>The notion of consensus defies the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry which is not about agreement, but rather a continuous search for understanding. This paper evaluates key disparities of Cook et al (2016) and outlines why a claimed consensus is a powerful tool for driving public policy, but an inappropriate and unethical means of conducting scientific inquiry or informing the public.
>The 97% figure suggests "all" scientists have been surveyed, and indeed so the President’s tweet literally reads, when this is not the case.
>“In 2012, there were 6.2 million scientists and engineers (as defined in this report) employed in the United States” with some 4% or 248,000 working in the physical sciences.” fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf
>Humans are highly compliant, herd mentality beings who are easily swayed by apparent majority views, especially by role-dominant experts. Asch (1951) Schacter (1951) Cialdini (2007)
>Humans are strongly averse to rejection or exclusion.Sarnoff & Zimbardo (1962) Williams (2007)
>Consequently, the claim that a statistical majority, nearly 100% of role-dominant expert individuals like scientists agree to a sweeping statement about climate change, is very effective in swaying public opinion.
"Earth scientists are some of the more skeptical in light of the vast temperature changes they have studied over the past 4 billion years."
"In the geologic record, carbon dioxide is seen as a consequence of the earth’s climate, nominally a cause, and there is no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels in geologic time."
"Carbon dioxide has been at very high levels while temperatures were extremely cold and vice versa."
fuckin this. I'm a geologist and don't know a single one that worries about global warming.
Blake Richardson
>Doran & Zimmerman (2009) is based on Zimmerman (2008). Numerous earth scientist respondents to Zimmerman (2008) explained their view by email that the sun was the main direct and indirect driver of climate change, not humans or carbon dioxide.
>Indeed, as a result of that study author Zimmerman wrote: “I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project.”(pp. 126)
>This important expression of uncertainty by a co-author of a consensus paper and these relevant views by earth scientists (a climate science discipline) are not mentioned, falsely inflating the cause and claim of consensus in Cook et al (2016).
>Cook et al (2016) cite consensus statements by national academies of science, though most of these were made before 2009, over a decade prior to the news of the IPCC reported their 2013 AR5 (Flato et al 2013) that there had been a 15-year hiatus in warming with temperature trends of “values very close to zero” (despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration in that time).
>Cook et al (2016) inaccurately describes Oreskes (2004) (an article not a peer-reviewed study) as having “100% consensus” when Oreskes actually wrote: “Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.”
Brody Bennett
Have a bump. Global warming is perhaps the most widely-followed religion of the 21st century.
Grayson Bennett
>Peiser (2005) (also not peer-reviewed) re-ran Oreskes (2004) and found only 13 scientists explicitly supported a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scenario with some 470 expressing no position whatsoever.
>Anderegg et al (2010) was a “contributed” paper which did not undergo conventional Direct Submission peer-review. Numerous scientists publicly objected to the classification of their work by Anderegg et al (2010) and the outcome that it established of a kind of white and black list of scientists of climate science dogma. These anomalies to “consensus” are not reported.
>Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.
>Curry was a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013. Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group
You can also take a look at this video from John Coleman where he explains how the global warming scare began and snowballed into the religion that it is today. Roger Revelle is often mentioned by the more sharp catastrophists as one of the heroes of the climate change movement.
>There is very little evidence to suggest that the conflict and protest patterns that we see across developing countries is in any way correlated to climate change. In fact, the opposite occurs – cooperation is far more likely in difficult conditions. But cooperation doesn’t make headline news, so we don’t hear about it in the media.
Wyatt Wilson
Spherecucks BTFO
Ryan Thomas
Bump!
Jace Cook
Well I don't know if anyone is interested but Judith Curry has been going to Senate hearings a bunch of times, here she is with Ted Cruz and others:
There's a super famous picture of a dead polar bear that "starved from climate change" that used to make the rounds. That bear was almost 30 years old, and starved because his teeth rotted. The researchers knew when he died from a radio collar signal and staged the photo. The whole movement is full of fake bullshit like that.
Dominic Hernandez
Tl;dr?
Jaxon Price
...
Andrew Thompson
DELETE THIS
Liam Miller
>everythingisfine.jpg
Nicholas Rodriguez
>ROUND EARTH DEBUNKED >FLAT EARTH CONFIRMED
Jaxson Martin
FUCK OFF, GOY
GO BACK TO /X/
Wyatt Sullivan
>BWAAAAAAAAAH you said my stupid opinion was stupid! >YOU MUST BE A JEW! does this one also trigger you?
Kevin Sanders
It's written by Michelle Stirling, a communications director who has 3 other papers posted all on a similar vein. She's from a Canadian-based think-tank funded by coal and other energy companies to deny climate change.
That 97% lie is based on an old survey that was spammed to a bunch of people with a bunch of ambiguous, leading questions designed to get them to agree. It's been widely debunked, but the msm kept repeating the lie until it became "fact". It's literally fake news.
