It is rare to find an argument that is so universally and holistically incorrect and that makes no sound points whatsoever, yet it appears that is what we're dealing with here. To claim that there is no "consensus" on climate change is so wrong it’s almost impressive; first of all, climate change is simply a term that defines how weather changes over a period of time in any given region. Like with many things in science, there is not a 100% consensus about this. But the phrase in of itself is incredibly disingenuous. Sure, there is not 100% consensus, but what the phrase conveniently fails to mention is that there is an overwhelming amount of agreement across the globe. According to an Anderegg study conducted in 2010, there is roughly a 97% consensus between climate experts that there is substantial evidence to show that there is human induced climate change occurring. The study was very simply a survey of different climatologists from around the world whether or not they thought there was sufficient evidence to claim there is human caused climate change. It also comes without shock that the vast majority of those who did not think there was sufficient evidence were far less experienced in climatology than those who did believe in climate change. This boils down to an argument between those who know what they are talking about and those who do not. It seems as though those who know what they are talking about are right.

Last modified: 15 October 2018