You seem to be implying that the scientists that are part of the 97% believe what they do because they want to be part of the consensus, but that the scientists in the 3% cohort (assuming your numbers are correct) are independent thinkers. Why do you assume this? It's just as easy to assume that the 3% are part of a paid-for cult, isn't it? Agreement with you does not imply objectivity.
As I mentioned in response to Andrew's post above, "Scientific truth is determined by evidence rather than consensus or popularity. This was implied by Albert Einstein's response to a 1931 book in which a hundred authors opposed his theory of relativity.
His response was: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough".
There is no precise number of publishing climate scientists worldwide, but the estimates are in the thousands and low tens of thousands. Using an estimate of just 10,000, 3% equates to 300.
Some of those 300 might be too biased, but hopefully at least a few might be unbiased.
"Also, you have repeated the argument that you've used before, that the "consensus" scientists believe what they do in order to get their hands on all the research grant money being thrown their way. My only conclusion is that you don't know much about research or how it works. To accept this argument means that there is a vast international conspiracy to con everyone into believing in something that isn't true. Please go away and think about this. Just because the findings of a group of people do not confirm your biases does not make them false."Wow! You must live in a different world than I do. Have you not noticed that earning a good income is a fundamental driving force for most people, including scientists. Why do you think so many tobacco scientists were skeptical of the claims, and even refuted the claims, that smoking causes cancer? Don't you think it was mainly to protect their income and to support their families?
Why do you assume I am biased? Did I not mention before, in this thread, that I used to accept the alarm about the effects of human emissions of CO2, because I hadn't studied the subject and therefore accepted the 'authoritative' dire predictions from climate scientists at the time, such as James Lovelock and James Hansen.
It was because I was concerned about these dire predictions, that I began to search the internet to find details that were not mentioned during interviews of climate scientists, and that included my reading the scientific summaries of the IPCC reports (Working group 1), and many other studies relating to climate changes of the past.
All humans are biased to some extent, but I have no income related to climate research or the fossil fuel industry, and I am very positive about scientific progress in general.
For example, I'm looking forward to the development of Sodium-ion batteries, which will be a lot safer, cheaper, and more durable than Lithium-ion and LFP batteries.
The Chinese company CATL has already begun mass production of its latest development of Sodium-ion batteries, named NAXTRA, which will appear in automobiles around mid 2026. If the car is affordable, and available in Australia, I might buy one, or a later model which has improvements.
"If you are unable to distinguish between climate research and climate alarmisn, it makes it very difficult to take your arguments seriously. You have obviously simply decided that all talk of climate change (caused by humans) is alarmist by definition."You do seem confused. There are lots of climate research that does not predict alarmist outcomes from rising CO2 levels and a warming climate. An example is the result of recent satellite imagery showing a significant greening of the planet, mainly due to increased CO2 levels. Here's a summary of the findings.
"Satellite observations, including recent data analyzed up to 2020-2024, confirm that the Earth is experiencing a "greening" trend, with significant increases in leaf area on plants and trees over the past three decades. This phenomenon is largely attributed to elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, which act as a fertilizer for plant growth. Here are some details.
"
Studies analyzing satellite data (NASA's MODIS and NOAA's AVHRR) indicate that 25% to 50% of the Earth's vegetated land is getting greener, while only about 4% is showing browning.
CO2 Fertilization Effect: Increased CO2 is responsible for 50% to 70% of this greening, as higher concentrations allow plants to utilize water more efficiently and increase photosynthetic rates.
2020 Landmark: Data from 2001–2020 highlights that 2020 was the greenest year in recent decades, driven by consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, complemented by increased rainfall in the tropics.
Dryland Greening: Contrary to assumptions that drought causes browning,
41% of the world's drylands have experienced greening since 1982 due to CO2 fertilization, a trend that is not expected to slow down before mid-century.
Accelerating Trend: Recent analyses suggest that over 55% of the globe is seeing accelerated greening, with India and the European plains exhibiting the most pronounced increases."
Would you like me to provide some more non-alarmist studies related to climate change?
