0.17%

or…

“Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Number”

Deniers of climate science are fond of the following wacky idea: That the scientific community does not agree on the cause of climate change. It’s time to bury that idea like a senile dog hiding a ham bone: Somewhere where we’ll forget about it forever.

According to some recent data-mining of the scientific literature, 0.17% is the percentage of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past 21 years that offer a scientifically-viable alternative to human-caused global warming.

Only 24 of 13,950 articles (0.17%) try to make this case in a scientific manner. If any of them were right, they would have been cited hundreds of times, instead of forgotten forever.

Among the public, denying global warming is a very popular and very influential idea. Among scientists, it holds slightly less than no water.

climateadaptation:

FRONTLINE to explore how the climate change “debate” became, well, a debate. Link. Airs/streams online October 23rd, which means I’ll repost this like 15 times.

Four years ago, climate change was a hot issue and politicians from both sides seemed poised to act. Today public opinion on the climate issue has cooled considerably. Politicians either ignore it or proclaim their skepticism. What’s behind this massive reversal? On Oct 23, FRONTLINE goes inside the organizations that fought the scientific establishment to shift the direction of the climate debate.

You want “must-see TV”? This is “must-see TV”. It’s hard to imagine an issue with as much scientific consensus as climate change so twisted and misrepresented. But it happened. And continues to happen.

And here we are. I’m looking forward to this.

(via mohandasgandhi)

Source: climateadaptation

First, cast doubt on the science. Second, question the personal motives and integrity of the scientists. Third, magnify genuine disagreements among scientists, and cite nonexperts with minority opinions as authorities. Fourth, exaggerate the potential harm caused by the issue at hand. Fifth, frame issues as a threat to personal freedom. And sixth, claim that acceptance would repudiate a key philosophy, religious belief, or practice of a group.

Six tactics used by denial campaign. Keep them in mind so that you’ll be able to distinguish denial from legitimate scientific debate. - Flavors of Uncertainty: The Difference between Denial and Debate

(via scipsy)

(via scipsy)

Climate Scientists' editorial rebuttal published in the WSJ!

climateadaptation:

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal published an anti-climate change op-ed signed by 16 scientists. None of the authors are climate scientists, nor do peer review research in the field.

No matter, it got published anyway. And shortly after the piece was published, real climate scientists came out off the woodwork to condemn the WSJ and the so-called scientists that wrote it. Andrew Revkin of the NYTimes has been tracking the pushback, here.

I’m happy to say that the WSJ published a rebuttal from real climate scientists and researchers, and it is epic. A taste:

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.

Via Revkin

Previously, for background.

climateadaptation: Tomorrow at 7pm is the launch of the 24 hour Climate Reality Project. Broadcast world-wide in 13 languages. Mark your calendars.  “24 Hours of Reality will focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.” - Al Gore, Climate Reality Project To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. Catalyze urgency.  Set those dials, folks. T-minus 24 hours. We all need to watch. We are all soldiers, all climate ninjas that need to hit the ground and help change minds and open eyes.
Pop-upView Separately

climateadaptation:

Tomorrow at 7pm is the launch of the 24 hour Climate Reality Project. Broadcast world-wide in 13 languages. Mark your calendars. 

“24 Hours of Reality will focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.” - Al Gore, Climate Reality Project

To remove the doubt.

Reveal the deniers.

Catalyze urgency.

 Set those dials, folks. T-minus 24 hours. We all need to watch. We are all soldiers, all climate ninjas that need to hit the ground and help change minds and open eyes.

climateadaptation:

Just minutes ago, Al Gore released a video announcing The Climate Reality Project. View the video above, visit the site here. 

Note, with just 304 comments, the video is already highly trolled. Show your support and “like” the video. 

I’ve accused Al Gore of “preaching to the choir” on climate before, but we can’t let the trolls TROL-LOL-LOL all over this important climate effort.