Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

“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. So what did the 97 percent actually say? It
turns out, nothing remotely resembling catastrophic climate change. One of the main studies justifying
97 percent was done by John Cook, a climate communications fellow for the Global Change
Institute in Australia. Here’s his own summary of his survey: “Cook et al. found
that over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming
up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” “Main cause” means “over 50 percent.
But the vast majority of papers don’t say that human beings are the main cause of recent
warming. In fact, one analysis showed that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that. How did Cook get to 97 percent, then? First,
he added papers that explicitly said there was man-made warming but didn’t say how
much. Then, he added papers that didn’t even say there was man-made warming, but he
thought it was implied. A scientific researcher has a sacred obligation
to accurately report his findings. Cook and researchers like him have failed us—as have
the politicians and media figures who have blindly repeated the 97 percent claim to support
their anti-fossil fuel goals. How can we protect ourselves against this
kind of manipulation? Whenever someone tells you that scientists agree on something, ask
two questions: “What exactly do they agree on? And, “How did they prove it?” I’m Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case
for Fossil Fuels, for Prager University.

Comments 100

  • Interesting


  • John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel said that these climate scientist are telling politicians what they want to hear so they can keep getting government funding. He also said that 31,000 scientist back him up that climate change is a hoax.

  • It's a good argument. Though I will NOT take the chance on vaccinations. Reason. It effects , individually, personally. The side effects that are possibly ,are life altering. I personally am in my late 40s and cannot remember having vaccinations or boosters in my lifetime. Even the CDC says they are good for 20 at the very best. And the effectiveness rate varies greatly. Further I know no adults when asked are they keeping up with their boosters and vaccinations. Which seems to be good enough evidence that heard immunity is nonsense. Even further most of the conditions and/or diseases that are vaccinated for are not that dangerous. As long as you stay healthy. All these factors considered. And the fact that they do very little testing before going to market. Not to mention the vaccination companies openly exclaiming they are more interested in profit then anything. It just doesn't seem necessary. It just doesn't seem worth the risk.

  • 97% of scientist agree, cow farts stink. 3% love the smell

  • 100% of scientifically literate people agree CO2 is beneficial to the environment. Even if they didn't, God made CO2 as a beneficial element as well as methane.

  • It’s actually that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human actions” so this entire video is basically BS

  • Prager is a pretty good con man.

  • Do 97% of Climate Scientist know

    that 99.95% of the atmosphere

    is NOT Co2?

  • It’s amazing what these people find on Wikipedia ?

  • No wonder people are confused. PragerU…..delete

  • Fossil fuels are used to power the iphones from which they say that 97 percent thing

  • 01:16

  • Bad analogy, Alex. You should know better. The side effects of vaccines do not outweigh the alleged benefits, as 54% of the vaccinated public now haev a chronic illness, and nearly 1 in 25 children have a developmental and/or gastrointestinal disorder.

    The myth of "global warming consensus" and argument by assertion and appeals to authority are all equally fallacious.

  • ?‍♂️

  • you totally missed the point, sorry. where does the 97% statement come from ? a John Cook study from 2013. only "scientists" who didn't disagree with antrophogenic climate change were counted in this study. the 3% were undecided.

  • When 97% of firemen say your house is on fire, would you leave? Nah, just consider the benefits.

  • Climate change is real but was never man made.

  • There absolutely are better alternatives to fossil fuels, are you kidding me?

  • This may be the dumbest PeabrainU video yet. What are this kids qualifications? I love it how nobody trusts that scientists know what they are talking about while they use their scientist developed technology to spout about it. Don’t pick and choose when it’s convenient to believe something.

  • If anyone including this idiot Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, thinks humans are causing global warming or climate change as it is now called, then explain the following.

    Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars and there are no humans on Mars to cause it.

    It has also been reported lately, as of April 2019, that Jupiter is also experiencing warming due to the increase of solar flairs.

    Earth isn’t the only planet grappling with climate change, although this other orb doesn’t have much in the way of fossil fuel emissions or a 97 percent of scientific “consensus” on global warming.

    Newly published evidence suggests Mars is experiencing global warming as it emerges from an ice age.

    The red planet, which moved closer to the Earth on Monday than at any other time since 2005, has retreated from a glacial period that would have covered large areas in white before the thaw about 370,000 years ago, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.

    The research was conducted using an instrument on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that allowed an unprecedented examination of “the most recent Martian ice age recorded in the planet’s north polar ice cap,” according to a NASA press release.

  • Surely, the benefits of fossil fuels don't outweigh national security, right?

    "DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S.

    interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate

    change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural

    disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water." (article 612710)

    There's your "precise magnitude." More than a wall can solve.

    If information is truly what you seek, why not go on NASA's website, under the section: Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming?

    These go far beyond the scope of the first study you cited. Speaking of which, it should be noted that Cook verified his findings with the scientists who wrote the 4000 papers he wrote in his paper. Those scientists definitively took a stance on anthropogenic climate change, even if not directly referenced in the paper. Hardly any scientific paper directly cites gravity, tectonics, or electricity as real, so why hold those concepts under the same scrutiny?

    And what's with the certainty behind fossil fuels forever being a staple in the energy sector? The sun delivers more energy to earth, in an hour, than humanity uses in a year. A grape-sized deposit of thorium has enough potential energy to supply one person with all the energy they need in their life. This doesn't just mean turning on the lights. This means the collective energy it takes to build the roads to get you to work. To farm the food, process it, and put it on your plate.

    There are other ways to go about power production with no side effects. And if oil lobbyists didn't believe that, they wouldn't shell out $300 million to congress.

  • 97% of scientists don’t believe in climate change. It’s like 99%. The 1% who believe it’s not real went to Trump University and work for Prager

  • Fossil fuels are the best

    Thorium has joined the chat

  • It is correct to slowly stop fossil fuels because fossil fuels are not renewable.

  • who tf are these experts. dum af

  • They never talk about the value of advantages of a warmer world. More habitat for whales alone would be priceless.

  • What NEEDS to be conveyed "more" too the public is; How much influence "Man made Co2 emissions" influences the temperature, as a percentage to "naturally occurring Co2"!
    My understanding is we only cause 3% of TOTAL green house emissions? If correct "Humans can't change the world".

  • So what? Renewable energy still the best

  • Americans want free everything, yet want to get rid of fossil fuels. Americans want the government to overspend, yet complain about our presence in the middle east. When the government over spends, it has to print more money. In order to avoid hyperinflation, we must increase the demand for dollars. In order to increase the demand for dollars we must force countries in the middle east to sell their oil for US dollars ONLY! Bottom line-Modern day Americans are the most spoiled, selfish and retarded people to ever walk the face of the earth. We complain and complain and complain, but are no where capable of handling the consequences of what we are asking for! To be fair,most of our allies in Europe are no different!

  • Anybody who disliked this video does not believe in the scientific method. This is just a fact; this guy applied the scientific method to the consensus myth.

  • Go on, Leftists! Hit that dislike button harder!
    I wanna surf on your tears!

  • If I go out to round up 100 cattle for market and 3 escape in the brush and I capture 97 and ship them to slaughter, which ones are wrong? The 97% or the 3%?

  • I get you claim but it doesn't change the relevance, it is defeating the point

  • I laughed out loud at that choice of autism infographic

  • You're wrong again. People, Prager U is nothing but right wing propaganda. Liars. The 97% consensus is accurate, and subsequent studies have confirmed it:

    Critics of the 97% consensus grossly misrepresent the Cook study, never mention the others, and count on their audience being too stupid and/or lazy to look into it. Not only is it accurate, the consensus is greater when limited specifically to climate scientists. That is, the more a scientist knows about the subject of climate, the more likely they are to conclude that humans are causing global warming. Moreover, John Kerry's quotes are correct. There is no debate among legitimate climate scientists: Global warming is happening, it is being caused by human activity, and the consequences are likely to be catastrophic.

  • Since when has the fact that the climate changes daily become a bad thing. I mean yestetday it rained where I live and it was really hot but today it is sunny and cooler, because the climate changed. This is ridiculous to me

  • This video was rather generous to the climate change proponents. I've seen other studies that showed the 97% number comes from 97% of scientists polled on this issue agree. The poll was taken by leftist pundits and given to leftist scientists already open to their political views. It actually polled something like 3% of the scientific community and it still wasn't a full consensus, and ignored 97% of ALL scientists. A similar study showed that the questioning was flawed. The question was something like, has the earth's climate changed over the last 15000 years? It may have even specified warming. They got 97% of those scientists to agree that the overall climate has warmed over 15000 years. The results were then presented to look like it's happened in the last 100 years and scientists agree it is directly caused by industry. I can't even find a definitive study as to which questions were asked in order to get the 97% consensus! Regardless, it wasn't what the left wants you to believe.

  • Pick two studies on the terrible effect man has on the climate. Decent odds that not only do the papers not talk about the same thing, but the results found in one paper outright contradict the other. The numbers get massaged so much to create a correlation that the full-on global warming crackpots don't even agree with each other.

  • The 1.6% mentioned by Henderson are only the amount of articles that endorse and quantify the amount of human impact in climate change. The remaining 95.4% still endorse the human impact without quantifying. Sums up to 97%. These numbers are written by Henderson himself. He's just cherry picking to make the math works.

  • Why sea level start raising in 1880, before CO2 could be an issue ?

  • Unluckily vaccines are destroying ppl.

  • Climate change is a change in the climate right? So without it we would have no Rain, Summer, Winter, fall, etc. Think about it.

  • Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat it becomes the truth.

  • Mr. Ketchup lies

  • It should be noted that Cooks paper refers only to climatologists, not all scientists!   Also, that climatologists make up less than 10% of all scientists.   The paper also only surveyed published papers containing the term "climate change".      Of those papers, Cook infers an agreement among 97% even many don't expressly say that at all!   So the 97% is a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of scientific opinion as determined by Cook!

  • Boo. Come on. Yes global warming is real. Quit trying to tell the dumb dumbs of the world that there's nothing to worry about. You just need to control the births of the dumb dumbs. Population control

  • If you were to say " the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the dangers you be totally ignorant to that facts and data but even worse you would be wrong. Do your research Alex and wake up before someone in your family dies, ends up paralyzed, with Autism or with a life threatening food allergy all because you did not so your due diligence. Your chikdren and your person are yours that means the responsibility to do the research is yours.

  • Go to California school and they shove their rhetoric down student throats

  • So you know I hate litter and pollution as a human being. What bothers me is people not telling the truth. Why don't you show all the politicians and science who are climate change activists. You know, the ones that have investments in solar, electric cars/ droans and wind tech or are being paid to lobby for the antifossil fuel rich. It's all about energy money, world market power and whose got it, not climate change. Keep up the great work!

  • Ironic that his identifying of selective bias is in itself selecting the narrative that he wants to give, so transparent.

    Objectively speaking, yes fossil fuels have historically provided incredible resources and development for human civilisation. However, in the quantities currently being extracted and used they are unquestionably causing more harm than good. Of course people with investments in fossil fuel companies are going to try discredit scientists that threaten their profits. You don't look for advice from someone who's trying to sell you something – you can only trust independent reviews.

  • Rinsed'em!

  • Effects of climate warming will be quite strong and trying to slow the warming down or stopping it (probably impossible) is the right thing to do. But just because it's the right thing to do, this doesn't justify intentional misinterpreting of data to convince people to support the green movement.

  • Never believed this from the 1st time I heard it. Statistically speaking 97% of any # of people agreeing on anything is highly unlikely.

  • Guys, people who have come out of Soviet socialism have similar thinking and are concerned about the same things.

    Stop struggling with the investigation. Focus on the cause.

