I keep seeing the 97% consensus argument when debating climate change Hasn't it been debunked already?
I keep seeing the 97% consensus argument when debating climate change Hasn't it been debunked already?
Parker Bell
Other urls found in this thread:
side3.no
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
drroyspencer.com
theguardian.com
wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
theage.com.au
skepticalscience.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
skepticalscience.com
anyforums.com
twitter.com
Carter Brown
Part of the reason that SJWS and their Alt Right counterparts are so stupid is because none of you fucks know how to do your own research.
If it was debunked you should be able to find it yourself, stop relying on others to find your research for you because thats how you get all these retarded fake facts.
Caleb Bennett
I was hoping someone knew more than me about this, I guess Sup Forums was the wrong place to ask.
Carter Cook
using a democratic approach to science is usually a sure fire sign that there is a problem with their science. 51 out of 100 scientists believe the earth is flat, does that make the earth flat? no. the truth is truth regardless of 'consensus'
Jose Wood
Like i said, if you get your information from places like Sup Forums then your doing the same exact shit that SJWS do when they get their information from WE WUZ KINGS type websites.
Do you understand what peer review is?
Jaxson Smith
You should understand by now that everything the left says is a lie. Their modus operandi is to try and convince people with low self-esteem and little social value that "everyone is on their side, trust me"
>Everyone is on your side, everyone else is just a hillbilly minority don't worry about it
Owen Ross
Where should I get my information? The subject has become so politicized that there's never an objective look on the issue.
Josiah Gray
are you stupid? a scientific fact is a fact isn't it? does it matter what the consensus is, a demonstrable repeatable fact is a fact. it wouldn't matter if 97% of scientists didn't believe in global warming, if it was scientifically provable then there would be no argument. science isn't democratic, it's not a hard concept to understand.
Adrian Robinson
Yes. What they leave out is that only 34% of the scientists they asked agreed to sign. The rest chose not to because they thought it was inconclusive.
There was actually a very good interview with a climate change skeptic in a mainstream Norwegian news outlet a while back. You should read it.
Jonathan Walker
There are some good trolls on this board
Lincoln Miller
antarctic ice was connected to south america around 1500AD~
receded by 1700AD~
industrial revolution happened after both of these dates
global warming has absolutely nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.
Landon Harris
In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in theistic evolution, or evolution guided by God.
therefor god is real,the argument doesn't really work. consensus is irrelevant, that is a historically proven fact in the scientific community
Lincoln Roberts
Infowars has some legit sources on it.
Henry Baker
Yes but the problem is media
Jason Murphy
Should it be called the 32% consensus?
Eli Howard
Are you retarded?
Nothing is ever absolutely proven in science. Everything you know about science as "fact" is because experts got together and either through democratic vote or through some authority have standardized it so it can be taught as reality to others.
The reason why they bring up the 97% argument is because it's quite damning for the opposition to have so many experts in the field agree what reality is. That's the argument they put forward and pretending not to understand your opponents argument isn't an argument, you fucking mongoloid.
Easton Thompson
D E B U N K E D
by sir molymeme
Connor Reyes
D E B U N K E D
again by sir corbett
Landon Ramirez
experts got together and either through democratic vote or through some authority have standardized it so it can be taught as reality to others.
i forgot about the vote on gravity, and the theory of relativity silly me, you are correct.
again science doesn't operate on public opinion, it operates through observation and replication.
Parker Sanders
>Scientific consensus is a proof.
))))))
Charles Morris
yeah global warming's prob'ly real. Maybe not the specifics, fuck if I know that shit, but I figure we, as humanity, dump a ton of shit into the air, and that's gotta have some kind of bad long term effects.
Aaron Myers
No
Meta study after meta study has only confirmed that about 97% of all scientific papers expressing an opinion agree with climate change
And these papers are written by experts in their fields, which is why 97% is used as an argument. These people, who spend their entire lives tracking the climate, all come to the same conclusion, and have come to this conclusion since the late 19th century.
