite American spending the most money per capita on education).

I donate money to The Union of Concerned Scientists ( which began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 and is now an alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students.

Their members understand that scientific analysis, not political calculations or corporate hype, should guide their efforts to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. This organization has the greatest number of scientific Nobel Prize winners of any organization in the world.

They overwhelmingly concur with the evidence for human activity since the industrial revolution leading to climate change.

Beyond the scientific evidence or consensus I simply distill it down to this: do we side with corporate profits/money/power which is at stake with any changes in legislation and the six major corporate news organizations (depending on these same corporations for advertising) controlling 90 percent of our media for information, or the integrity and brain power of thousands of independent, multinational people in the scientific community/Nobel Prize winners.

Ask one question which side, if your life depended on it, would you trust more? Who has the most to lose in this debate?

Try and wrap your mind around this: In a 2012 study Of the world’s 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

The other factor is corporate lobbyists in Washington. Last year over 12,000 lobbyists spent $3.21 billion for influence ( Where did this money go? To political coffers.

The average congressman has to raise $1.1 million (call it $10,000 a week), while the average senator had to secure $10 million (call it $100,000 a week).

The general public of “we the people” is not being properly represented in this. What’s most alarming is what is potentially at stake here, and life as we know it, with man potentially going the route of the dodo bird.

Numerous scientists are stating that Earth’s creatures may be on the brink of a sixth mass extinction, comparable to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Is this something worth risking and arguing about? Many claim the die has already been cast regarding climate change and that forces have been put in motion that will play out for hundreds to thousands of years.

OK. let’s even pretend that it is not determined what is causing climate change, man or long cyclic processes. Is there any doubt that we live on a planet of finite resources? That not only is our global population at a staggering 7 billion people (which was only a billion in 1800, 2 billion in 1930 and 3 billion when I was born in 1960) a new 235,000 will join the global dinner table today. We are growing towards an estimate 8-10 billion this century.

Can we not see that with hundreds of millions of people like Chinese and Indians (India has a middle class larger then our whole country), our planetary neighbors not only want what we have (cars, electronics, disposable products, etc.) but are quickly moving up the economic scale.

Is not all this population growth and consumerism having no effect on our planet (pollution, environmental damage, resource wars, etc.)?

Our planet has a carrying capacity (how many people it can safely accommodate) and an economically infinite growth paradigm. Logically, which will give first?

Hopefully enough of the minds of American citizens, politicians and policy makers to make a difference.

Joseph Garofalo
Peachtree City, Ga.



For sure, if the economy transitions from fossil fuels to renewables, the sellers of fossil fuel energy will be big loosers. All ofthe resoruce left i nthe ground will not have any commercial value. So for a coal or oil comapny is to sell as much as possible as fast as possible, in case the economy transitons to renewables.

So they are extremely motived to delay the transiton as long as possible. That is their obligation to their business.

So if I take the scenario t othe extreme and I never trantion to renewables, what will happen to the earth. It is known that there have been times in the past when there was no polar ice at all. Is that what we are talking about ??

And if I burn all the fossil fuel I have, will this happen ? When ? If it does happen, how long does it take to get corrected?

Well if the transtion started in the 1700's at the begining of the Industrial revolution, then we have been dump CO2 into the biosphere unabated for 300 years. If that is really the problem (and it is) the nI need to work very hard for another 300 years to pull out the CO2 that I already put into the system, if I can find a way to do that.

There is a need to clear the mind and examine objectively, is this really happening and if so, what are our options ?

Other wise we may be looking at a scenario like Humans and Co. going out of business sale.

Scieftifically there is no objective doubt. Scietifically the only real questions and how bad, when, wehat can I do? and so on. Sicetifcally there is no If any more.

The 100%-97%= 3% are funded by fossil fuel companies.


NUK_1's picture

What also is "Scietifically" you used a few times mean either? How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Loosening things..

the opposite of a weener, too.

