It is ridiculous that global warming enthusiasts continue to use the “97% scientific consensus” myth as a fact. Not only has it been thoroughly debunked, common sense tells us it is almost impossible to obtain a 97% consensus on anything. Nevertheless, the farce continues.
Recently, Ted Cruz grilled Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on climate change data and was subjected to an embarrassing repeated recitation of the 97% myth as “preponderance” of evidence for man-made global warming. It is held like a religious tenet among believers and anything to the contrary is dismissed out-of-hand. Even president Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have cited the 97% myth as fact, giving it an aura of legitimacy that fuels the belief.
When evidence began to surface challenging the validity of man-made global warming, believers changed tactics. They began calling global warming “climate change”, an indisputable occurrence on earth that cannot be denied. They still mean man-made global warming but the name change allows them to fend off some criticism while remaining self-righteous.
Dr. David Evans, an Australian climate modeler and mathematician, recently found errors in the basic climate model used in climate science. When he corrected the errors, he found the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide to be much lower than previously assumed, reducing estimated effects on global warming almost ten-fold. Errors in climate models are not unusual because the science behind the models is not “settled”. It is an ongoing process.
The media, however, has determined the matter “settled” and uses the 97% myth to deride anyone questioning that man-made global warming is occurring at a catastrophic level. It has become more a political issue than a scientific issue resulting in billions of dollars spent solving a problem that has not been scientifically validated. It does, however, fit a political agenda and that is reason enough to continue citing 97% consesus.
Politics and science do not mix well and under the umbrella of political correctness, reasonable debate on the issue has become stifled. Perhaps that’s deliberate. The progressive agenda does not like reasonable debate – about 97% of the time.
David J. Hentosh