97 Percent Consensus Still Driving Deniers Crazy

May 25, 2019

Denial is a helluva drug.

My friend Marc Morano spends, I am sure, more time attempting to fog the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, than any other issue.

That’s because he knows that when people find out how overwhelming that consensus is, they become much more concerned about climate change.
I’m sure Marc has never actually talked to the scientists who did that work, as I have.

And, Mr Morano might not realize that even 40 years ago, researchers at Exxon knew very well that such a consensus existed, even then.

17 Responses to “97 Percent Consensus Still Driving Deniers Crazy”

  1. rhymeswithgoalie Says:


    Morano’s still getting ear-time with Congressional committees?

    I have +4°C by 2100 in the Apocalypse Pool.

  2. jimbills Says:

    Full video here:

    Good way to get your blood boiling.

  3. Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Every DC moment isn’t about El Rey del Mar-a-Lago.

    The link to the hearing’s video start time is the tail end of Patrick Moore’s thoughts – leading into Morano’s hostile opening statement.

  4. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    In public circumstances like the above, it is time for a direct form of counterattack.
    For decades the approach was correctly scientific as in ‘we believe’, ‘the data shows looming disaster’ ‘the percentage chance is high’, and so on. Today it is we have Ten years to get our poop together or we are screwed! A change not too early IMO.
    Telling Joe Sixpack denier he is an idiot IS counterproductive. Bluntly denigrating personage deniers wont change their agenda, but will inform rank and file ones they are leaving thermoses open to ridicule. Bill Nye’s ‘Grow up MFs” was a joy to see.

  5. Pancho Plail Says:

    OK so is there a list of the scientists making up the 97%? If we are talking facts, then someone, somewhere must have a list (John Cook for example) otherwise that 97% is as much speculation as any other unsubstantiated opinion.

  6. tlr165 Says:

    Still believe the consensus argument is extremely weak – especially among Americans who love the ‘plucky underdog’ who overcomes adversity and monolithic institutionalism and even more so among right-wing populists who don’t trust expertise and elites anyway.

    The message should be more focused on the mechanisms of warming and the fact that humans – billions and billions of us – can’t hardly do anything without someone, somewhere burning something. That there is a natural carbon cycle that we are contributing to un-naturally, tipping the balance towards an ever-warming climate.

    • jimbills Says:

      Any and all arguments are ‘weak’ to a person with their mind strongly made up. They build a fortress of only believing the info they want to believe, and rejecting the info they don’t want to believe.

      It’s just a sad fact that many people do not have open minds. The 97% consensus thing is way to indicated to them that they are in the minority – but you’re right, they’ll just take that as a point of pride. They’ll also look at any and all evidence within their mental fortress. They’ll say it’s made up, or a conspiracy, or they’ll point to something else like the sun as more important without realizing that issue has also been thoroughly examined.

      • tlr165 Says:

        That’s why I think the argument has played out so new arguments are needed. Acknowledge we’re discussing trace elements in the air – but those trace elements have outsized effects. Like without co2 our planet would be 60 degrees cooler. Because of the natural cycle of co2, our planet is inhabitable but we’re adding to it in amounts that while relatively small will make it uninhabitable. Too much of a good thing..

        I get the impression that the 97% argument is brandished like a weapon that the people it’s wielded against perceive it as an attempt to close off all argument. Then the anti-expertise reflex kicks in.

        Explaining the mechanisms a bit better will elicit a better response.

    • I think the consensus argument is very strong against the Morano & Co. argument that there is no consensus.

  7. tlr165 Says:

    They just use it to portray themselves as the ‘plucky underdog’ going up against corrupt/socialist ‘big science’, whatever the hell that is..

    They only deserve ridicule and questions about who signs their paychecks.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: