The 97% figure is often quoted, but has significant hairs on it. See articles below.
Do you agree that “climate science” is the most heavily politicised, most heavily monetised scientific endeavour in history? There are massive forces at play to ensure it is accepted without question.
I remember several quite vocal scientific opponents to climate science in its early days, but they were quickly silenced. See section of the attached article about the ostracisation of dissenting voices - so much for science being open minded.
Where are the scientists questioning why climate Armageddon scenarios never seem to come to pass?
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
www.forbes.com
97% Consensus Myth – Is Climate Science Really Settled? The claim that "97% of scientists agree on climate change" is often presented as evidence that the science surrounding climate change is unequivocally settled. This statistic
climatecosmos.com
On climate change being politicised
Agree with you that politicians
should not politicise it. eg. why do I want to hear politician X's thoughts on it? It is unfair on climate researchers that the choice of politicians to politicise it may also lead to people discrediting their work (from what I see online).
I do think they have politicised it in the sense of 'vote for me, I care about it more'. Is that what you are thinking? If it is something else; then against who / for what?
My solution may differ from yours but I think it is the only way to keep politics out of it is to have the parties lean solely on the leading experts to advise them. Both parties then work out a compromise to ensure the climate response remains the same irrespective of who is in power (i.e. do so in private, prior to election cycles).
Particularly in the US (although also in AUS) it is too easy for politicians to make big decisions based on their own opinion and/or external motives that disrupts long-term planning and direction.
___________________
On model accuracy (additional note)
In my last post I included a pdf detailing the accuracy of the temp rise model used by the IPCC. In this one ill also include the sea level one. I think there are a lot of misleading ideas spread online about accuracy of models; people often acknowledge only worst case (upper bound) estimates and neglect effects such as sea-level rise being non-uniform (oceanographers better suited to explaining the many variables than I).
Many low-lying nations have already been affected. mean global rise of 98.3mm since 1993 w/ accelerating rates. Many people don't realise more CO2 is being extracted and released than ever before in spite of the notion of climate initiatives being widespread and/or overblown.
___________________
On research funding
From what I hear, scientific research in general is poorly funded. From my initial search I looked at R&D budgets in Aus. For CCEEW (climate change, energy, the environment and water); they get $1.2 billion, ranked 4th (of the top 6, they get 8% of the total funding). Note that this isn't purely dedicated to climate change either. A large portion of R&D funding I would expect goes to R&D of energy-production technologies (nuclear, hydrogen, osmotic / hydropower methods) and energy storage (eg. EV batteries). Some also to upgrading monitoring systems and improving efficiencies of existing systems (food production, electrical grids). It isn't people in labs endlessly trying to validate that global warming is sensitive to C02 emissions. The research papers on that topic are well established and accessible to the public already, why kick a dead horse?
The potential costs of climate change are not trivial either. At the end of the day I don't think research should stop (mostly in the interests of the fossil fuel industry) just because it may or may not be 97% of scientists that agree with it. Such investment helps beyond just climate change (and its mitigation).
________________
On climate change being monetised
For corporations, yes. Marketing teams love it. Fun story; when attending my university they would advertise "100% clean energy supplied at campus" or something of the like. In reality they just outsourced a bunch to the grid and made use of a loophole in reporting.
But for politics/science, no I don't agree.
Have you considered that there's a buttload more money to be made in Fossil fuel usage (existing infrastructure and technology, readily available) than funding research teams and renewable sources? Trump latches onto fossil fuels for this reason, noting that environmental concerns are not a factor for him.
The fossil fuel industry reminds me of the Tabacco industry of old. Wouldn't be surprised if they actively spend $$$ opposing climate research and/or activism.
____________________
On author of that Forbes article
Agree with the author that the percentage stat is ambiguous (eg. what type of scientists? what do they agree on? what is the source? etc.). But I find this a bit immaterial given we've already established that modern scientific view = humans causing accelerated rates of global warming.
The author overall was fairly opinionated and expressed a general level of uncertainty about what the current scientific understanding is. His comment that jumped out to me was:
"Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."
To me that gives away that the author doesn't really care about the implications of this topic anyways. Also, for some unknown reason ($?) the author appears motivated solely by protecting the fossil-fuel industry. Banning fossil fuel usage isn't even remotely in consideration at this stage, the whole idea is to research and develop scalable alternatives and/or more energy-efficient methods.
