IS THE SCIENCE SETTLED?
Claims "that the science is settled" and "97% of climate scientists agree CO2 causes climate change" are perhaps not surprising.
Arguments have been presented that of 2,500 scientists reviewed only 600 looked at the science involving CO2, and of these only 308 were part of the second review process, and only 62 of these reviewed the last chapter as to the causes of climate change, and only 7 of these could be considered as being fully independent, and 2 of these did not agree that there was a 90% certainty that CO2 caused climate change.
So only 62 out of 2,500 scientists (2.5%%) could be considered to have been fully informed, and only 7 of these could be considered to be fully independent, and only 5 of these (0.2%), attributed climate change to CO2. The following web link to a 16 minute comprehensive video analyzing the 97% consensus view is well worth the time spent.
An exceedingly arrogant arguments contesting "the settled science" seem to revolve around, if you are not a climate scientist your contribution or scientific opinion is worthless, unless of course you are Al Gore, David Attenborough, or some other favoured worthy. There are plenty of other scientists: chemists, physicists, geologist, biologists, astronomers, & engineers who also have relevant expertise in the relevant areas of expertise to bring to this topic. Expertise and knowledge that climate science purists may be unaware of.
The view that “the science is settled”, still prevails in the wider community, but is a meaningless statement in the context of science. Anyone who believes such statements have any validity does not fully understand the nature of science. Statements such as these from both sides of the argument are political statements, not scientific pronouncements. Even if 100% of 100,000 scientists agreed with a scientific view does not make it any more true.
How can science and society cope with controversial issues being commandeered by radical groups and being whipped up by varied political, media, and commercial interest for their own advantage. The consensus view has no scientific basis and is pure politics and invariably very poor science. Science needs to be repeatedly debated, challenged and severely scrutinized and should never be considered "settled".
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. This is perhaps a biased selection in a very partisan debate in that many of these journals are strongly partisan and very selective in their views and editorial policies on climate science.
Leading national and international scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Very few if any have surveyed their membership on the issue. These organisations seek to curry favour with those with power and influence, are public relations focused lobby groups, promoting their own interests. Only those who have extensively surveyed the opinion of their membership can have any real credibility.
Celebrity endorsements are hardly worthy mentioning as their opinions are not generally based on any substantial understanding of the scientific issues involved any more so than any other member of the wider community.
A substantial list and credentials of some 80 significant world scientists who disagree with or have stated misgivings on the the scientific consensus on global warming
Although there are many scientists in the wider scientific community with opinions on both sides of the debate, very few are suitably knowledgeable in any of the crucial technical areas. These non-expert opinions from scientist lack credibility and are likely based more on faith and political philosophy than any detailed knowledge of the issues and should not be given any more credibility than any other concerned member of the wider community.
46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Critical of IPCC – Climatism
A web link to concise statements from 46 IPCC experts expressing criticism of aspects of IPCC reporting on climate change.