Zachary Jackson
>politicized
how about an 8th grade science textbook?
Grayson James
You fucking retard. You fucking retard.
>i forgot about the vote on gravity, and the theory of relativity silly me, you are correct
Yes. That happened. Science is a continually rolling ball that's always building off old material so these theories had to be proven and after some time and testing some international committee said "yes, this is correct". Nobody pumps out a paper that everyone instantly lightbulbs over and realizes it is reality.
Just look at evolution. At some point someone had to say "yes, this is a fact of reality and it will be taught in schools".
>again science doesn't operate on public opinion
You fucking retard. Not understanding someone's argument is not an argument. It's not public opinion they're talking about, you fucking retard.
Gavin Carter
It operates on the opinion of experts who interpret their replicated observations. The doctor who first pushed for handwashing was committed to an insane asylum. Science is the interplay between observable phenomena and our own interpretations of it.
Ryan Wilson
resorting to ad hominem, you lost the debate pseudo scientist :^)
Isaiah Harris
>being this idealistic
What can you prove in this world?
You can prove things without a reasonable doubt, but you can never absolutely prove anything.
And 97% of scientists agree that global warming is real, but the other 3% are [spoiler]suburban and rural retards[/spoiler] a statistical anomaly
Camden Adams
>97% of scientific papers expressing an opinion
>expressing an opinion
but the majority does not take a stand. It's very deceptive to say 97% agree on something, when 66% says they are unsure.
Also when surveyed the question is often very unspesific, as in "does the earth get warmer?", instead of "do you believe humans are the cause of the rise of global warming?"
Jace Evans
I know you're shitposting, but it steams my beans when someone dismisses an entire argument as nothing but insults based on the fact that the person included insults with an actual argument.
Ryan Wright
((((((((experts))))))))) in the field
a field that didn't even exist 50 years ago and has lots of political bias
go open some ancient medical journals and see what fucked up ideas they had when just getting started, and they all thought they were correct at the time
Josiah Bennett
Look. If you want to have an opinion on the IPCC report and not look like a complete ass, I suggest you actually educate yourself. The organization is corrupt to the core, and frequently withholds, misrepresents or manipulates data.
To what extent climate change is man made, I don't know. But I do know the IPCC can't be trusted.
>The reason why they bring up the 97% argument is because it's quite damning for the opposition to have so many experts in the field agree what reality is.
It's not 97%. It's about 34%. This is a prime example of how they misrepresent their data. They leave out the huge number of scientists who refused to sign the report.
>Everything you know about science as "fact" is because experts got together and either through democratic vote or through some authority have standardized it so it can be taught as reality to others.
This is absolutely retarded, and you clearly have no idea how the scientific method works. Science is supposed to be falsifiable and replicatable. It has nothing to do with democracy. If it's done right, you can test whether it's right or not. The problem with IPCC and climate change is that it's far too complicated to actually produce any results or test their claims. They rely on prediction models, and every single prediction they've ever made has turned out to be wrong.
Jaxon Wright
> "These people who spend their entire lives begging for money based on this narrative, all come to the same conclusion, and have come to this conclusion since the late 19th century."
FTFY
Justin Kelly
>You fucking retard. You fucking retard.
You really have no idea how fucking retarded you look.
Christopher Miller
There is a difference between scientists who study climate and the general population.
These scientists all (not 59%) agree that global warming is real, which shows that there is a reason that they all think so. The most likely reason they all think so is because it is real, and you can even check out their working and how they came to the conclusion.
Logan Barnes
evolution being taught in school is a totally different issue. the bulk of the problem was with creationists wanting equal say using 'intelligent design'.
we are talking about public opinion, that is the whole point of trying to push a consensus. consensus is irrelevant in the scientific community and it always has been, it is the rolling ball you refer to. popular and public consensus at one point was that the earth was flat, all it took was 1 person to change that.
