The powerful are the ones who spread your climate change denialist agenda.

Man what

Big oil funds plenty of so-called "climate scepticists".

Does op deny the Holocaust?

Who are these scientists?

Dont understand how govt sucks but then we want to turn around and give these same crooked f***s money to "save" us useful idiots man

97 percent of climate scientists:
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

op a certified glue eater

You telling me the organisation that doles out carbon credits isn’t powerful? :word:
Global warming is a partisan issue, with elites that oppose or support it conveniently having monetary benefits for doing so.

Don’t attempt to paint it as a moral vs immoral issue. You’d be better off questioning the narrative yourself, instead of accepting something based on whether the media agrees with you or not.

I don't agree with the way MSM frames climate change.

What would be the monetary gains companies would get from adressing climate change tho.

Is this compared to 15 or 14 degrees celsius? NASA have been caught out lying about the world’s average temperature before.

that 97 number has been destroyed multiple times already. s***s sad b

IPCC benefits for one thing. Carbon credits is a money making system, that also doubles as the institution playing God regarding the climate.

Activist funding firms pushing groups like Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg benefit as well; conveniently they both are using climate change rhetoric to mask their push for “socialist reform, dismantling patriarchy and undoing colonialism”. You don’t have to take my word for it either, they said so themselves.

Don’t forget the various Al Gore wannabes that make a living off various talks and conferences while using their platform to sneak their friend’s organisations into government contracts paid for by the people via tax.

I certainly agree that we shouldn’t pollute, and we most definitely must look after the environment. However, I completely disagree that the rhetoric and narrative is anywhere near the truth, especially when said “truth” is retroactively changed for profit.

how dare you!

mans has a billy and cant remove those two nutsacks from his eyes

I looked through this link and NASA only links 18 institutions that directly have made statements that climate change is not only real but also caused primarily by humans. No links to any studies. Another website just links 200 societies that agree with the narrative. No studies or figures 🤔

Do you have links to the empirical data? Why is this so difficult to collate? I want the peer reviewed studies they claim prove climate change is real and a direct result of man.

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Other referenced studies:

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

4chan users really onto ktt2 now

At least in Australia Rupert Murdoch controls pretty much all of the media at this point which is full of climate skepticism/denialism, this media consistently props up our right wing government (the liberal party) while s***ting on any apposition

I read the first study and it's abstract you linked, and you need to explain something, because I must be missing it.

The first study Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming is responding to another study written by Richard S J Tol which is a response to another study titled Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. To keep this simple, I'll refer to the studies you linked in this post.

The "consensus" that is mentioned is misleading. Firstly, out of the papers they peer review (11,944), they eliminate 7,930 of them, due to not being able to come to a conclusion on the cause of recent global warming. They eliminate 66.39% of the papers they review. Additionally, the remaining 4,014 papers who's writers agree on the topic of climate change were then subjected to a further survey by the writers of this first study. They got 2,412 of the teams that wrote those papers to respond, which is where the 97% consensus comes from.

So to simplify the narrative, when a subset of a subset of climate change "experts" are asked about whether recent climate change is driven primarily from human involvement, 97% of them agreed. This line is not only misleading, but being used erroneously. This is intellectually dishonest and I think this doesn't give me confidence that ecologists can be taken seriously with such partisan politics affecting their profession.

What is worse is that the first paper only exists to pick apart another abstract for disagreeing with the narrative. Granted, Tol was conflating a confused consensus with economic ecologists who do not conduct research via the same rigorous standards, but the narrative spinning doesn't reflect well in their own abstract either.

Here's some choice snippets that stood out to me from the first abstract:

Among the 4014 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% were judged as having implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus. In addition, the study authors were invited to rate their own papers, based on the contents of the full paper, not just the abstract. Amongst 1381 papers self-rated by their authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Shwed and Bearman (2010) employed citation a***ysis of 9432 papers on global warming and climate published from 1975 to 2008. Unlike surveys or classifications of abstracts, this method was entirely mathematical and blind to the content of the literature being examined. By determining the modularity of citation networks, they concluded, ‘Our results reject the claim of inconclusive science on climate change and identify the emergence of consensus earlier than previously thought’ (p. 831). Although this method does not pro- duce a numerical consensus value, it independently demonstrates the same level of scientific consensus on AGW as exists for the fact that smoking causes cancer.

Anderegg et al (2010) identified climate experts as those who had authored at least 20 climate-related publications and chose their sample from those who had signed public statements regarding climate change. By combining published scientific papers and public statements, Anderegg et al determined that 97%–98% of the 200 most-published climate scientists endorsed the IPCC conclusions on AGW.

Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed 3146 Earth scientists, asking whether ‘human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures,’ and subsampled those who were actively publishing climate scientists. Overall, they found that 82% of Earth scientists indicated agreement, while among the subset with greatest expertise in climate science, the agree- ment was 97.4%.
(Section 2, pg 2)

I had to break up this post due to character limit
Bray and von Storch (2007) and Bray (2010) repeatedly surveyed different populations of climate scientists in 1996, 2003 and 2008. The questions did not specify a time period for climate change (indeed, in 2008, 36% of the participants defined the term ‘climate change’ to refer to ‘changes in climate at any time for whatever reason’). Therefore, the reported consensus estimates of 40% (1996) and 53% (2003) (which included participants not stating a view on AGW) suffered from both poor control of expert selection and ambiguous questions. Their 2008 study, finding 83% agreement, had a more robust sample selection and a more specific definition of the consensus position on attribution.
(Section 2, pg 2-3)

The rhetoric around the concept of "experts" speaks not only to elitism, but specific cherry picking of the results to create the 97% figure. Detailed explanations dismantling anything against the consensus while brushing over methodology for anything supporting the consensus is very clear in my snippets here as well. I was quite surprised by the lack of consistent scrutiny in these abstracts, and it has coloured my view of the scientific community negatively as a result.

I'm currently unable to access the studies that you mentioned at the bottom, but hopefully they are present at the British Library. If so, I'll source them out for further reading. I'm about to start reading the second abstract now, which is the source of this study I mention in this post.

What kind of terrible explanation for determining the validity of consensus is this?

How they determine expertise isn't even consistent. Imagine making a graph and trying to plot qualitative data.

Police arrested 183 people for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in the past few months.

NSW police data shows that since November 8, 24 people have been arrested for deliberately starting bushfires, while 183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences.

Australians burning themselves.
archive.is/Z7Gwk

Deliberate Fire?