The Sound Of Settled Science

"...one of the greatest items of misinformation..."

The author is far too kind. DISinformation, more like.

All these mentions of consensus are just priming for the vision of future communitarian civic life where a majority in "participatory democracy"-style town meetings can supposedly bind everyone.

Be looking Kate for one of these civic planning labs touting a shareable/collaborative consumption economy to come to Toronto soon. San Francisco, Atlanta, NYC, Cleveland, and now Mexico City have already been held or announced.

I attended one and was horrified by what I heard and the speakers were being given standing ovations.

All those years of not teaching history seems to mean no one appreciates a toxic vision or its implications anymore.

I guess they are primed by the consensus that it's a good idea.

To a socialist truth is whatever advances their agenda.

The very first tip off is that '97% agree'.

The only think you can possibly get 97% of people to agree on is that they need to take a leak at least once a day. The remaining 3% are either lying or are dead.

Aside from that, it is not possible to have that level of agreement on anything ... especially when most people know zero about what they 'believe' in. Just ask them, they will have not answer, a wrong answer or they will call you a racist.

If we can shake off this era of climate hostage taking, we may yet survive as free people. Now we need to shake off Obama care to be free of that world of pain.

It is easy to agree, most people like agreeable people .... even a bobble head can agree, but knows nothing.

I forget who originated the quote on consensus decision making, but the quote is "it is impossible to get more than five people to agree on anything".

The falsity of that 97% figure has long been known to readers here and at WUWT, but it is always nice to see it get greater exposure.

Agree with you ofaycat. It's the old business that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. As soon as someone came out with the 97% rubbish, every bs alarm bell in my head went off. It's impossible to get general agreement on the mechanism of action of general anesthetics even though they've been in use for more than a century. So as soon as someone said 97% of scientists agree on the cause of a particular trend in a system as complex as the climate when the very trend under discussion cannot itself be clearly established, I immediately recognized an agenda-driven bald-faced lie. It's a bullying tactic used to avoid or stifle debate.

From the article: Even President Obama is said to have tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

Obama, like many leftists/radicals has a habit of making such statements, continuing to do so after they have been thoroughly discredited. His Obamacare statements reinforce his intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

And don't forget the proverbial four out of five dentists who recommend . . .

it's easy to get 97% consensus agreement on an item such as AGW, just ask a lefty and they will agree with themselves to a 97% certainty:-)))))

me thinks the Kate, "math is hard" is very applicable here

Not sure about Even President Obama, I think he's Odd.

The only AGW recorded support for human causes was 4ea PhD’s. One female novice from Florida (experienced feeding Dolphins), one female activist from California, one Australian @ Texas AM (Experience with Air measurement) None had done any scientific research other than writing articles quoting the work by someone else. The Florida female wrote some AGW articles "AFTER" she voted, she needed some credentials other than feeding fish

The Science of AGW is not Science. They are political scientists with a radical agenda. It is unfortunate that serious R & D will suffer from the academia that created these whores. The very last person to ask if you want a definite scientific opinion is someone with a PhD; they by definition must have an open mind.

The Canadian public has been hood winked by CBC & Suzuki into thinking science is dictated by academia (PhD) Suzuki in my opinion is a fraud, his fruit fly work was previously done by others.

The AGW debate is a waste of time