Grayson Cruz
((((science))))
Thomas Morales
>66.4% study the effects of climate change instead of trying to prove something to retards
>32.6% are still hopeful that maybe with this new set of data and research flat Earthers will finally understand why they are wrong
>0.7% are retards who are unable to operate their equipment correctly
James Watson
> "The clergymen all (not 59%) agree that that God is real , which shows that there is a reason that they all think so. The most likely reason they think so is because it is real, and you can even check out their work and how they came to the conclusion."
Levi Baker
97% consensus has been debunked, why is this thread still going?
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
YOU'RE ALL BEING CONNED
Jeremiah Campbell
There are too many issues I can identify with this straight away:
1. 97% does not imply absolute truth. 97%+ of the scientific community agreed that the Sun revolves around Earth at some point in the past.
2. Science is especially suspicious when politics is involved. See: James Watson debacle. Statements like "X race is smarter than Y", "homosexuality is a mental illness" are not accepted by science, yet are fucking obvious. Your common sense > the narrative. Why would you trust Science based on political narrative?
3. "Funding bias may lead to selection of outcomes, test samples, or test procedures that favor a study's financial sponsor." - Wikipedia. These "Scientists" are generally funded by governments (might not be true, haven't checked this).
4. People preaching this are generally hippie faggots that do it for the wrong purpose. They just want to be edgy and piss you off, likewise Feminists/LGBT activists.
5. Why is "Global Warming" such a fucking issue and not, say, pollution. I agree, we need to take some proactive measures to build a better environment, e.g. plant some trees. People pushing this agenda probably want Carbon Tax.
6. I haven't researched this deeply enough to have a valid opinion on the subject matter. Why do you, when you haven't either?
Alexander Reyes
>some international committee said "yes, this is correct"
It's more complicated than this, but basically after repeated testing it becomes common knowledge to the people in the field, then eventually common knowledge to the general population, because there hasn't been any counter proof to the theory.
Kind of like Earth being round. After scientists kept on confirming that Earth is round and there was nobody to disprove it, it became common knowledge
Jonathan Bennett
97% of climate change scientists are 100% reliant on grants paid for by people and organisations with an agenda to push.
Samuel Perry
66% of scientists would not refuse to sign a scientific report that claims the earth is round.
Jonathan Rodriguez
>expressing an opinion
I'm not a native English speaker, here's a better way of saying it:
97% of scientific papers that tested whether global warming is real or not came to the conclusion that it is real.
>when 66% says they are unsure
66% study the effects of global warming and other unrelated topics, but out of the papers that tried to prove or disprove global warming, 97% claim they found proof for it, whereas only 3% claim they found no proof for it.
Jacob Sanders
>a field that didn't even exist 50 years ago
Global warming was first talked about in the scientific community in the 1880s
Cameron Sanchez
number 5 really pisses me off, because there are real environmental issues that are much more important, but everyone is focused on co2
we're going to start depleting many species of fish if current consumption rates are kept up, and this is something we have a direct impact on and can fuck with the entire oceanic food chain
Kayden Mitchell
You have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. Science is not a fucking democracy, you either have proof of something or you don't.
If you don't, then all you have is a theory and consensus is not proof of anything.
Brandon Gonzalez
>go open some ancient medical journals and see what fucked up ideas they had when just getting started, and they all thought they were correct at the time
Because they didn't have the scientific method.
We have the scientific method, accurate models and the data that all show that global warming is happening.
This argument doesn't even make sense, because you can apply it to everything.
>Consensus on 2+2=4?
>Wrong, go open some ancient medical journals and see what fucked up ideas they had when just getting started, and they all thought they were correct at the time
Robert Scott
No my dude, 66% did not find enough of a foundation to claim the theory as fact.
Alexander Lewis
Science has been turned into a cult it's no longer the thirst for knowledge rather its pushing a world view onto us look at the facts and draw your own conclusions
James Green
>It's about 34%. This is a prime example of how they misrepresent their data. They leave out the huge number of scientists who refused to sign the report.