NUK_1's picture

Go around and loosen bad lug-nuts on tires, broken screws, bad, the possibilities! I am Mr. Loosener!

Cyclist's picture

After the "Columbus landed on Plymouth Rock" post by Condition; no, you take this individual seriously.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

hutch866's picture

Here's someone else to take seriously...

I yam what I yam

Cyclist's picture

Let me know ahead of time before you post stuff that funny. Oh, well I guess had to clean monitor anyway.

Anyways, I'm soooooo glad I don't live out there anymore.

Twisted Taco soon. You interested?

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

It is refreshing to know when people read so attentively that they notice all of the imperfections.

Ocean Acidification
Ocean level rise from ocean warming
Glacier melts
Warming from excessive CO2.
Mining of fresh water from the Aquafers.

She cares not about your politics or mine.
She does not know what a lobbyist is.
Political party has no meaning.
She does not know about profits or loses.
She does not care about your car or truck or how far you commute in a day by yourself in the vehicle.

Mother nature does not grade on spelling.
But she has rule. The rule of nature. And you are bound to them the same as every other creature on the planet. How do I know? How long will you live on this earth ? If want to to stay longer can you ? Who decides?

For sure it is God almighty but he gave this planet to mankind as a gift a gift giving the gift of life to human civilization, as if by a covenant.

And if the covenant is broken, who will have broke it?

Think the oil exec cares ? Think the coal exec cares?

The old days are gone. Climate change is main stream now. Regardless of what oil tycoons say, it is the reality of the situation and it is a problem that will be with you and I until the day we pass from this great earth. This is a issue that is not going away.


While there is a single study entitled "Expert Credibility in Climate Change” that did conclude that 97 - 98% of scientists support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) it did not conclude that they supported the tenets of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming such as Al Gore and all the other AGW alarmists.
The study was highly flawed because the authors did not survey a broad set of scientists and engineers conversant in climate issues; instead, they arrived at their dubious conclusions simply by reviewing a limited set of publications written by a select group of 1,372 researchers who often publish papers on the topic of climate change and global warming.
The authors of the study did not interview or poll these researchers; they concluded for themselves what the selected researchers support and what they don’t by reading their papers. The researchers included in the study were handpicked, were all funded to work in Climate Change and all had financial interests in furthering their research funding. Many of the journals from which the reviewed papers were drawn are known to be hostile to papers that criticize the quality of work done in the field.
None of the study’s authors had the educational background to be able to interpret all the papers they reviewed.
The authors consisted of a student of Ecology, Evolution, and Population Biology (Anderegg), a climate campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network with a Master’s degree in Business Administration and a summer-school certificate in "Complex Systems" from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Harold), a computer programmer with a double-degree in Political Science and Philosophy (Prall), and a (now deceased) mechanical engineer working in “Environmental Biology and Global Change” (Schneider).
Each of these study authors also had severe conflicts of interest as the result of their study would influence how much funding they would receive to continue their work in climate change.
In short, this study and its conclusions are questionable at best and perhaps intentionally misleading at worst.
The 97-98% statistic is also challenged by the fact that over 31,000 degreed scientists and engineers have signed the Oregon Petition, a petition to the US Government disagreeing with the premise that manmade CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. 31,000 scientists is over twenty times the number of scientists and engineers that were covered by the questionable 97-98% statistic study.

hutch866's picture

I can do that, I can walk from my house. I'll even see if I can talk old MOC into coming. I say old MOC, but he's the same age as you.

I yam what I yam

Cyclist's picture

Walk…hell, I'll bring the beast and pick you both up.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Hey, ease up on that age stuff--at 74, I' pretty sensitive about that stuff---and the question is, ok, you can walk to the joint but will you be able to walk back! Oh, how is the Hutchette doing?

hutch866's picture

No sweat, I just salt down a bowl of water and set it on the front porch, and follow the smell home. The hutchette is doing stellar, making her own way up in DC, and while only a junior, starting work on her masters.

I yam what I yam

Ad space area 4 internal