Asher Wilson
when people bring up the 97% I always think of this quote
Angel Torres
>Are you.... >Are you saying that climate deniers are somehow linked to fossil-fuel companies? >Im shocked. >Completely and utterly shocked. >Because im retarded
Angel Lee
I always tell people, if you want to sway climate change deniers, have two people, with opposing viewpoints give a presentation. Present the data in a way that most people could easily understand it, give them a chance to criticize each other's work, and let the public decide.
But shitlibs don't like that, because someone will point out how their data is cherry picked and revert to screaming and namecalling.
Jordan King
They should just say: almost all of them. Because its the truth.
Brody Harris
Just giving Sup Forums some context
Also the citations used in this paper are her other fucking papers, written by herself.
Brayden James
>97% wasn't that figure for the people who decided to take one side? I think about 63% of scientists researching the subject had no stand on global warming. Out of the rest 97% were for global warming and 3% were against. So saying 97% were agreeing with global warming is huge manipulation. Anyway, we should respect our planet, so we won't cook like lobsters, but currently global warming is used only for filling pockets of speculators. First thing first I would do something with commercial transport instead of fucking with my beloved 1.9TDi, the only good thing that came from Germany.
Hunter Hughes
and how does it stay up without rocket engines?
Noah Rodriguez
This. My dad's an environmental engineer and he believes in abiotic petroleum and has zero concerns about man-made climate change.
I just don't understand how someone with anything resembling an objective mind and an understanding of geological time could get worried about a foot or two of sealevel rise over a couple hundred years, knowing that the sea is documented to have risen over 500 feet over the past 20,000 years (a blink of an eye, geologically).
Who cares about a couple of ice shelves melting when modern-day NYC was covered in a mile of ice barely a splitsecond ago geologically-speaking.
Ryan Martinez
>how are the clouds behind it what the sun is behind the clouds I don't understand this image
Noah Barnes
>abiotic petroleum
Benjamin Thompson
Whether you say 97% or almost all of them doesn't matter. Number is not might in a scientific context. If the proof is correct, one is enough.
Ian Turner
Explain then the seemingly limitless quantities of the stuff that we seem to be finding, when the conditions under which petroleum is known to have formed under fossil processes are incredibly specific.
Jaxson Rogers
The point is: consensus. Theres no debate to be had. The point is on one side is the persons uninformed opinion which doesnt matter, on the other is every single person who actually knows what theyre talking about minus a tiny percentage. Thats why it matters.
Kayden Brooks
OK here is what puzzles me. I am a Christian, I won't deny that OR the fact that Christianity is a religion. Climate changers refuse to admit they are taking part in organized religion, but they are more devout than the Abrahamic faiths
Asher Morgan
The petroleum didn't form in the area where it was found. It's liquid and moves.
The idea that oil just simply bubbles up from the Earth's core is ludicrous and wish fulfillment. I'm not even a Malthusian. We have billions of years of dead bacterial mats and plankton to go through. That's it.
Angel Butler
Good Goy. Yaweh will take care of everything.
Thomas Flores
Dude this shit was debunked like the second it came out, theyve just been repeating it nonstop anyways because theyre retarded propagandists
Luis Bailey
Man, why is the right wing full of climate change deniers. I thought we were supposed to be smart?
Wyatt Russell
Consensus is not a valid reason to not have a debate about something, not in the scientific community. This is the very reason why we can enjoy today the immense power and comfort that modern science provides.
Lucas Thomas
Scientists are people who have determined to make profits from science. I can't be arsed blog posting on their utterly vile record since 1939. Trusting them is exactly like trusting CNN. You'll get exactly the same levels of truth / manipulation from both examples.
Carter Edwards
What about the fact that all trans-helium elements were formed by the same process (supernovae in the early universe as the first, supermassive hydrogen stars burned through their fuel and exploded), a process in which the abundance of elements is inversely proportional to their atomic numbers.
meaning that hypothetically, there is a hell of a lot more carbon and hydrogen out there than there is iron, silicon, and the other heavier elements that form the majority of our planet. This is confirmed by the composition of the gas giants such as Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, all of which contain incredible masses of liquid/gaseous methane within them.
That being the case, what's to say that as the pre-planetary material that eventually became our planet coalesced, that there weren't methane comets, etc added to that mix and trapped in what became the core/mantle as our planet continued to form.
From there, it isn't too far of a stretch to imagine the incredible heat and pressure polymerizing some of those pockets into longer-chain hydrocarbons that all slowly worked their way up through the less-dense ferro-silicate material around them until they found themselves trapped by impermeable layers in the crust where some of them ended up getting stratified into coal.
I'm no geologist, but from my knowledge of astronomy, that doesn't seem like too far-fetched of a hypothesis.
