Lynas, like many other authors of “consensus” studies (including Naomi Oreskes and John Cook) is clearly motivated by the desire to use insignificant consensus about some climate impact to drive their desired catastrophe narrative and anti-fossil-fuel political outcome.⁸. Revealingly, Mark Lynas, lead author of the paper The Guardian falsely labeled as a 99% endorsement of climate emergency, promoted this misrepresentation instead of correcting it, falsely concluding that “undermining the case for action on climate change is not based on science.”⁷.This “consensus” definition is extremely vague and has no “emergency” or policy implications at all. ⁶
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |