Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? | 5 Minute Video
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they’re released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
“97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.”
How many times have you heard that statement? Probably hundreds. It may seem like a compelling and scientific argument against fossil fuels, but it’s one of the most illogical, unscientific arguments you can make. To see how, let’s use this form of argument for another controversial product, vaccines.
An anti-vaccine person approaches you and says, “97 percent of doctors say that the side effects of vaccines are real?”
What would you say in response?
You’d probably say, “Yeah but the benefits far outweigh the side effects.”
By saying that “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real” without mentioning any of the benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine activist is trying to get you to look at the potential dangers of vaccines out of context.
When fossil fuel opponents say “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real,” they are doing the same. Yes, using fossil fuels for energy has a side effect—increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay. But what about the upside? In the case of fossil fuel that upside is enormous: the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that makes modern life possible, and at a scale no other energy source can match.
So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”—whether it’s a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation—using the same term in different, contradictory ways.
If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right?
But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels.
For example, listen to how Secretary of State John Kerry manipulates the “97 percent of scientists” line. “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible,” he said in a speech in Indonesia in 2014. Later, in the same speech, he claimed that Scientists agree that, “The world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.” 97 percent of climate scientists never said any such thing.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/do-97-of-climate-scientists-really-agree/
source
Climate change is real that’s why we have different seasons and periods of drought and periods of extreme rain
Why does nobody ever look at climate from the long term view that it operates that it occurs
There is a major flaw in your statements. 100% of climate scientists agree that climate changes. The nuance you are missing is that the claim is man made climate change is settled science. If the impact of man's activities on climate change is 1%, all the modifications we engage in will have no impact on changing climate but they will destroy a successful way of life for all people and end in tremendous suffering and death around the world.
What get's me is the way GREENIES Mind's got so twisted that they became rabid ECO TERRORIST ! With NO absolute proof that man really is causing it ! There are 167 active volcano's on the planet ! One just one spews more CO2 into the atmosphere then man has sense he's been walking up right ! Explain that away ?!
In any case, you don't settle questions of fact by counting noses.
The estimated 1.0 C of modest and gradual warming since the Little Ice Age has improved human prosperity and flourishing be every metric. The warming trend started long before fossil fuels, and was so innocuous nobody would have noticed were it not for 24/7 propaganda.
Already established CO2 science done using the Scientific Method already shows three principles AGW alarmists have never disproven:
1) CO2 warming effect declines logarithmically as the concentration increases,
2) CO2 has a saturation point or absorption limit preventing 'runaway' warming, and
3) CO2 has a sink rate where the biomass absorbs additional CO2 (plant food) leading to the CO2 Fertilization Effect and a greening fertile planet.
If AGW alarmist want to be taken seriously, they need to start over from the beginning and show experimental evidence that invalidates the already established CO2 physics, before they can insert their esoteric alternative model-based hypothesis as a plausible and credible alternative to reality.
After 50+ years of failed predictions, data manipulation, ethics scandals, censorship, bullying, cancelling, hating, violence, vandalism, social division, and trillions of dollars of public money wasted and transferred to activists and billionaires – clearly AGW is not a well-intended concern backed by goodwill and solid science.
Enough is enough, I no longer support for this anti-science, anti-social, misanthropic movement.
A lot of people don't believe Joe Biden won the election either.That doesn't mean he didn't.
0bama used that nonsensical argument all of the time!
NO
Conflating vaccine injury with the climate hoax doesn’t work
Nobody asked me and I have a DSc
My dad and I talk alot about climate change. He's positive if we don't elect Biden, we're all doomed in 100 years.
So 3% are correct and 97% are wrong ?
Common and sensible thoughts, Oops, sensible thoughts aren't that common any more.
Whenever there's a disclaimer to a video, it means that it is true.
I think that when people are paid enough, they will say whatever they will need to say to satisfy the globalist cabal…
Who knew?
This guy has such heavy links to the fossil fuel industry he’s also past partner at Ayn rand institution which surprisingly received tons of money from the Koch brothers. He also fights against environmentalists to protect the fossil fuel industries bottom line Also PragerU has Wilks brother money so keep the heavy pro fossil fuel slant and this isn’t necessarily a reliable source.
It is not 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, it is more like 0.2 to 0.4 degrees. The models that come up with 4 do not accurately model the observed phenomenon, such as the cooling that started in 2000, or the drastically reduced hurricane seasons after Katrina. The models that show 0.2 degrees of change do accurately predict the phenomenon when adjusted for the actual output of the sun. This is why many climate scientists, particularly in academia, put out 4 degrees when getting funding and 0.2 degrees when comparing their models to actual temperature measurements.
Facts matter, thanks for the facts Alex.
Per my understanding, Cook is not a scientist but a communicatinos guy. In other words, a professional liar.
the vaccine argument is not a good one. If you study the harmful effects of injecting aluminum, youll change your tune. Go read Dr. Christopher Exley's book, Imagine you are an Aluminum Atom. He is the world's foremost authority on Aluminum and he proves different
Funny thing is, 97% don't actually agree.
I'm more than 97% sure that John Kerry is a liar.
Except peer reviewed and repeatable science DOES back up a run away greenhouse effect if CO2 levels continue to rise. And as your own graph has shown, those levels ARE continueing to rise. I agree that it is important to be initially skeptical of new science, scientists would actually agree with you, they are some of the most skeptical people in the world. But the research has been done, the facts are THERE. Time to take action wouldnt you agree?
A great video about climate change would be scientists who have children explaining respectfully to the woke why the scientists are not worried about climate change killing their children. Many woke actually believe that “climate deniers” don’t care about the newer generations’ future,
Climate change is bullshit1 w/a cherry on top !
Think you can change my mind?
Remove the hydrocarbon from our existence and watch civilization crumble. The first people crying about how hard life is will be the leftist clowns that feign outrage over oil, all the while oblivious to how many things in their lives are from oil derivatives.
History shows that at one time, human sacrifice to appease the gods was necessary for a good harvest. People were jailed and tortured for believing the earth is round. Humans have always thought their beliefs were right and any dissenting views must be crushed. Just recently, if you told someone that Covid 19 was engineered in a laboratory and not naturally occurring, you were labeled a "dangerous conspiracy theory nut case" and banned from evey social media platform today as misinformation. Honest debate on anything is not allowed any more. Logic is dead.
Cook is a crook
When have scientists ever been wrong?
The premise of this video suggests that climate change and its effects were arbitrarily made up to attack fossil fuel companies. Suppose it's not real, and the fossil fuel companies have nothing to do with the warming. Why would fossil fuel companies be targeted at all? If they were truly this force for good without any real drawbacks, why would anyone want to drive them out of business? The fossil fuel companies are being targeted like an existential threat because that's what they are.
Ask Alfred Wegener what scientific consensus can do…
Lol it's funny how this video came out before covid because it's proven that the covid vaccine was full BS.
I find it funny that out of 26 sources this video doesn't cite a single academic resource related to climate change
Los combustibles fósiles son buenos, pero aun así estamos maltratando el planeta y hay que cuidarlo
Fear.
Fear.
We will need oil and gas for 100 years. Carbon capture is easy
Of course there's climate change. The climate always changes. The temperature rose 1degree Celsius in 300 years
Totally agree. Plants breath in what we breath out……….and we breath in what we breathe out. Imagine that. God has a plan, and, supposedly, the amt of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.04%. If it goes below 0.02%, plant life will die. God created the earth and controls everything. It's bigger than humans…….like God didn't know we'd invent cars and use oil. Sheeple. Herd mentality.