It is 97% out of all the papers that wanted to test it.
Joshua Lopez
more like
>The theologists all (not 59%) agree that in Christianity, Jesus was the son of God, which shows that there is a reason they all think so. The most likely reason they think so is because the Bible says it, and you can even check out their work and how they came to the conclusion.
Ayden Green
>he can't even defend his own arguments, instead he resorts to some shitty 30 minute videos that are full of bullshit
TL;DR the videos and I'll show you why they're bullshit
Jacob Watson
oh yeah?
In the 1950s, research suggested increasing temperatures, and a 1952 newspaper reported "climate change". This phrase next appeared in a November 1957 report in The Hammond Times which described Roger Revelle's research into the effects of increasing human-caused CO2 emissions on the greenhouse effect, "a large scale global warming, with radical climate changes may result". Both phrases were only used occasionally until 1975, when Wallace Smith Broecker published a scientific paper on the topic, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" The phrase began to come into common use, and in 1976 Mikhail Budyko's statement that "a global warming up has started" was widely reported.[260] Other studies, such as a 1971 MIT report, referred to the human impact as "inadvertent climate modification", but an influential 1979 National Academy of Sciences study headed by Jule Charney followed Broecker in using global warming for rising surface temperatures, while describing the wider effects of increased CO2 as climate change.[261]
just so happens they were thinking about using it for controlling the public
Tyler Perez
You're comparing ancient medical journals to a modern branch of other deeply rooted sciences?
I'm not taking a side or saying they're right, I'm just trying to explain to people that pretending to not understand an argument isn't an argument, you just makes you look fucking dumb.
And science is idealist. The reality is that people are fallible and way information is developed and disseminated is going to come down to some authorities decision. The science that people are exposed to and the science that scientists are exposed to are two completely separate things. No person can read every paper and every bit of information this information is standardized and cpacted into a digestible form. This the authority which is usually a democratic committee.
This entire thread is just a bait into a circlejerk.
>Post something stupid my opponent says and let's all agreehow right we are about everything because of this particular stupid argument
Jason Morgan
No. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. There's one report by the IPCC. The number indicates the people who agreed to sign it. It has nothing to do with the number of scientific reports.
I'm not even a climate change denier. I'm just questioning the methodology of the IPCC, because they're fucking corrupt. Their manipulation of data has been confirmed by people who have worked for the organization.
You don't even seem to understand that so-called climate change denier don't deny climate change. They're skeptics who question the methodology and to what extent climate change is man-made. They don't like the sensationalist bullshit of the IPCC, because their manipulation and scare mongering hurts the scientific credibility of the entire field.
Isaiah Williams
>Because they didn't have the scientific method.
>We have the scientific method, accurate models and the data that all show that global warming is happening.
aristotle invented the scientific method in about 300 BC
and it's not like climate scientists are using the scientific method now
for them, they try to find ways to make the evidence fit their predetermined outcome, rather than observe reality
which is why you get this
drroyspencer.com
climate models are a shit
do your research
Nolan Ramirez
Tunnel vision on CO2 is retarded:
Thank you, EU! We love you!
Christian Bell
And 97% of scientists used to think that homosexuality is a disease (it is) and that niggers are less intelligent (it is); we've seen how popular opinion has changed on that one
Logan King
if they're so "deeply rooted" then why are their predictions wrong AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com
it is on par with medieval quackery
they may as well be recommending people put leeches on their heads to stop global warming, it's about as scientific as their opinions
Xavier Sanchez
The best is that everyone and their dog drives a diesel.
Anthony Brooks
no time to educate imbeciles one by one, russia should annex you
Luis Sanders
>1. 97% does not imply absolute truth.
But it does show that there is evidence that makes them all say global warming is real, and the scientific community is much more rigorous nowadays
>2. Science is especially suspicious when politics is involved.
