Researchers will come up with an idea and post it for other scientists to observe. (This is called an hypothesis.) Other scientists will then examine this data and contact the first researchers to share their conclusions. The hypothesis is now tested over and over by many scientists in the light of new data. The scientists then come to a second hypothesis (conclusion). This second step will be examined for years until a final conclusion is reached. Even then the conclusion may be reexamined and changes made if needed. (This tends to drive nonscientists crazy as they ask why the scientists can’t make up their minds.)

At this exhaustive point in the research the scientists may formulate a more final conclusion. Today, this is where we are with climate change. Ninety-seven percent of all climate scientists believe that Climate Change is real and that the world is in peril. Sadly, it appears that the world is not ready to accept their research.

Robert E. Dixon

Harrisonburg

(31) comments

LVW

Two things that are true: (1) Climate change is legit. (2) The solutions proposed by environmentally-minded people, like getting off fossil fuels by 2050, are never going to happen. We are reactive, not proactive, as a nation. And, as I've said before, most people are "pro-environment" only up to the point that they have to change their behavior or pay more.

mattnamyj

Climate change is a natural occurrence, man made climate change is made up by liberal nut jobs to make themselves feel important. The latest news is that the antarctic ice is expanding. For you libs that means getting larger (freezing).

Programmer

That the ice is expanding is one thing that could be expected at a solar minimum.

Whalebroc

Ah yes, the old 97% myth trotted out again by an Alarmist believer. Billnon explains the fallacies of the myth ( it was busted years ago, but the media does not explain that publicly), with the facts and history of it. Excellent job.

LV, you create a false dichotomy like the old west....”you’re either with us or agin us” .

There is some science that some people agree on...and other that is more like a cheap dime novel. Novel type entries would be the re-re-adjusted temps that some of the “scientists in the alphabet agencies” contort to fit a hockey stick pattern. Some actual small amounts of warming, or sea level rise, mostly in line with historical averages are known to exist.

You get other people in the agencies or UN, who are the “political scientists”. They are the ones who distort existing data and future predictions, based on the guessing models. This has all been exposed before and is common knowledge for anyone that follows this issue. “The only thing new is the history you don’t know” HsT

LVW

Whaler: You say I present a false dichotomy, but then you go on to say it really is a vast conspiracy.

Whalebroc

If you think the progressive agenda is a “vast conspiracy”, that’s your schtick. I am merely pointing out facts.

BoDuke319

When has the scientific consensus ever been wrong?!?! No one is denying climate change. They are debating the cause.

LVW

Either climate change is legit or it is a conspiracy of unprecedented scope. Which do you figure is more likely?

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, don't know if you're asking that of billy or me. I personally don't believe it's that simple. There's lots of money, power, and politics involved in the climate change debate - those things tend to corrupt the actual science. Remove those items from the debate and let's see where the science leads.

BoDuke319

Or, they are just flat wrong. Remember: there used to be a "scientific consensus" that the world was flat. Just in my life time there have been consensus opinions about a global freeze and ozone depletion.

Jim Kadel

Often it takes a long time for accepted "scientific consensus" to adapt to conflicting scientific fact/s. Example: the relatively recent discovery of dinosaur tissue in what was formerly thought to be fossilized bone. So scientists are left with: 1) either dinosaur tissue *can* survive millions of year, or 2) the dinosaurs are *not* millions of years old.

newshound

Somewhere in between

billnonymous

Climate change is an industry. There are universities and think tanks that continue to get millions in funding as long as they keep producing reports that have results that they (who give the money) want. There are many scientists who have quit climate science because when they believed it, their work was published and rewarded, when they ultimately concluded they were wrong, their work was dismissed, NOT published, and they were not given new studies or assignments. There are scientists who admitted that as long as they keep the "it's us" reports coming, their paycheck will continue. It is, perhaps, the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world's population. Their stories are out there, but you will never find the fake news media covering it. They're too busy helping propagate the fraud.

LVW

Sorry, but that is one inaccurate and paranoid version of how science research is done, one that basically implies there is no integrity in science. There is certainly grant funding available to study certain things, but such funding does not come with the constraint that a certain result must be obtained. And there are certainly some papers that are rejected from certain refereed journals, but that is generally because the scope of the paper is insufficient for the journal, the topic is deemed uninteresting to the readership of the journal, or the analysis is just plain shoddy. (And in any case, it is false that "they were not given new studies or assignments" ... are we talking about elementary school children here? Given by whom?) This line of thinking is just one big conspiracy theory, one that, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that science should not be trusted, period. And that is nuts.

billnonymous

Inaccurate and paranoid? Tell that to Dr Rex Fleming.

30 years and literally, billions of our tax dollars collected and used to pay thousands of scientists to research this “problem” and so far, all they have collectively come up with after all of these decades and tens of billions spent is “burning stuff is bad.” That’s it. Even the climate change industry admits there has been virtually no progress in fighting climate change, despite the tremendous amounts of money the research consumes. So where are those billions going? Steady paychecks, that’s where. If you’re a scientist who is looking for a multi-million dollar grant to study climate change, you’re not going to get it by providing work that shows no further study is needed, are you? No, but omit some data, skew that graph, develop that phony model that proves “the climate apocalypse will be here soon” and you will get your million dollar grant. When that money is burned, you provide more ‘proof’ that you’re close and the checks keep coming. The mantra of the climate scientists is “the science is settled” well, if it’s settled, why do we need to keep pouring billions of dollars into studying it? When you tell your masters that the truth of the matter is, this human caused climate change is absolute nonsense, well, ask Dr Rex Fleming and Dr. Anastasios Tsonis what happens when you do that.

