See Comments down arrow

The 97 Percent Consensus Myth Revisited

01 Jan 2023 | Fact Checks

9 comments on “The 97 Percent Consensus Myth Revisited”

  1. The readiness of competent adults to believe nonsense depresses me, but is well documented in any news or political story. That this lie continues to be promulgated shouldn't therefore be a surprise, but that those charged with shaping social policy simply fail to be objective, is. In the UK we are hitched to a runaway climate wagon, careering down a hill marked 'poverty - in every facet of your life' , and we are all seemingly indolent, or apathetic, or powerless to halt it. Aspirations to alter climate from people who can't give an accurate weather forecast 6 days ahead is risible, of course, but actually setting in place laws to alter behaviour, health and wellbeing based upon these nonsensical prognostications is genuinely alarming. Pun unintended. Ukraine has jerked politicians back into a real world, but one that they know their own actions have damaged our collective capacities to address. Germany, you are the poster child here. But it is of course far easier for politicians to pontificate upon issues that lie far into the future, long after their remit has expired, than it is to face up to the consequences both of the external threat and the political mistakes that compound it. That we choose to make decisions in the here and now, reflecting a focus on the vagaries of a debatable future while impoverishing society to achieve something yet to be quantified, is the height of institutional and civilisional decadence.

  2. Agree! The UK Government has become a slave to ''modelling'', be it Covid, Foot and Mouth disease, or climate change, all of which seem to be based on ''worst case scenario''! It's the taxpayer who ends up footing the bill and becoming poorer. No media outlet, apart from GB News, seems willing to challenge the ''accepted science'' at the risk of being derided as a gammon or fascist! Thank goodness for CDN!

  3. It is amazing how almost everyone I know has become immune to sensible discussion - especially on 'climate change'. It is quite impossible to have differing or even slightly different views and you are regarded as being a flat-earther, devil worshipper, and planet hater all rolled in to one. It is especially bad in the UK where the BBC has openly supressed anything but the 'consensus' for years now, and now they completely control the narrative with their fear-mongered exagerations.
    When they finally impoverish us and transfer all industry and CO2 to the Far East, they will only then be blaming us for 'polluting' the atmosphere for all these years.

  4. Dear CDN Subscribers:
    Here's a direct quote by JR in this revised video that jumped out at me: " Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it likely has some overall warming effect" and then, shows a picture of the inventor of this claim, Arrhenius. I'm sure most of you would probably agree with this statement but what's missing is the following question: Ok, but by how much and who is this guy anyways ? I looked into same some 4 months ago and alerted JR via email as follows:
    Just stumbled onto something that I thought might make a good backgrounder video for you. I realize you have covered the role of Arrhenius before in your discussions on ECS but after looking into it more carefully, I really think something is very wrong here. For example, most of the CO2 advocates think of him as a clairvoyant savant and that he won the Nobel Prize for his “discovery” of the CO2 phenomena but that is not the case at all. He won it in 1903 for his work on the “ionization of carbonic acid in aqueous solutions” ie, in water not air ! In fact, it has since been proven that his theory does not work for gasses at all nor does it work for all fluids, ie, ammonia. What actually happened is that his work on air was published some 7 years earlier (1896) and unfortunately it was largely ignored not because it proved his theory right (it didn’t) but because it pointed to the only way a true scientist could confirm or deny it, ie, by actual experiment. I’ve attached a copy of his 1896 paper for your use but here is the relative paragraph on the second page of his paper:
    “In order to get an idea of how strongly the radiation of the earth (or any other body of the temperature +15o C.) is absorbed by quantities of water-vapour or carbonic acid in the proportions in which these gasses are present in our atmosphere, one should, strictly speaking, arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body at 15oC by means of the appropriate quantities of both gasses. But such experiments have not been made as of yet, and, as they would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal, I have not been in a position to execute them” .
    Sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it. Sounds like what Arrhenius had in mind was an ACTS and he was 100% right on the money on that score. He was actually sounding an alarm here and that’s why he put it at the beginning of his paper not at the end. I think he knew that his theory was bogus because it violates the fundamental laws of chemistry (PV = nRT) and thermodynamics (c = 1/m x dQ/dT). How could he not know ? These laws preceded him by centuries and they apply to all gasses not just on earth, but anywhere in the universe. It’s no accident then that his value for ECS is way out of line at 5.3oC compared to Charney (1979) of 3oC or Stephan-Boltzmann(1880) at 1oC. My prediction from the ACTS results: .1oC . Why ? See http://www.dextras.com/climate.html .
    Look forward to your comments as usual and I remain;
    Yours truly,
    Kenneth G. Dextras, B. Eng., McGill '76

    I never heard back from JR but I still think it would make for a very useful backgrounder to "clear the air" pardon the pun. What do you think ? You can reach me through the web site.

  5. I’m not convinced that CO2 has a heating effect on the atmosphere, at all. I would like someone to demonstrate to me, using a simple diagram as follows, how this can be true. Show one molecule of CO2, representing the 250ppm of the gas in the atmosphere in 1850, and 2 molecules, representing the claimed concentration of, roughly, 2022. Use the NASA graphic which shows sunlight striking the single molecule, refracting red light in all directions, including to the earths surface and back into space, and then absorbing red light from the earth’s surface and refracting it back to the surface and, some, into space. Now, draw a second molecule the same as the first. Now, explain to me why the earth will heat, when roughly twice as much red light is refracted into space in 2022 than 1850!

  6. Patrick:
    Assuming this "reply" also goes directly to you, the answer to your question is in my comment above. Your hunch is correct: CO2 has very little to do with temperature change of the atmosphere. It never has and never will. The whole theory is a fraudulent misrepresentation of reality and the only reason a small clique of psuedo scientists have been able to get away with it since 1896 is that no one wants to spend the money on the necessary "expensive apparatus". Yes, this experimental test will cost millions but compared to the trillions that buddy boy Biden is about to unload on taxpayers for electric car subsidies (that may turn out to be completely unnecessary) , it's a pittance. In any event, what's the alternative ? There isn't any. It's high time for the soft scientific rubber to meet the hard engineering road. It's no different for us than it was for Newton, Boyle, Joule, Faraday and Einstein. The days of doing earth shattering experiments on the cheap are over. Let’s just get on with it and move on. Spread the word.

  7. There are so many damaging ramifications for the alarmist consensus lie. How on earth will we ever be able to undo the psychological harm that it has caused?
    How will we ever put an end to the indoctrination throughout our institutions of learning? Can a student who does independent research and questions it do so without negative feedback from the indoctrinators.
    How many professors at our universities know the truth but are being bullied and silenced,especially at universities in Canada that signed on to the Climate Change Emergency Declaration?
    And how will we ever resolve the harm caused by industrial scale wind turbines that were foisted on residents of rural Ontario whose democratic rights were suspended, using the rationale that industrializing their neighbourhoods was going to 'save the planet' and residents being harmed were mere collateral damage to a worthy cause?

  8. It's my understanding that Angstrom carried out experiments that disproved Arrhenius' theory about CO2 being a warming gas. I'm not a scientist, and would like to hear from experts in this field on the subject.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *