It's an even less plausible figure, which only serves to demonstrate the imposition of toxic political orthodoxy over free and unfettered scientific investigation and debate, not a meaningful scientific consensus.
You can read why the last figure was a ludicrous claim, which I wrote about at the time at blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencep…

Lynas is regressing. He'll be going back to custard pies, soon.
How does *any* field produce a meaningful >99% 'consensus'?

It doesn't. It is either the product of politics or it is meaningless. Or both, of course.

It's the work of an archetypal activist-academic, though, and so we should expect such guff.
Physicists will be surprised to discover that there exists a 'consensus on gravity'.

This only shows this chap's ignorance, not in fact his grasp of science.

Let's run with it, all the same...

* Any person can demonstrate the presence of gravity.

* No person can either demonstrate, much less claim to have experienced the object of the putative 'consensus' on climate change.

>>
* Despite there being a 'consensus' on climate change, this article claims that, "More than two score relativistic theories of gravitation have been proposed".

ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/…
*That* is why I suggest that either...

1. The consensus is not meaningful (equivalent to the lay demonstration of gravity, but without any such evidence to speak to its existence.)

2. It is political.

3. Or it is both.
How can a 'consensus' be political?

Simple. The consensus has typically been measured by analysis of abstracts.

1. Many abstracts state their adherence to political orthodoxy by stating an approximation of it in their abstract, despite the paper not testing the proposition.
2. Per 1, there is immense pressure to conform, not least from the likes of Lynas and his current and past colleagues to remove any academic from their posts for daring to disagree.

On that occasion, Lynas, styled as 'Pie Man' aimed to prevent Lomborg from speaking on Oxford University property. Similarly, Lomborg faced ongoing harassment and cancellation for daring to depart, not from science, but political orthodoxy, including from climate scientists.
3. Quite simply, research proposals that seek to attach themselves to the climate issue are far more likely to attract funding, because governments and public and private funding bodies LOVE 'policy relevant' research.
Any attempt to claim to have detected a 'consensus' that fails to understand the political nature of even seemingly policy-neutral research is more of the same, politically-motivated research.
Academic climate advocate's own research argues that the demonstration of a scientific consensus impresses on people sufficiently to encourage their political alignment. ...
Thus the authors and adherents of the 'gateway belief model' of climate science communication double as policemen, enforcing the consensus on campus. They believe that there should be no debate, because it undermines the consensus.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

21 Oct
The Green Alliance knows very well that the public do not share its weird and dark ideology.

That's why they published reports showing that the public do not raise the issue with MPs.

And that's why they lobbied for a Climate Assembly, which they controlled.
The Climate Assembly was an attempt to overcome the public's lack of interest in the climate agenda -- to manufacture a mandate for #NetZero, as I explain here.

netzerowatch.com/climate-assemb…
Climate technocrats and fake academics had to force the Assembly into making decisions, and to then torture the data from their votes, to make it look like the Assembly had agreed with them, as I show in the report and here.
Read 5 tweets
20 Oct
Guido asks, "why BEIS is happy to even entertain this nonsense in the first place…"

Because they are desperate, and they are completely divorced from reality and the public, but they cannot let let go of the ideological dream.
BEIS, and other departments before them have been engaging lunatic academic psychologists for YEARS.

The green shrinks told politicians and civil servants that they knew how to engineer social values and norms, to elicit pro-climate behaviour.
Billionaire philanthropists gave them millions, and funded entire research departments.

One of them was one of the four 'Expert Leads' who ran the UK Climate Assembly.

They pose as academics but they are among the most unhinged ideological zealots.

netzerowatch.com/climate-assemb…
Read 4 tweets
20 Oct
The BBC is also reporting it.

bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
Why would the green-biased media be the ones making the issue out of the story?

What's the relevance of a daft study (probably from CAST, or some other such outfit) being removed from a government website be significant?

Where's the outrage?
Read 6 tweets
20 Oct
Lots of terrible coverage for the government's #NetZero agenda, even from allies. A growing gulf between realists and zealots. I wonder how long it can survive in its present form, even assuming success at #FLOP26.
Britain could emerge from the global jawfest as a "climate champion", but then be one of the first countries forced to pull out of the very deal it brokered, because of domestic political pressure.
There is precedent.

Within months of the 2017 COP23 at Bonn, Germany was revealed to have missed its own green targets.

And within a couple of years of the 2015 COP21 in Paris, rising energy prices sparked a protest movement demanding Macron's resignation in weekly protests.
Read 6 tweets
20 Oct
Me on the @JuliaHB1 show on @talkRADIO this morning, talking about the @hmtreasury report on #NetZero.

Here's the point I was making about the report admitting to *considerable* uncertainty. The word 'uncertain[/ty]' appears 82 times.

They really don't know what the costs and consequences are. Image
Here's some other stuff I didn't get the chance to say...

Despite admitting to uncertainty, @hmtreasury hide behind the claim that the costs of 'inaction' outweigh the costs of 'action'.

That is manifestly a nonsense... Image
Read 25 tweets
19 Oct
Bullshit.

Insulation has been at the centre of at least three failed flagship policies -- the Green New Deal/The Great British Refurb (400K new jobs). (Brown)

The Green Deal - 250K jobs. (Cameron)

And the Green Homes Grant scheme. (Johnson).

The public weren't interested.
Here is Chris Huhne of the 'greenest government ever', announcing the Green Deal, promising 'the most ambitious blah blah blah... ever'.

As far as governments and political parties are concerned, the green agenda is extremely "flashy".

They believe, because they are surrounded by blobs, that the public are mad keen for it.

But they are disconnected from the public who do not share their green vision.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(