We are told that 97%
of climate scientists
agree with their own
scientific consensus.
This is based on
extremely biased
surveys.
The surveys usually ask
for agreement that
humans affect the climate.
Even I believe humans
have some effect
on the climate,
( although no one knows
what that effect is ),
so a 97% agreement
on that point,
doesn't mean much.
The surveys
don't consider
all scientists.
The surveys
don't consider
all scientists
knowledgable
about the climate
The surveys look
only at scientists
who actively publish
on climate change
in scientific journals.
But what determines
“actively publishing?”
The selection process
creates a strong bias
in favor of scientists
who believe CO2 is evil.
Those who are
eventually published,
probably started out
as children raised
in "climate-conscious"
families.
CO2 is evil is taught
to them in school,
and CO2 is evil projects
will be rewarded.
by their teachers.
Such children are
much more likely
to consider
environmental science
as their college major.
Their college
science professors
will certainly be under
great pressure to teach
the CO2 is evil belief.
Those who don't agree
with their professors’ views
will be much less successful
getting into a PhD program.
Then, success
within a PhD program
means pleasing one's
dissertation committee’s
CO2 is evil beliefs.
To succeed
in academia,
a newly minted PhD
must apply for grants
—mostly from
government agencies,
or his own university.
Grant applications will need
the approval of committees,
populated with scientists
who make their living
from government-funded
studies of climate change.
The selection process
of the climate scientist
who gets published,
starts in elementary school,
then high school, college,
grant funding, manuscript
preparation, and finally,
publication.
It would be nearly impossible
for a climate change skeptic
to pass through
all those "checkpoints".
Research studies
are improperly designed
to affirm the consensus
CO2 is evil belief,
rather than to examine
the truth of a hypothesis.
There is a lot of pressure
to arbitrarily remove data
from a dataset that would
affect the ability to get
a publishable p value of
“less than 0.05”
( an arbitrary
cut off
in statistics
that is needed
for publication ).
If the research project
fails to prove
his hypothesis,
the young scientist
won't write a paper
( unlikely to be published ),
so will not be seen as
"actively publishing".
If there are
multiple hypotheses
in a research project,
and only one of is proven,
it will be the only one
written up, and submitted
for publication.
A climate change paper
that fails to support
the CO2 is evil belief
will be much harder
to get published.
Such “negative papers”
are commonly rejected
by the editor
before going
to peer review.
If a 'negative paper"
does get to peer review,
the reviewers will be
very critical, and likely
to reject the paper,
so it would probably
never be published.
These are the reasons
97% of the published
climate literature
is forced to slant one way
among "actively published"
climate scientists.
Scientists invited to the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
are the most fully vetted
climate scientists of all.
Consensus at the IPCC level
is demanded.
The mainstream media
publishes only
the most dramatic
climate change claims.
Positive news
from increasing
atmospheric CO2,
such as accelerated
plant growth,
which is
supported by
thousands of
scientific studies,
gets no attention.
The politicized
climate field
is far from
real science.
Climate change
is a secular religion.
Skeptics have to work hard
to identify anti-CO2 biases,
and show that
wrong wild guesses
of the future climate,
have nothing to do
with real science.
Policy makers,
teachers,
journalists, and
environmentalists
know nothing about
the future climate,
other than what they
are told by
government
bureaucrats
with science degrees.
But those bureaucrats
have made the same
wrong climate predictions
for 30 years in a row,
based on a wild guess
of the effect of CO2,
first published in 1979,
that causes predictions
of global warming
to be triple
the actual warming
since 1950.