Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We Have Consensus!

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:08:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensuses:

That is a weird word.

No, there isn't consensus. I have personally met with scientists who don't agree with many aspects of the reports we get from NASA, IPCC, etc...

My dad can go on and on about friends of his(he's a double Ph.D. in botany and chemistry) who have been ostracized from certain portions of the 'scientific' community, denied funding, etc... because of research projects into natural causes of warming, as well as criticism of current practices for temperature measurement.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
YYW
Posts: 42,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:11:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am a fervent global warming denier, not because I reject the science, but because I bitterly hate plants.
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:12:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:09:15 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I would argue that the word "consensus" has no place in scientific discussions.

Agreed.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
16kadams
Posts: 10,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:12:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arguing consensus isn't science, it isn't valid as science is never certain. It's merely a fallacy and physiological tactic....... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

"Just as a vote of citizens doesn't make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't there.".......... http://www.paulmacrae.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:13:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:09:15 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I would argue that the word "consensus" has no place in scientific discussions.

+1
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:35:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:12:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arguing consensus isn't science, it isn't valid as science is never certain. It's merely a fallacy and physiological tactic....... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

And you propose what exactly in lieu of science?
"Just as a vote of citizens doesn't make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't there.".......... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

'I can't claim to be an expert on climate science.' - Paul Macae
turn down for h'what
16kadams
Posts: 10,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:35:29 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:12:54 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

Arguing consensus isn't science, it isn't valid as science is never certain. It's merely a fallacy and physiological tactic....... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

And you propose what exactly in lieu of science?
"Just as a vote of citizens doesn't make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't there.".......... http://www.paulmacrae.com...

'I can't claim to be an expert on climate science.' - Paul Macae

I am aware of that. But three years of research, hundreds of footnotes (in his book at least), and interviewing many scientists is better then you.
"I can't claim to be an expert on climate science. But, as a former journalist, I do claim an ability to know when the public is being told partial truths or falsehoods. Everything I have read since I began my research in 2007 convinces me more and more that most of what we, the public, have been told about global warming is misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong, including the claim that the planet is warming (it hasn't since at least 1998)."
http://www.paulmacrae.com...

He later said in the comments: "And, are you suggesting that journalists who aren't climate scientists shouldn't be allowed to write about climate? That would eliminate Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Eugene Linden, Thomas Friedman, and Ross Gelbspan, to name a few on the warmist side. Or would you bar all non-climate scientists, period? That would eliminate Al Gore, which might actually be a blessing."
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:41:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Right, because the technology present 2000 years ago was totally paralleled to the technology now.....

*facepalm*
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensus's:





http://en.wikipedia.org...

The supposed scientific consensus on man made climate change is the result of 3 fallacies; the false-consensus bias, the bandwagon fallacy, and an appeal to authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:02:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

Scientists are those who interrogate the theories every day and test them. If the entire scientific community agrees on something, then it is most definitely right, especially with modern day technology.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:13:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Hence evolution.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:14:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Isn't saying that Occam's Razor is right because of Occam's Razor sort of circular?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:18:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:02:51 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

Scientists are those who interrogate the theories every day and test them. If the entire scientific community agrees on something, then it is most definitely right , especially with modern day technology.

Bandwagon Fallacy
Appeal to authority.

If scientists are in agreement, that does not mean it is right. If we took that approach to science, than we would never be able to make any new scientific breakthroughs.
The scientific community does not determine which theories are right. In science there is never an end to the debate. It is the role of scientists to challenge theories, not to confirm them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 9,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:23:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:08:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:52:53 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

I don't know. But, I'm not sure it matters.

If we always went with scientific consensus, we would still believe that the universe is geocentric, that man is a blank slate, and that human settlement cause rainfall in arid areas (this was a serious consensus) among other things.

The real question isn't whether or not a consensus exists but whether consensus, which has been wrong many times in the past, really matters.

More former scientific consensuses:

That is a weird word.

No, there isn't consensus. I have personally met with scientists who don't agree with many aspects of the reports we get from NASA, IPCC, etc...

My dad can go on and on about friends of his(he's a double Ph.D. in botany and chemistry) who have been ostracized from certain portions of the 'scientific' community, denied funding, etc... because of research projects into natural causes of warming, as well as criticism of current practices for temperature measurement.

"ostracized from certain portions of the 'scientific' community,"

That statement alone should send chills down ones spine when it comes to giving the "Scientific Community" any credibility on anything with regard to enviromental issues.

