Illustrative Image
Written by Eric Zuesse
Poll after poll — and with consistency — show that conservatives overwhelmingly disbelieve that there is human-caused global warming, and show that liberals overwhelmingly believe that there is human-caused global warming.
What ought to be the criterion of truth regarding whether or not there is human-caused global warming?
As a person committed to science in all fields, I apply the following criterion: The answer to this specialized scientific question is not something for a lay person, one who has no advanced degree in this highly specialized scientifically advanced area, to judge or to be consulted on; and, since I am no such person — no climatologist — I (as a scientist who respects the opinions of scientists on technical questions that are outside my own fields of expertise) employ the criterion of the findings of polls regarding it that have surveyed ONLY such persons (ONLY climatologists) in order to determine, for myself, whether or not there is human-caused global warming.
I looked online for such polls (or “meta-analyses”) and quickly found that there exists one Web-page that summarizes and links-to (so that the reader can examine) many if not all of them, and that the Web-page is at Wikipedia. How, as a scientific or “investigative” historian, do I deal with Wikipedia? Being myself an investigative historian, I have, in the past, noted that on topics regarding which the CIA cannot be trusted, Wikipedia is untrustworthy because it censors-out truths that the U.S. Government wants the public not to know. Here is my evidence on that (click onto any of the links here to see the detailed evidence that I’ve cited):
Wikipedia is not only edited by the CIA, but also, to some extent, written by the CIA. Furthermore, it has been rather thoroughly exposed to be an international Deep State “disinformation” operation (an operation to slant ‘information’ in favor of global billionaires), and it’s fundamentally corrupt but sells out cheaply to a large number of billionaires instead of relying upon only a few big-dollar donors like most non-profits do. Using this method, they claim to have “annual revenues in excess of US$109.9 million.”
Some of my readers have therefore challenged me when I have, despite that generalization, linked to a given Wikipedia article as being my source regarding a particular allegation. I have always responded by saying that I have clicked onto the given Wikipedia article’s links and found that that article is not misrepresenting any of its sources. This is the case here; and, so, I base my belief regarding the reality or not of human-induced global warming, upon this Wikipedia article, and upon its sources:
“Surveys of scientists’ views on climate change”
The latest, most current, of the polls that it cites are these two:
Myers et al., 2021 [edit]
Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).[4]
Lynas et al., 2021 [edit]
In 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analysed a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.[3]
So, since the percentage of scientific specialists on this question that believe in the existence of human-caused global warming is above 90%, I am more than 90% confident that the answer is yes: There IS human-caused global warming.
There it is: there are my sources on this topic. In other words: the problem is, to more than 90% likelihood, real; and the question consequently arises of how it can most effectively be addressed.
That question takes the matter outside of the scope of climatology and brings it into policymaking, which is applied political science, which is a far less-scientific field that’s influenced and even dominated by philosophers, which are pre-scientists in any field, like what physics was before Galileo, and like biology was before Darwin and Mendel. In other words, political ‘science’ isn’t yet a field of science. Furthermore: the entire field of political ‘science’ is pervasively corrupted by the billionaires who fund the foundations and other organizations which hire them. They are hired as propagandists, not as scientists.
On May 30th, I headlined “The fraudulence of existing climate-control plans is clear by now.” That article documented that the policy-prescriptions which liberal politicians and ‘environmentalist’ organizations have been and are advocating to address this problem (human-caused global warming) are fraudulent, and the article was at least as damning of conservative politicians on this matter, by saying:
By contrast, conservative politicians lie and say either that global warming is not happening, or that it’s not caused by humans if it is happening, or that nothing should or can be done about it if it is happening; and, so, for the public, there is a choice only between either liberal fraudsters or conservative fraudsters, and nothing is being even so much as PROPOSED about the problem that would have any CHANCE to succeed.
The article then linked to a previous (6 May 2023) article I had written in which an entirely new and never-before proposed policy-approach to the problem of human-caused global warming was presented.
The reader-comments at my May 30th article all ignored (perhaps didn’t even click to read) my May 6th article, but instead poured forth in acceptance of the conservative view (that the problem doesn’t even exist). This is what prompted me to write today’s article; because, if both the liberal public and the conservative public have been and are fooled by the fraudsters on their respective side, then there cannot BE democracy, on EITHER side, but ONLY fools who will be voting their respective prejudices — in which case, the collectivity of the liberal billionaires and the conservative billionaires will continue to be effectively controlling Governmental policies on this matter until our planet’s biosphere will consequently end.
There cannot be democracy where the majority of the public are fooled by billionaires’ agents — the agents of liberal billionaires and of conservative billionaires — and so the Government is then effectively controlled by billionaires, instead of by the public.
Fraud dominates this field, but it’s not climatological fraud; it is political fraud (driven and controlled by the billionaires) — on BOTH of its sides.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
