Exposing The Bogus "97% Consensus" Claim Over Climate Change 'Science'
One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.” Now these claims have been dubious from the start; people like David Friedman have demonstrated that the “97% consensus” assertion became a talking point only through a biased procedure that mischaracterized how journal articles were rated, and thereby infla
You didn't say it was wrong, you argued that it was a logical fallacy. Please show how there is a logical fallacy in the statement. (Or simply correct your previous statement. Not trying to be pedantic... really trying to follow and debate)
As to this comment:
The Paris agreement is trash and is more about money redistribution than solving climate issues. There have been multiple studies on how we could decrease emissions cheaper and more effectively.
So because the IPCC says it,