LVW

Sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

billnonymous

Funny, that's exactly what Dr Rex Fleming and Dr Anastasios Tsonis said to the alarmists and their incessantly exposed reports. There a many stories of professors, researchers, scientists, who ALL started out as alarmists and, through their research, published papers and results that prove it's not true. Some found themselves out of grant money or a job once they became skeptical. Some started out working for the IPCC and now work to specifically disprove the IPCC's work. The best retort the alarmist side has to that is, "they don't know what they're talking about". They say that because they, like you, have no proof and no research that refutes their claims. They just issue 'horse manure' lines like "the science is settled."

LVW

LOL. You hold up these two scientists, who went from obscurity to heroes of the wingnut world (there's a serious incentive!), yet question the integrity of the vast majority of climate scientists who disagree with them. Nothing odd about that reasoning, eh?

billnonymous

That vast majority you speak of hasn't been right much in the last oh, century. And, again, that collective brain trust has cashed tens of billions of dollars in paychecks, and in return they've provided flawed report after flawed report, have made dozens of predictions that have not even come remotely close to coming true, and the only conclusion they've come up with after all of that time and money is "burning stuff is bad". If we took them seriously and heeded their warnings, we would've needed to relocate 100,000,000 away from the East Coast because it was supposed to be underwater by now. Another 100,000,000, a year, they said would be dying of famine every year if we don't do something now!!! (That was in the 80s) We did nothing, no 100 million dead a year. Snake oil salesmen! It's no wonder you have no problem believing them.

LVW

Oh billy, you poor thing; you're going right to the mat with this nonsense. If the vast majority has actually been wrong so much, why would you put your faith in just a couple of scientists? And your claim that scientists are raking in the dough by making stuff up is just hilarious. You have to learn to separate those trying to profit from the reality of the situation and those who are actually interested in studying the situation.

billnonymous

It’s not just a couple, slick, it’s more like 30,000+ and growing. Pay attention and stop accepting the cherry picked manure you chose to believe. I know you refuse to acknowledge those numbers because it doesn’t suit your argument. Sadly, I’ve grown quite used to you making up nonsense that does. Just like you did with that “raking in the dough” comment. More personal interpretations on things I never said that you turn around and attempt to call me out for. Pathetic! But, considering it came from you, I’m not surprised.

LVW

RE raking in the dough. Your words: "that collective brain trust has cashed tens of billions of dollars in paychecks, and in return they've provided flawed report after flawed report, have made dozens of predictions that have not even come remotely close to coming true..."

billnonymous

As you pointed out, I did not say any ’one’ was “raking it in”, nice try though. You do that INCESSANTLY and I will continue to call out your childish nonsense until you learn how to comprehend correctly. Collectively, as I did say, yes, they have cashed billions of dollars in paychecks. However, we’re talking about tens of thousands of scientists making an average of 80k/yr and that isn’t considered ‘raking it in’, I pay twice that in taxes, for pete’s sake. Anything else?

LVW

Anything else? Yes, learn the difference between being annoying and being compelling.

billnonymous

Keep it up with your pathetic and intentional word twisting into your self serving nonsense. It lends you no credence but it seems to suit you just fine.

LVW

It's amusing that you don't even realize you are not making any sense, and insist on being belligerent about it. I guess I should be flattered that I am living in your head, rent free.

billnonymous

So, let me get this straight, you took the time to respond to all of my posts, then still had to reply again to infer that *you* live in *my* head? You know, it's amusing that you don't even realize you are not making any sense and insist on being taken seriously.

billnonymous

It’s NOT that 97% of scientists think climate change is real. It’s “ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” A claim that many scientists have vocally disagreed with, calling it inconsistent, biased, and incomplete (missing many submitted abstracts). They have called on NASA to *honestly* report their findings. When you refuse to include the reports that do not specifically claim it’s humans, it’s 97%. When you include ALL reports submitted and do not cherry pick the ones you like, that number is less closer to 34%. But that number doesn’t suit the alarmists, so they do what they always do, lie, distort, deceive and ‘fudge’ the numbers until they are scary enough to release to the public. Richard Tol, David Legates, Willie Soon, William Briggs, Christopher Monckton, Roy Spencer, Neil Frank, David Henderson, Alex Epstein, Ian Tuttle, Justin Fox, and Michael Bastasch are among those scientists who have exposed that phony 97% number. They’ve forced correction to the Oreskes report. They got authors of other reports to “acknowledge that these methods cannot determine the overall percentage of scientist who agree.” They have also found that “many of the scientists whose papers were evaluated by Cook claim their research was inaccurately categorized which raises basic questions about the study’s reliability.” They also exposed some of the fuzzy math used to arrive at 97%: “this total did not include the 66.4% of all papers that did not take a position. In other words, at most, Cook et al. found that *ABOUT ONE-THIRD* of peer-reviewed papers containing the search terms “global warming” or “global climate change” endorse the consensus viewpoint—a far cry from 97%. If these scientists want to be taken seriously, they need to stop being caught fudging data and intentionally manipulating results.

bishopsboy

Excelent post, billy.

bishopsboy

Dear Mr. Dixon, if only science were that simple. In reality, politics plays a huge role in which scientists are selected for tenure at research universities and consequently what research is funded, accepted for peer review, published, etc. The tenure and peer-review processes themselves are incestuous in their enforcement of conformity that can and does stifle the advance of science at times. Politics plays as much of role in climate change “science” as the actual science itself does. That is why many people reject the notion we are on brink of self-destruction with global warming.

DANT

Amen to bishopboy and billnonymous.....excellent posts!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.