1 00:00:01,840 --> 00:00:07,760 “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” 2 00:00:07,769 --> 00:00:14,020 How many times have you heard that statement? Probably hundreds. It may seem like a compelling 3 00:00:14,020 --> 00:00:19,650 and scientific argument against fossil fuels, but it’s one of the most illogical, unscientific 4 00:00:19,650 --> 00:00:24,450 arguments you can make. To see how, let’s use this form of argument 5 00:00:24,450 --> 00:00:27,670 for another controversial product, vaccines. 6 00:00:27,670 --> 00:00:32,310 An anti-vaccine person approaches you and says, “97 percent of doctors 7 00:00:32,310 --> 00:00:35,450 say that the side effects of vaccines are real.” 8 00:00:35,450 --> 00:00:37,300 What would you say in response? 9 00:00:37,310 --> 00:00:41,730 You’d probably say, “Yeah but the benefits far outweigh the side effects.” 10 00:00:41,730 --> 00:00:47,440 By saying that “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real” without mentioning 11 00:00:47,440 --> 00:00:52,490 any of the benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine activist is trying to get you to look at the 12 00:00:52,490 --> 00:00:56,650 potential dangers of vaccines out of context. 13 00:00:56,650 --> 00:01:01,940 When fossil fuel opponents say “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change 14 00:01:01,940 --> 00:01:08,830 is real,” they are doing the same. Yes, using fossil fuels for energy has a side effect—increasing 15 00:01:08,830 --> 00:01:14,590 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay. But what about the upside? In the case of 16 00:01:14,590 --> 00:01:20,330 fossil fuel that upside is enormous: the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that makes 17 00:01:20,330 --> 00:01:26,000 modern life possible, and at a scale no other energy source can match. 18 00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:30,320 So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement 19 00:01:30,330 --> 00:01:35,130 “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us 20 00:01:35,130 --> 00:01:40,150 nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”—whether it’s a mild, 21 00:01:40,150 --> 00:01:46,250 manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. This is an example of the fallacy 22 00:01:46,409 --> 00:01:52,469 of equivocation—using the same term in different, contradictory ways. 23 00:01:52,469 --> 00:01:57,669 If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” 24 00:01:57,669 --> 00:02:02,460 what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies 25 00:02:02,460 --> 00:02:10,200 will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right? 26 00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:15,160 But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. 27 00:02:15,170 --> 00:02:18,270 Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, 28 00:02:18,270 --> 00:02:21,870 you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels. 29 00:02:21,870 --> 00:02:28,060 For example, listen to how Secretary of State John Kerry manipulates the “97 percent of scientists” line. 30 00:02:28,060 --> 00:02:31,840 “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change 31 00:02:31,849 --> 00:02:37,940 is happening and that human activity is responsible,” he said in a speech in Indonesia in 2014. 32 00:02:37,940 --> 00:02:42,620 Later, in the same speech, he claimed that Scientists agree that, “The world as we 33 00:02:42,620 --> 00:02:49,630 know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.” 97 percent of climate scientists 34 00:02:49,630 --> 00:02:51,890 never said any such thing. 35 00:02:51,890 --> 00:02:57,960 So what did the 97 percent actually say? It turns out, nothing remotely resembling catastrophic 36 00:02:57,970 --> 00:03:04,650 climate change. One of the main studies justifying 97 percent was done by John Cook, a climate 37 00:03:04,650 --> 00:03:09,819 communications fellow for the Global Change Institute in Australia. Here’s his own summary 38 00:03:09,820 --> 00:03:14,900 of his survey: “Cook et al. found that over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] 39 00:03:14,900 --> 00:03:19,250 endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases 40 00:03:19,250 --> 00:03:21,420 are the main cause.” 41 00:03:21,420 --> 00:03:26,720 “Main cause” means “over 50 percent. But the vast majority of papers don’t say 42 00:03:26,730 --> 00:03:31,670 that human beings are the main cause of recent warming. In fact, one analysis showed 43 00:03:31,670 --> 00:03:35,160 that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that. 44 00:03:35,169 --> 00:03:40,519 How did Cook get to 97 percent, then? First, he added papers that explicitly said there 45 00:03:40,519 --> 00:03:45,030 was man-made warming but didn’t say how much. Then, he added papers that didn’t 46 00:03:45,030 --> 00:03:49,790 even say there was man-made warming, but he thought it was implied. 47 00:03:49,790 --> 00:03:55,570 A scientific researcher has a sacred obligation to accurately report his findings. 48 00:03:55,570 --> 00:04:01,260 Cook and researchers like him have failed us—as have the politicians and media figures who have 49 00:04:01,260 --> 00:04:07,060 blindly repeated the 97 percent claim to support their anti-fossil fuel goals. 50 00:04:07,060 --> 00:04:11,959 How can we protect ourselves against this kind of manipulation? Whenever someone tells 51 00:04:11,959 --> 00:04:18,219 you that scientists agree on something, ask two questions: “What exactly do they agree on? 52 00:04:18,220 --> 00:04:20,500 And, “How did they prove it?” 53 00:04:20,500 --> 00:04:26,680 I’m Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, for Prager University.