    Your main problem is that you have not finally finished off the Soviet Union and its ideology.

    I understand no one will believe it but all the problems of the modern world come from there.

  • Not another biased site that YouTube keeps forcing on me due to its also biased algorithm. Sorry folks the earth is warming and it will cause many losers. Probably most of the deniers that failed to make wise decisions. This is the thin edge of the wedge.

  • even a middle schooler can tell you the consequences of climate change. its not that hard to understand that people will die.

  • My life is a lie

  • It is probably more like 9.7%. Someone forgot to put the decimal point in when they reported on the original study.

  • The number 1 vaccine side effect is the disease you are vaccinating for so what are the benefits if you are going to get the disease anyway

  • This guy looks like a goblin.

  • I'm 97% sure that climate change deniers are as dumb as flat earthers. ? The percentage, in climate studies, could be 100% across a 100% of reputable studies and they would still keep believing what greedy corporations or ignorant hillbillies tell them. Look to legit sources, not just idiots telling you what you want to hear.

  • Is this video being serious or is it just a joke? Climate Change is a FACT, not something to be discussed or debated. There are plenty of scientific papers and evidence to support it.

    Also, climate change is affecting our lives NOW not in 50 years.

    I'm surprised they put this on a university, oh wait, another lie.

  • Does anybody know exactly, word for word,

    the statement that 97% of Climate Scientist agree on?

  • Ever notice how the weak kneed hand wringers always assume the stance of moral superiority while avoiding any responsibility of doing anything to solve any problem. Ask any one of them carrying some protest sign and it's always the same answer- " I want to save the planet", or "I want to stop war" or "I want to end poverty" , grandiose statements for insoluble problems. So, at the end of the day they toss their protest signs in a land fill and go home with smug self righteousness and a boosted ego. They never take on any issue that can be quantitatively evaluated on a local level and that has any realistic impact on real people, because that requires real effort and failure could cause them real pain and embarrassment. If asked how they are going to "save the planet", the answer is always the creation of another government bureaucracy populated by people like themselves who will be paid by tax dollars to shuffle papers and reports endlessly around a merry-go round of offices while accomplishing nothing .

  • Separate the state from the environmenr

  • Yes, climate change is real- been happening for 4.5 billion years. Been hot, been cold , been wet, been dry a million times before man existed. Attempting to predict the climate based on recorded data of a few decades is nothing more than the arrogance of a few and the get rich scheme of guys like Al Gore. Not one of the "predictor" formulas devised by any scientific group shows any definable relationship between man's existence and the climate. Even if we returned to the stone age existence of our ancestors, it would have almost zero reduction in global temperatures- that was the conclusion of the UN. It's a great ego booster for some soy boy living the good life in San Francisco to rail on about how he is concerned for the environment and we should stop all fossil fuels yada yada yada- while he rides his bike on some trail paved with asphalt on tires imported from China on a 1000 foot container ship while sipping a latte made from beans grown in Colombia and air freighted to his local Starbucks by an exhaust spewing cargo jet. In the meantime there are about 4 billion other people on the planet whose only hope of dragging themselves out of poverty is access to abundant cheap energy and industry to produce wealth.


  • Here is a report on the meaning and magnitude of change ( a here's a more detailed study on climate change studies and scientists and in which way they agree to the general consensus: Let's move away from debating if the way ideas are presented is logic according to formal rules and academic standards (and I don't know who actually argues by saying "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real") and refer to the facts.

  • I’ll leave you all with this transcript….

    John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has long been outspoken against the notion of man-made climate change, and after he penned an open letter, Brian Stelter invited the “climate denier” on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday morning. “I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down,” Coleman told Stelter, pulling no punches right off the bat. “I’m a skeptic about climate change, not a denier.”

    Coleman then attacked CNN:

    CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, [saying] that it is a consensus. Well there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote. Science is about facts…[Man-made climate change] has been become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform, but the science is on my side.

