"The only people who believe in the climate change hoax are children, idiots and people that are in on it." ~Anonymous
When you hear terms like "settled science" and "scientific consensus" you should be very, very suspicious. Science is never settled, nor is it democratic. Science is an ongoing project where every theory is under constant analysis, even ones we take for granted such as gravity which has come back under scrutiny... for proof I offer: https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728 . In fact if you Google Gravity Hoax you'll find a plethora of articles in legitimate publications questioning Mr. Newton's discovery. Are they right? Time will tell- that's science, nothing's settled. So why is Climate Change different? Because someone stands to profit from it being different. There is no scientific consensus about climate change- scientists don't get together and vote on things, that's not how the scientific method works.
In the last post I did about this subject I referred to a study recently done by 11,224 scientists who promote the idea that we're overpopulated and it's contributing to climate change and our likely demise in 12 years like the scientific expert Alexandria Occasional-Cortex predicts. As it turns out, only 240 of these 11,224 "experts" have degrees in Meteorology, Atmospheric Science, or Climate Science- only 2%. All of the rest are from unrelated fields.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of "experts" who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.
It's the elites- globalists- not scientists that are behind the hoax... this is about control, not saving Mother Earth.
This raises the question: "Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?" Perhaps they know that this is faux science? The climate is a complex dynamic that science don't fully understand, let alone predict. Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions — taking lemmings over the cliff with them. Think about it... when was the last time the weatherman on TV was able to accurately predict the weather for the next week? (Phoenix notwithstanding) Now we're supposed to believe that "scientists" with no background in meteorology or any other relevant discipline can predict what will happen in years to come.
This has more to do with power and greed- the two most prominent characteristics of the elites- than saving the earth from a man-made catastrophe. Barring a nuclear holocaust, the earth will continue to provide sustenance- we have no idea how much life the planet can comfortably support. AOC, Little Greta, and their ilk are merely useful idiots, unqualified mouthpieces who have swallowed the climate change kool aid.
At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite "scientific consensus" on man's effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy. Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they've discovered.
Also ask them how much impact the money from government grants have on the findings of these "unbiased experts." I suspect about as much as man has on climate change. You can also inform them to lay off CO2- the plants need it to survive. One small burp from Mt. Etna produces more CO2 than humanity has in its entire history. Now the Vatican has become involved- anti-Pope Frankie, a leftist politician not a religious leader, has signed on to the UN's Agenda 2030. Now instead of saving souls the Church has joined hands with Pachamama to save Mother Earth... but that's the subject for another post.