The (Fake) 97% Consensus Is Important Because People Are Stupid Or Something

Hyper Warmists Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook, Sander Van Der Linden, Tony Leiserowitz, and Ed Maibach are very enthused to tell us just how darned important the 97% study by John Cook et all is, even though it has been debunked numerous times, including by authors cited in the study

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

Some have argued that consensus messaging is counter-productive. Here’s why they’re wrong. (there is a photo of “comedian” John Oliver embedded at the story to tell us how serious this is)

Unfortunately, humans don’t have infinite brain capacity, so no one can become an expert on every subject. But people have found ways to overcome our individual limitations through social intelligence, for example by developing and paying special attention to the consensus of experts. Modern societies have developed entire institutions to distill and communicate expert consensus, ranging from national academies of science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Assessments of scientific consensus help us tap the collective wisdom of a crowd of experts. In short, people value expert consensus as a guide to help them navigate an increasingly complex and risk-filled world.

Unfortunately, humans don’t have infinite brain capacity, so no one can become an expert on every subject. But people have found ways to overcome our individual limitations through social intelligence, for example by developing and paying special attention to the consensus of experts. Modern societies have developed entire institutions to distill and communicate expert consensus, ranging from national academies of science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Assessments of scientific consensus help us tap the collective wisdom of a crowd of experts. In short, people value expert consensus as a guide to help them navigate an increasingly complex and risk-filled world.

Really, it all comes down to them stating that people are sheep and are stupid, so you must be told what to think. And if you don’t buy into the “consensus”, then you must be a denier, as we read further down in the missive. And Wrongthink is just not allowed.

They desperately need people to buy into “consensus”, because then people are willing to let government take their money and give it to these same “climate scientists”, allowing them to be famous, do their studies on the taxpayer dime, and travel around the world on fossil fueled vehicles to conferences paid for by taxpayers in exotic locations.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “The (Fake) 97% Consensus Is Important Because People Are Stupid Or Something”

  1. yuleeyahoo says:

    Of course I can’t be an expert in every field. However, when I consistently catch a so called “expert” in easily verifiable lies; I will disregard their advice.

  2. Jeffery says:

    TEACH: As a Deniastrologist, what percentage of professional climate scientists do you feel agree that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?

    95%, 90%, 75%, 50% ???

    Studies all point to north of 90%. What do the studies you’ve conducted demonstrate?

  3. Jl says:

    Funny-J is reduced to trying to win science arguments by a show of hands. How very scientific.

    • Jeffery says:

      j,

      If 97 out of 100 doctors recommend chemo are going with the 3 that recommend prayer?

      There is always consensus in science, otherwise we spend all our time reinventing the wheel.

      Our ask you again. What evidence would “prove” that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm (provided you have finally admitted that the Earth is warming).

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        I am afraid your premise is wrong. The majority of doctors thought that leaches were curing disease. A small group challenged the concept. Same for cholesterol. Perhaps if you learned something about science and not the religion which you are describing, then you would understand.

        • Jeffery says:

          dave,

          And dumb doctors still prescribe antibiotics for viral diseases. Do you trust the results of clinical trials or do you follow your “gut” instincts? Do you advise your victims, that is, patients to quit smoking?

          You keep talking about cholesterol… do you think serum cholesterol is not associated with heart disease?

        • Rotterdam says:

          You sound like an educated man. I would be interested in knowing what your degree is in?

          I find you obsessing over certain ideals. Totally disregarding the opinions or ideas of others while insisting that yours is the only intellectually honest opinion because it is supported by your cadre of supporters.

          There is very little consensus on something as complex as Global warming or climate change. The same holds true with a profession that depends upon “selling” medicines to fix what ails you. In the medical industry I find that most doctors who dispense Chemo for profit are certainly going to prescribe dispensing chemo as the solution to your cancer problems.

          Now do I disagree with their consensus. No. It just means that Im skeptical when the doctors have an agenda that benefits their bottom line.

          The same holds true for drug companies. Cholesterol was discovered to be the main cause of most heart disease. Pills were quickly dispensed, trials confirmed they were safe of course with the caveat that they were safe for most. People’s livers failed. They developed many differing and serious symptoms up to and including death. But the consensus of the trials were that these drugs were safe.

          Then some years later the research concludes that inflamation in the veins is actually what causes heart disease and that cholesterol simply sticks to the inflamed areas causing blockages. Now the consensus that cholesterol is the main cause of heart disease is now in question by more recent medical discoveries that say cholesterol is only a Player in the loop of heart related issues. The emphasis now is upon how to reduce the inflamation in the body in order to keep cholesterol from collecting in the veins.

          Is this the same type of consensus used to quantify AGW? 97 percent are convinced that AGW is the direct and total result of CO2? And if we find they are wrong and people die because we willy nilly run off with a consensus does that mean they get a do over?

          As for you question about serum cholesterol certainly it plays a part. Just as co2 plays a part. It seems however that you are convinced that co2 plays a much larger part in AGW. You may or may not be right. but then those doctors who believed that pills of all kinds would fix your cholesterol thought they were right too, until they were only partially right.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9465 access attempts in the last 7 days.