    He added that he was happy he got a chance to tell CNN viewers, “Hello everybody! There is no global warming!”

    Coleman: “I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down. I’m a skeptic about climate change and I want to make it darn clear that Mr. Kennedy is not scientist, I am. He’s the CEO of the Weather Channel now, I was the founder of the Weather Channel, not the co-founder.”

    Stelter: “And I’m glad you did, because I am addicted to the Weather Channel, I watch a lot of cable–”

    Coleman: “Stop talking now, hold on just a minute, I’m not done . . . and, CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming that it is a consensus, well there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts and if you get down to the hard, cold facts, there is no question about it. Climate change is not happening, there is no significant manmade global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future, there’s a whole lot of bologna, and yes, it has become a big political point of the Democratic Party and part of their platform and I regret it’s become political instead of scientific, but the science is on my side.”

    Stelter: “I don’t think we’re gonna come to a conclusion about the topic right here–”

    Coleman: “Well, I know we’re not because you wouldn’t allow it to happen on CNN, but I’m happy that I got on the air and got a chance to talk to your viewers . . . Hello, everybody . . . There is no global warming.”

    Stelter: “What I do wonder is when you see the government, when you see NASA, when you see other institutions say that 97% of climate scientists agree, do you think they’re making it up? What I don’t understand is how you square that.”

    Coleman: “Well, that’s a manipulated figure and let me explain it to you. The government puts out about two-and-a-half billion dollars directly for climate research every year, it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democratic Party, the position, so, they don’t have any choice. If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve gotta support their position, therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is. It’s real simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s right, that doesn’t make it true, that only makes it bought and paid for, the money goes in circles.”

    Stelter: “I’m not a scientist, I’m not gonna try to refute you on the facts–”

    Coleman: “Well, that’s the truth. Please stand back from this issue and let the two sides be on the air. There are 31,000 scientists that have signed a petition that says it is not valid, that my position is correct, and we’ll keep battling, and we will prevail in time.”

  • 97% of climate scientists agree is NOT a scientific argument !

    Scientist is nothing else but a status given to humans according to arbitrary conventions. We don't care what they think when making a scientific argument. We only care about facts and logic.

    So many times, scientists were wrong while they all agreed…

  • The worst I think is, the point I believe sincerely that "climate change" is a double speak for the change in human morals and values, the degeneration of them.
    A group of humans living together, live in a specific climate; their morals, values and rituals.

    And we know how the people living degenerate lifestyles in ancient times had the lands turn against them, you just have to open the old testament and read how the lands turn more and more against the people, the more and more they live degenerate lifestyles.

    I am all up for living life absent of fossil fuels, however let's say that through some miracles we achieve 0 point energy-efficiency, ie, no loss, no need for burning fossil fuels anymore, no need for plastics, and nuclear energy, let's say everything that allegedly has a negative effect upon nature's plant and animal life and nature's climate, would be dealt with today.
    The "climate change" will still continue.
    For we abstain from repentance.
    We rather wanna put 5-6 airconditioners in our homes against the heat, then turn from our sins.

    As long as human climate doesn't change, the natural climate will change with it, turning more and more against it, the more and more degenerate we become.

    Point fingers, turn blame, use double speak or fuel the misinformation, as long as we do not repent, nothing will help, and you are also responsible, as we are all.

    Turn from your sins, and turn to Jesus, not a imaginary post modern interpretation of Jesus, no, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, as revealed by God to be His Son, who died and rose again, so that whomever believes in Him may have everlasting life.
    Repentance, peace and blessings be with you.

  • 1.3 mil views, yet there are only 20k likes and exactly half the that I’m disliked?

  • 0:47 are . . . Are you implying that there are BENEFITS to global warming?

  • Is no one going to talk about the sheep in the thumbnail with badges representing their degree in science

  • Short answer: yes.

  • I've never seen anyone deny climate change, yet leftists will always label anyone questioning the political dogma of "fighting climate change" and "global warming" as a denier.

