Anthony Watts tries to hide the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming and with good reason. He knows that studies show that when people realise that virtually all climate science and related research points to the fact that humans are causing global warming, then people are more inclined to want to do something about it. Mitigating global warming goes against everything Anthony holds dear.
Knowing there is scientific consensus engenders support for action on climateThis is from a news release from Michigan State University about a study Anthony writes about:
U.S. residents who believe in the scientific consensus on global warming are more likely to support government action to curb emissions, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, according to a study led by a Michigan State University sociologist.
However, a political divide remains on the existence of climate change despite the fact that the vast majority of scientists believe it is real, said Aaron M. McCright, associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Sociology.
WUWT Tries to Deny the ConsensusIn writing about the above study, Anthony tries his best to deny the scientific consensus, writing:
But, we all know that 97% consensus talking point is simply based on a handful of actual climate responding to a broad questionnaire combined with some statistical spin to give the desired result.No - that's wrong! Anthony studiously avoids mentioning other studies, like Naomi Oreskes who looked at 928 papers and found not a one that disputed the anthropogenic causes of the current global warming. She writes how she tested to see if the various scientific societies and the IPCC were downplaying legitimate dissenting options:
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.Nor does Anthony look at the science or list a single paper from the millions listed in a Google Scholar search on climate change that in his view might defy the 'consensus'. It's all hand-waving. Tony shows he is a real, dinky-di, genuine fake skeptic.
Denier Double-ThinkThe reaction from the deniers? Well, here's some double-think from Richard deSousa who can't seem to make up his mind if there is or isn't such a thing as scientific consensus (it can't be flawed if there's no such thing!) and says:
April 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm There is no such thing as Scientific Consensus in science! There have been too many past examples of scientific consensus being flawed!Richard, make up your mind. If there's no scientific consensus then it can't be 'flawed'. If there is scientific consensus, they who is going to say it's flawed? Not the scientists - after all, if there is scientific consensus then its the scientists who are in consensus. So that leaves only a bunch of deluded deniers from WUWT. Ha!