[rglover]

A lot of scientists believed we were on track for a new ice age in the 70s [1] (using the same media-driven fearmongering tactics back then, too).

The point being, don't just take what you're fed. If you dig around, you might find that a lot of the claims on scientific consensus are misrepresented (as dismissed by the quoted scientists) [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDWPOgeq7vk

[2] https://archive.md/rU2xT

[dwaltrip]

Far more scientists were talking about global warming in the 70s than a new ice age.

Source: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

I learned of this from Vertasium's video on global warming myths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

[breakyerself]

The consensus on climate change is not controversial. It's been studies many times in a multitude of different ways.

Peer reviewed scientific studies examining the level of consensus among climate scientists that Earth is warming and the primary cause is human activity:

Verheggen 2014 - 91% consensus Powell, 2013 - 97% consensus John Cook et al., 2013 - 97% consensus Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 - 84% consensus Anderegg et al, 2010 - 97% consensus Doran, 2009 - 97% consensus Bray and von Storch, 2008 - 93.8% consensus STATS, 2007 - 95% consensus Oreskes, 2004 - 100% consensus

The Cook 2016 meta analysis of consensus studies finds the rate of consensus between 90 - 100% and that agreement with the consensus approaches 100% as expertise in climatology increases.

This list is probably outdated. I put it together 5 or 6 years ago.

Then theres that survey by Science where 60% of respondents said they expect us to hit 3C of warming because of intransigence by policy makers.

[waych]

97% of scientists agree with their source of funding.

[breakyerself]

Funny how they keep saying the same shit even when climate denying idiots come to power and try to shut them up.

[waych]

Climate change idiots are no better, relying on lies and bullshit "consensus" numbers that are selectively biased by their funding.

I'm sure you would find results that are diametrically opposed to climate change if you looked at studies funded by say, oil companies, and there is no doubt in mind as to the bias implied in that direction.

The harsh reality is that things are more nuanced than either side would have you believe, and throwing numbers like "90% consensus" is a fallacious way to bully an argument, and isn't at all scientific on its own.

[breakyerself]

Actually Exxon Mobil did have a privately funded climate science program during most of the 1970s and early 1980s. Those scientists published papers which agreed with what they described as the "Emerging consensus" that human emissions of greenhouse gasses are driving global warming. They even made projections that by 2020 with 420ppm of co2 we should expect around 1C of warming above preindustrial temps. Which is exactly what happened.

Eventually Exxon shut down the division and spent the next 35 years paying public relations agencies to spread misinformation and doubt about the science. Including the false narrative that scientists are being paid to manufacture global warming.

There have always been mercenary scientists like Willie Soon who solicite industry to produce shoddy science that protects their interests. The same thing happened with the lead, asbestos, and tobacco industries. The majority of scientists are not in it for the money. They became scientists to advance human knowledge. That's the entire point of being a scientist. Your conception of the field is cynical and not rooted in reality.

[waych]

Oh you found the representative 3%!

Funny how their funding stopped hmmm?

[breakyerself]

Why would a climate scientist in the 1970s join the small minority in publishing a paper predicting cooling?

1. They focused narrowly on studying the natural drivers of climate change without accounting for the affect of human beings on greenhouse gas concentrations.

2. They focused narrowly on the effects of human emissions of aerosol pollution without accounting for the effects of humans on greenhouse gas levels.

3. Bad science maybe.

Regardless the majority of scientists who accurately predicted warming did not just wind up on the right side of a 50/50 bet. They didn't just predict that there would be warming. They predicted the amount of warming that could be expected depending on the emission scenario that played out.

The planet is now hotter than it has been in over 100,000 years and it's also precisely how warm scientists said it would be at this time with this co2 level. It's one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences and you disregard this because a different smaller group of scientists made a wrong prediction that got too much press. Makes sense.