A "real scientist" would never do such a thing. They would immediately take the information and apply it to try and disprove their theory. It's called the "scientific method" No data no matter the source is ever ignored, it is used to punch holes in theories, if it can. Any scientist who says the science is settled with regard to the climate isn't worth the paper his fake PHd was printed on. They are not "scientists" they a political hacks with an agenda.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:24:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:14:57 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Isn't saying that Occam's Razor is right because of Occam's Razor sort of circular?

Occam's Razor is not justified by Occam's Razar, it's justified by Probability theory.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:28:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:24:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:14:57 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Isn't saying that Occam's Razor is right because of Occam's Razor sort of circular?

Occam's Razor is not justified by Occam's Razar, it's justified by Probability theory.

Ah right, I misunderstood what you were doing there.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:24:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

You do know that, at one point, the consensus was AGAINST gravity.

If it weren't for that crank/ science denier Galileo, we wouldn't know about gravity today.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:24:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/19/2012 1:10:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 1:01:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:57:24 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/19/2012 12:42:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Actually, in science, consensus of scientists is a good way of determining whether something is true or not ex. 99.98% of scientists believe in evolution.

bandwagon fallacy

At that point could you not say the same of belief in gravity?

I don't believe in gravity because most scientist believe in it, I believe in gravity because it's the simplest answer, and in science the simplest answer is the right one.

Hm.

So for a scientific truth to exist, it must be inherently reductionist?
turn down for h'what
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:41:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Consensus has impact not scientifically, but politically. You may believe one scientist is right, but that belief doesn't allow you to ignore a thousand experts who say likewise, especially if they are held in higher regard. It's like taking a vote: you are entitled to your own view, but politically you cannot ignore swathes of evidence, when coming from an ignorant background (i.e. not an expert in the field) while retaining political integrity, I would claim.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stupidape
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 5:38:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
The 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change is correct.

There are seven studies to confirm this

"Authors of seven climate consensus studies " including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook " co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:"

https://skepticalscience.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 6:10:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 2/9/2017 5:38:48 AM, Stupidape wrote:
The 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change is not correct.
http://www.forbes.com...
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Stupidape
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 6:40:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 2/9/2017 6:10:00 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2017 5:38:48 AM, Stupidape wrote:
The 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change is not correct.
http://www.forbes.com...

Fact: 97% of climate scientist agree that man-made climate change is real. This has been published in multiple scholarly peer reviewed journals.

Myth: The consensus does not exist.

Fallacy: Fake expert and misrepresentation, Alex Epstein has a B.A. in Philosophy and is not a climate scientist, he is a fake expert. The reason why many of the journals do not mention climate change is due to wide acceptance. If a paper was on theoretical travel to another solar system, the writer would not bother to write that the Sun and moon exists. Just as you you and I don't go around saying, "gravity exists."

The fact that many articles don't have an explicit stance on climate change is evidence that anthropogenic global climate change is widely accepted within the scientific community. The reputation of sciencemag is higher than Forbes. If Alex Epstein was correct, he could simply submit his article to sciencemag and it would be published.

http://science.sciencemag.org...
https://www.desmogblog.com...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 5:16:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 2/9/2017 6:40:39 AM, Stupidape wrote:
At 2/9/2017 6:10:00 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2017 5:38:48 AM, Stupidape wrote:
The 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change is not correct.
http://www.forbes.com...

Fact: 97% of climate scientist agree that man-made climate change is real. This has been published in multiple scholarly peer reviewed journals.

Myth: The consensus does not exist.


Classical cherrypicking and misrepresentation about the question of the degree of human involvement.


One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook"s summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] (CHERRYPICKING) endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

This is a fairly clear statement"97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause"main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent. MISREPRESENTATION

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse "the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." Cook calls this "explicit endorsement with quantification" (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. NOT ALL THE PAPERS EVEN DISCUSS HUMAN INVOLVEMENT, YET ARE LUMPED TOGETHER

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called "explicit endorsement without quantification""that is, papers in which the author, by Cook"s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called "implicit endorsement," for papers that imply (but don"t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don"t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn"t. DELIBERATE LUMPING OF UNRELATED PAPERS

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public"and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested...

EVEN THE SCIENTISTS WHO WROTE THE ACTUAL PAPERS DISAGREED WITH COOK

In fact, you won't ever see a single actual collection of studies that purports 97% of scientists believe we need to cut fossil fuel consumption to stop global warming. It's simply not there. It's outright fabrication and misinformation on a grand scale for political purposes. Hell, even hollywood comedians agree that we can't get a 97% consensus on anything! The claim is wrong out the gate, even absent evidence that it's an outright fabrication.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 5:25:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I really wish there were an Onion article with this title:

97% of scientists agree that there can be no 97% consensus on anything.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.