  • 2:06 that isn’t how autism works, at least for me at least

  • F vaccine crime against humanity

  • Onya Australia….how to twist the facts.

  • One of the better videos of PragerU

  • Man made climate change is a rubbish ..a scam …to rob us of our rights to live a normal life

  • climate change is real and has been since before man walked the earth

  • Prager U is an Israeli entity, funded by two Zionist Texas billionaires that stoled a fracking algorithm and whose allegiance is to Israel ( the terrorists of the world )

  • Because of so called man made climate change a state in Australia went total renuables, wind and solar, they now have the most expensive energy bills in the world!!

  • The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.  Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.  

    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.  Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.  Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
     * * * * * * *                                                                 
    I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post  96 years ago.
    This must all have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions…or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

  • 97% of climate scientists agree that the fat cheques from Rothschild banks are very nice.

  • 97% of climate scientists agree that the fat cheques from Rothschild banks are very nice.

  • Digging up billions of tons of carbon from beneath the earth and indiscriminately burning them cannot not have an impact on climate, if one has an even cursory understanding of the greenhouse effect. Besides, fossil fuels are not the only culprits, there are also methane, hydrochlorofluorocarbons(HFCs) aerosols, etc, that trap heat inside the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. Anthropogenic global warming is real and there is no "moral" case for fossil fuels, only a necessary one.

  • Balance your perspective:

  • This video fails to address the real question which is, did 97% of the worlds scientists agree with the IPCC position. Here's the answer:
    "The 97% derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people of which the 3,146 respondents were further whittled down to 77 self selected climate “scientists “ of which 75 were judged to agree that human induced warming was taking place.What was the criteria for rejecting 3,069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3,146 is 0.03%We do not hear that 0.03% of climate scientists agreed that humans have played a significant role in changing climate despite the billions spent on climate research."

    Note: There's an error in the maths there regarding the 3% calc, but it would be fair to assume that they have 'played' around with the numbers to obtain the publicised propaganda, and we should remember this:
    “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    • “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

    “I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

  • Climate change is a hoax. It is a money-spinner for the elite. Wake up you deluded dummies. Amazing how they soon dropped the phrase 'Global warming'. These scientists are getting paid very handsomely for there biased views and that is what pays the bills, they would say the moon is made of cheese to get their payday, nobody has morals anymore. I just feel sorry for all these deluded idiots that have been sucked in and protest and waste their lives for the biggest lie in a generation. Embarrassing.

  • 100% scientist agree that climate change is real because that's just what climate does. It changes over time.

  • Hey! Main Cause does not mean more than 50%…. if three factors are considered – lets say CO2, SUN, whatever it could be just 46% SUN, 10 % CO2 and the whatever is the rest …44%. I am just sayyying……

  • Thanks Alex!

  • John Kerry is a member of the Yale University Skull and Bones a Nazi New World Order organization. We often refer to them as the Deep state. Secret society has been for the past 50 years methodically taking over the US government to bring in their precious new world order. Also Hillary Clinton is a member of the secret society. Along with people like the bush Nazi pedophilia crime family, and their blood relatives the Rothschild pedophilia banking cartel. However there are 500 members of the Skull and Bones invested in the US government in high positions across America. This is the same secret society JFK warned us about over 50 years ago, in the same secret society that murdered JFK. The Deep state is what's trying to stop President Trump from turning America back to the great country it was. However the Deep States going to fail we will win we will restore America back to the free country that our founding fathers meant it to be.

  • Global Warming = Tax Grab,,,,,,I survived the Ice Age in the 1970's and I'll survive this lie as well. (ocean levels are going to rise ? Obama just bought ocean front property,,,,Hmmmmm)

  • We’re all gonna die in 20 years but energy may or may not be slightly cheaper if we use fossil fuels!

  • this should not be hard to explain: do not deny climate change, but you do not need to be an over-the-top nutcase.

  • As much as I listen up PragerU on ocasion, I really don't appreciate how autistically they defend big fuel.

Leave a Reply

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