Trending
In a Sept. 5 opinion piece Tim Mannello reported that now 99.9% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human behavior. In doing so, he conflates consensus with certainty. They are not the same. In science, certainty has a particular meaning which has to do with the probability that the theory is true. It is a complex mathematical calculation which cannot be done with climate change because of the complexity of the subject and the lack of reliable data. Even the most corrupt scientist would not compromise his reputation by trying to assign a level of certainty to this theory.
Consensus is not science, but it does carry some weight with the average person, so let's address this supposed consensus. This 99.9% replaces the previous 97% number. Does this mean that 2.9% more scientists have changed their minds? No, because both numbers are bogus. That's not to say the number is incorrect as stated, but it is meaningless.
The 99.9% comes from a survey of scientific journal articles about climate change. There are a couple of things that affect this number and render it useless. First, scientists are not taken to writing papers on subjects they don't believe in, so people writing about climate change tend to be people who think it is the result of human activity. But the big factor affecting this number is that scientific journals won't publish a paper that does not comply with the accepted narrative on climate change.
At about the same time as this survey was being released, a climate scientist wrote an opinion piece in "The Free Press" which was subsequently reprinted in the "New York Post". In this article, he tells us how he had to leave out important information to get published. He explains that these "scientific" journals will not publish papers that do not affirm climate change, that it is caused by human activity, that it is responsible for all extreme weather events and even some non-weather related events, and that it threatens the very inhabitability of the planet.
Given that it is impossible to get a dissenting opinion published, is it any wonder we have 99.9% agreement in published works? Wouldn't you like to hear both sides of this issue before agreeing to destroy the world economy to fix the problem?
Just one more observation; Mannello is old enough to remember the 1970s when we were being told that if we didn't stop burning fossil fuels, we'd be in a new ice age by the year 2000. In 2000 we were told that if we didn't stop burning fossil fuels the Arctic ice pack would be gone by the year 2013. You'd think that he'd be a bit more skeptical of these kinds of claims. Maybe he has let fear cloud his judgement.
PAUL RINKER
Montoursville
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom