Back on topic: The video presented at the outset of this thread is presented by John Cooke. John is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia and a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
Phrenology was backed up by 'scientific consensus' and convinced most of the globe for hundreds of years that the shape of black colored human's skulls was indicative of a genetic tendency toward violence, rape, low intelligence and subservience, thus promoting the 'ethics' of institutionalized slavery within then-modern civilization.
No, it doesn't prove anything. The statement is that there is a 95% certainty. If a doctor, who was educated in one of the finest scientific institutions in the world, and who had worked many years in his specialty field of science, and was considered by his peers as an expert, told you that you had a critical disease, and that most of the experts on this subject in the world concur, that you would die soon, without corrective surgery. Would you get the surgery?
The consensus is that the vast majority of scientists/engineers/citizens believe that humans are responsible for some of the global warming. The consensus of economic analyses show that global warming is net beneficial for the next ~ 3 deg C of warming which will take 200 - 300 years. One hundred years ago one of the biggest urban problems was the disposal of horse manure.
Without question. Unless, of course, that doctors research was being funded by an organization that had a large investment in his research, and that organizations returns were solely dependent on the results, as is the case with anthropomorphic climate change and the carbon tax/offset industry. If the doctor (and his associates conducting the resesrch) determine that there is either no problem or theres nothing that can be done to fix it, then their funding dies and they have to look for funding elsewhere, possibly in feilds of study that they're not proficient in. But if they skew the data a bit, their jobs remain secure and their investors make lots of money. Scientists are just as susceptible to fraud and self preservation as anyone else.
So I guess the question is how did we get to a point where 97% of publishing scientists on the topic of climate change are all committing fraud? I guess the gist of my question is why aren't 97% doctors or 97% of physicists criminals?
So 97% of Climatologists are part of your conspiracy theory? Also, who comprises the carbon tax/offset industry?
Practically all people believe that human CO2 emissions are responsible for some of the global warming since the little ice age ended. No fraud or criminality is involved.
A carbon tax of magnitude necessary to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 emissions is politically impossible.
I think a lot of doctors *are* criminals. The drugs they push from big pharma instead of proven holistic alternatives like marijuana injure and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Most doctors are just going through the motions they're taught in (big pharma funded) med school, but many others KNOW they are doing harm, and do it anyway for the money. There probably are a fair amount of physicists complicit in suppressing the alternative energy industry for big oil money, but most of that goes on at the legal level, not the research level. There is no money in energy independence, so theres very little research being funded on it.
I don't know Blood, but Gore isn't a scientist. He's an alarmist that sells hype. His predictions are over the top, inaccurate, and quite frankly stupid.
I've never a big fan of Carbon Taxes either. But there was a statement about a "Carbon Tax Industry". I know of no such entity. The better way to promote changes to a fossil fuel economy is through education. It also helps that many Corporations, large and small, have started investing heavily into renewables. Goldman-Sachs is investing $150 Billion. http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/new-energy-landscape/low-carbon-economy/