What politics? Every nation in the world agrees that climate change is happening and China is currently the biggest investor in green energy. This "suspicious" science is 8th grade chemistry, retard.
>See: James Watson debacle. Statements like "X race is smarter than Y"
This is a social science, and there have been no big studies into this, especially when you account for living conditions. And the statement itself is dumb, because no race is smarter than another race. I've met smart black people, and I've met white trash. There is a lot of deviation within these groups, and sometimes even more deviation in between a race than between two different people of different races.
>homosexuality is a mental illness
This isn't even science. This is psychology, and homosexuality definitely isn't in the DSM 5, which makes homosexuality not a mental illness.
>are not accepted by science, yet are fucking obvious
t. geocentrist
>it's not accepted by science that the Sun revolves around Earth, yet it's fucking obvious!
>3. "Funding bias may lead to selection of outcomes, test samples, or test procedures that favor a study's financial sponsor." - Wikipedia. These "Scientists" are generally funded by governments (might not be true, haven't checked this).
Why don't you do your own study retard to disprove them then?
>4. People preaching this are generally hippie faggots that do it for the wrong purpose. They just want to be edgy and piss you off, likewise Feminists/LGBT activists.
>muh strawman that I heard on Sup Forums
(1/2)
Josiah Campbell
everything about the IPCC is corrupt, it's shocking anyone listens to these frauds
youtube.com
Jose Nguyen
9 out of 10 dentists agree, crest is the best
Joshua Harris
>5. Why is "Global Warming" such a fucking issue and not, say, pollution. I agree, we need to take some proactive measures to build a better environment, e.g. plant some trees. People pushing this agenda probably want Carbon Tax.
Because global warming is a threat to humans. 50% of all ocean plankton have died out in the past few decades due to ocean acidification, and plankton are at the bottom of the food chain.
>6. I haven't researched this deeply enough to have a valid opinion on the subject matter. Why do you, when you haven't either?
Then don't claim it. 97% of all experts who work on this everyday say it is true, and you trying to claim they are wrong wouldn't be a valid opinion according to you.
Ryan Diaz
yep, like the morons who told everyone to get CFLs, which release mercury gas when broken, SO ENVIRONMENTAL
or the ethanol nuts that indirectly contributed to the food crises in 2008-2010 that sparked the arab spring when food prices got too high for some people
Cameron Ramirez
hhuur duurr asking question to the hivemind is retarded dduu4rr
Parker Williams
Adrian Wood
Reality doesn't care about consensus, it's a non-argument.
Hunter Watson
Your whole post is bullshit, and is the polar opposite of what science is supposed to stand for. Yes, you have various scientific paradigms and huge egos that get in the way, but your description of the scientific community goes against everything that science if supposed to be.
Seriously, read up on the IPCC, before spewing more bullshit, unless you're so set in your ways you refuse to listen to reason or learn something new.
Again, I'm not even a climate change denier. I just don't like the IPCC, because they're thoroughly corrupt. I suppose you don't even know that they let every single government backing them up add and remove things as they see fit.
theage.com.au
Adam Howard
What report? Link me to the report where scientists were asked to "sign" something
>there is no such report
>but there is a meta study that shows that out of all the papers related to climate change, only 33% wanted to prove/disprove it, because the rest already know it is true
>out of the 33% that wanted to prove/disprove it, 97% proved it
Josiah Howard
Climate change is real. There are absolutely consequences for industrial revolution and the endless wars for more oil to burn. If you deny it, or deny that people ought to take responsibility now to ensure humanity's future, you're a short-sighted shill. Exxon has known about it since the 40s, confirmed it in the 70s. This is a lot like how DuPont was intentionally releasing toxic waste (ctx) from the chemical process of making Teflon, into the Ohio River for thirty years.
t. DuPont lost a big legal battle last year and is now paying out damages.
Nicholas Turner
If you have to attempt to make a consensus to bully people into believing your theory, that's just evidence that you have no hard evidence.
