Two reputable surveys (von Storch et al 2008 and Verheggen et al 2014) found that about
80% 66% of scientists involved in climate science or closely related fields support a fairly narrow consensus–the obvious points being the operation of greenhouse gases and their ability to contribute a warming effect to the climate, and they agree that the recent warming period indeed had a contribution from human effects including massive emissions of greenhouse gases.
There however exists a Klimate Konsensus, a group of NGOs, social commentators and blog enthusiasts who are on a mission to elevate the importance of combatting climate change to the level of religious fervor.
The Klimate Konsensus has had little luck in alarming the public. The public agrees with the scientists about global warming–poll after poll shows this. But the public has rightly rejected the hair-pulling, screaming at the top of your lungs hysteria coming from the KK. Good for the general public!
The Klimate Konsensus is underhanded, goes for cheap shots and never admits error. They slime scientists on the other side. They insist that those in opposition are funded by fossil fuel interests. When that is shown not to be true, they change the argument and say opponents are using tactics and strategies stolen from the tobacco wars.
Consensus scientists mostly keep their mouths shut about all of this. Which shows that most scientists have good sense. They can see what has happened to the few scientists who have dared to step forward.
So, let’s offer a representative sample of Klimate Konsensus hooligans who have intruded on a scientific debate and turned the debate auditorium into a schoolyard after lunch brawl, complete with food fights.
Joe Romm of Climate Progress.
Josh Halpern, who blogs as Eli Rabett at Rabett Run.
Michael Tobis, who has returned to his blog Only In It For the Gold.
Tim Lambert of Deltoid.
In a lot of the media back and forth, there is an attempt to distinguish ‘real’ ‘sceptics’ from ‘phony’ ‘skeptics.’ That discussion is as political in nature as everything else in current discussions of climate change, adaptation and mitigation.
There are skeptics who are crazily wrong, politically motivated or who are clearly not the brightest lights in the building.
There are also Nobel prize winners, people who have spent their life advancing climate science and people who today are putting forward legitimate questions and offering reasoned objections to some of the malarkey being put out.
The real dichotomy is between the legitimate scientific consensus and a Krazy Klimate Konsensus attempting to piggyback on top of it for their own political reasons, to advance their own societal goals.