berchman Loc: South Central PA

I am not alarmed because I don’t have children and grandchildren to worry about when the horrific things that 99% of scientists say will happen take place. I and my wife and friends will be dead.

davefales Loc: Virginia

Live by the model, die by...

Models are just scientific theories. It used to be the scientific method required that you eventually produce real world evidence to support your theory's prediction. Doesn't seem to work that way anymore.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

99%? You can, of course, validate that false claim, yes? Probably not as it’s b.s. that has been debunked many, many times.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

Sorry, it's "only" 97%. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You've come up against the messy non-rational-thinking of the left; if you question the current favorite theory, you must be a denier (think...flat earther)

It COUDLN'T be that you recognize that the fake-climate-change models are flawed or that there is no real consensus in the scientific community...no...you MUST be a stupid denier of basic science. :(

Forget trying to discuss it like adults...lol.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

Yeah, NASA is full of those non-rational thinkers. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2841/2018-fourth-warmest-year-in-continued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa/

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Please....back up the 97% with real data!

Of course, you can’t because that has also been debunked.....do you even know HOW to research or do you prefer to get your data from under-educated, immature people like AOC or from leftist news sites????

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Funny....no mention of the 97%! Hmmmmmm.

Here’s something to get you started....

“Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers.

First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree?

In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up.

At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with.

And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position.

Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position).

The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.”

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

The "50% advantage" is about to become much smaller very soon when the Mazda Skyactive X powered cars start being sold. I've got a Mazda 3 with a manual transmission and 170,000 miles and it still has the original brake pads and clutch and it's FUN to drive and has been very reliable, like my previous '91 Mazda Protege that I finally donated with almost 251,000 miles on it (and it's only clutch replacement at 200,000 miles). Of course it helps to know how to drive a manual transmission and rev-match your downshifts (I also double clutch mine, a habit I got from necessity with my first car, a 1960 Mini).

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

Science is not about consensus, it is about being correct. The consensus at one time was that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. The real answer is that the climate changes and we don't know with any certainty how much of the climate change is anthropogenic. Minor changes in the models can make them say anything you want. We do not have long term accurate temperature measurements, and many that we do have are still short term on an earth climate scale. There was the Medieval Warm Period (~950-1250) and the Little Ice Age (~1300-1850), both before industrialization. Other questions: What is the ideal climate, and is it now? Who is to say? Can we do anything about it? Should we try?

A lot of Kool Aid has been consumed by many on this topic. Al Gore and Bill Nye are charlatans. I suggest reading some of Dr. Roy Spencer's books for a well reasoned look at the situation. He's a good balance to the other retired NASA scientist, James Hansen.

The bottom line is that we do not know the answers with any certainty and we shouldn't wreck the economy based on faulty science.