Never once has science advanced from a massive consensus of all scientist, it's always been either 1 guy or a small group that advances everyone 10 years while the (((consensus))) tells them they are fucking retarded.
It's literally appeal to authority because they have no hard facts.
TL;DR a scientific consensus is the most unscientific thing imaginable.
Owen Howard
>Every nation in the world agrees that climate change is happening
So do climate change skeptics, you fucking idiot. You don't even know what you're arguing against.
Gabriel Jenkins
>spoiler tags on Sup Forums
retarded fucking russian
Nolan Collins
>And the statement itself is dumb, because no race is smarter than another race.
Ok, you're a total fucking idiot. Got it.
Robert Morgan
The government has had weather technology for years. They use it to simulate global warming to trick the populations into accpeting climate taxes and tyrannical globalist policies.
Alexander Barnes
>climate change
>debunked
>physics
>debunked
burger edumaction everyone
Angel Sanders
why the fuck wouldn't they just use it to zap niggers and institute tyranny that way
Kevin Russell
Why do that when you can sell water filters, vitality pills and fear to Canadians?
Jace Brown
Daily Reminder that all climate change denial arguments have been debunked for your viewing here:
Ryan Butler
>drroyspencer.com
What's your criticism of this image?
James Butler
DAILY REMINDER THAT GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS WANT YOU TO OBEY, OR ELSE
youtube.com
youtube.com
why? the better to control you with
William Miller
>you either have proof of something or you don't
>he thinks it's this simple
en.wikipedia.org
Scientific proof often is inductive reasoning, which isn't a valid mathematical proof. Even gravity is based off of inductive reasoning, which isn't a valid logical proof.
You can't prove something absolutely in a way that it can never be argued against. You can prove it without reasonable doubt, like global warming or Earth being round is, but science is about making predictions and models from data. An infinite amount of models can fit any data you collect, but only one model actually correctly predicts everything. Currently that model is global warming and Earth being flat, which is why scientists agree with it, but there are still people who argue against both.
Joshua Green
Wrong
Link me to where you got this report that scientists had to sign
Colton Perry
>Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.
Kevin Harris
I've seen what they teach in 8th grade for biology. It's not about method, it's not about evidence, and it presents everything as solid fact - may as well be catechism.
Jack Anderson
the climate models are WAY off compared to actual temperatures
the models are far from accurate, and it's stupid to rely on them
be like using a videogame stock simulator for investing advice
Zachary Fisher
ah now i see op is NORWAY
surprising, so
using a proxy, or burger-TIER edumaction
Hunter Young
Because for whatever reason, they want the population to ask for tyranny. They create problems, then offer the solutions, which is tyranny.
It's either because it's easier, or it has something to do with their satanic code, but there won't be a new world order until the population begs for it.
William Parker
>Scientific proof often is inductive reasoning, which isn't a valid mathematical proof.
How is empiricism anything but deductive?
Carson Ross
>There's one report by the IPCC. The number indicates the people who agreed to sign it.
And there's 7 other reports by independent researchers: see Link me to the IPCC report
Jordan Myers
nope
Matthew Evans
>word salad
>fallacies
>handwavium
>ignorance is a point of view
>science rong
*yawn*
Parker Nguyen
nobody gave a shit about it til the 70s
btw, sweden has never produced a single scientist
Jacob Morgan
>aristotle invented the scientific method in about 300 BC
Yeah, and medieval Europeans definitely followed the scientific method, for example when the Jesuit scientists simply refused to look in a telescope when they were being told about the heliocentric model.
>which is why you get this
>some shitty infographic made by climate change truthers
pic related: le corrupt IPCC models
skepticalscience.com
Alexander Roberts
Because you're using FAKE NEWS
Jace King
>can't come up with a counter argument, instead resorts to violence like a kid who lost an argument
looks like I won yet again
Jordan Howard
It only took 25 years for the wage gap myth to even start being accepted as false so it's gonna be a while OP.