Cameron Thomas
>Conscensus is not a valid reason to not have a debate about wether or not the earth is flat. >We should debate it every fucking day. >And gather more data! >This is the very reason why we can enjoy today the immense power and comfort that modern science provides. Scientists should "debate" such things, if by you debate you mean gather data about something is or isnt true, and they do do that all the time, its not like they stopped gathering data on the climate, and everytime they get more data it confirmed something that was previously known.
My point is normal stupid people who dont know what their talking about arent entitled to not being told their opinion goes against every single scientist. Policy should be based on scientific data, not misinformed peoples opinions.
Andrew Edwards
I disagree about shitting on scientists. Scientists are people interested in science. They're pretty cool guys. However, when science becomes POLITICAL then it becomes a complete shitshow.
Lucas Sanders
>They're pretty cool guys. However, when science becomes POLITICAL then it becomes a complete shitshow.
>Policy should be based on scientific data, not misinformed peoples opinions.
Henry Reed
polar bears are thriving to the extent that a cul is being planned, meanwhile on U.K. TV we have adverts from an ngo begging for charitable contributions to help save the polar bears who, the ngo claim, are in danger from disappearing ice caused by climate change.
This is the ice and glaciers we were told would be gone by 06 because of climate change.
TV news used to serialise coverage of these glaciers disappearing but of course they didn't disappear so the coverage was quietly dropped and never mentioned again.
Jose Bennett
You do know the sun is just shining through the clouds, right?
Lucas Garcia
I agree. Science can be used to determine policy, but science itself cannot allow its to be tied to politics or the truth won't matter anymore
Parker Martin
Wrong I've worked in the science field (pharama stuff) for almost 7 years since Grad School
The majority of scientists exploit the fuck out of young associates and launder/steal government money
I've seen honest lawyers but I have yet to see an honest person in science
>The 97% figure suggests "all" scientists have been surveyed, and indeed so the President’s tweet literally reads, when this is not the case.
No shit. There is something called statistics. For example, a recent Kaiser Family poll on Obamacare found 49% supported Obamacare, 42% opposed it, and 9% had no opinion or did not answer. As 1205 people were polled, it was determined the numbers have a margin of error of 3%.
A sample is asked, and a number is determined, with a statistical margin of error. The larger the sample is, the lower the margin of error is. This is something everyone understands.
How moronic.
Also, this was written by some random person. It could be a high school student - it probably is.
David Scott
Because money talks. "Scientists" dont have some moral compass. Theyre physically and mentally weak growths on university and college campuses who will say anything for more funding
Tyler Cox
The leaf is an absolutely unbearable prick. What a surprise. Whoever would have thunk it?
Juan Bell
this is exactly why I don't believe the earth is round.
Samuel Powell
>>Conscensus is not a valid reason to not have a debate about wether or not the earth is flat. True. >>We should debate it every fucking day. Sure, if that's what you want. I ain't stopping you. You don't stop me from debating climate change and I don't stop you from debating flat earth. We both show the same respect to each other and we advance science whenever possible. >My point is normal stupid people who dont know what their talking about arent entitled to not being told their opinion goes against every single scientist. That's fair. If I say something and 99% people disagree, you can look at the situation and say in a neutral tone that I am saying something that 99% disagree with. That's very pointless but you can do that. I'm not sure why that's important. You have a very strange point. Thanks for sharing your point with us. Your opinion is important. >Policy should be based on scientific data, not misinformed peoples opinions. Thank you again for your important point. Yes, we should only look at valid data, therefore that is why consensus is not important as much as correct data regardless of whether it comes from the many or the few. You're a fine fellow and many of your individual sentences are correct, although I find it difficult to find a linear logic behind your posts.
Ayden Morgan
the earth is a flat. I've heard a scientist say so.
David Taylor
Great find, Portubro.
Carson Hall
>A FOOCKEN LEEF BIATCH, LELELEL I FUCKING MEMED YOU SO HARD YOUR FACE JUST KEKD!!1!11!!!11 memes are funny, i repeat funny hivemind saying because i myself am a retard and have nothing to say you made a valid point, britman... i have some thinking to do.
>we should only look at valid data, therefore that is why consensus is not important as much as correct data regardless of whether it comes from the many or the few Oh. So thats your point. I agree. Were all agreed. Goodbye
Austin Williams
Interesting. I may or may not agree but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
David Barnes
Just like journalists. I now believe the consensus I see in MSM... Oh goody.
Grayson Garcia
It is a scientific fact that scientists lie all the time. It's annoying to me to read the leafy faith you have in them like medieval peasants in the medieval church because I once did a whole website on this topic. I'm not blogposting so here are some scientific facts on the SHOCKING EXTENT OF SCIENTISTS DISHONESTY from their pals in MSM. google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie
Nathaniel Smith
scientists are all liars and cheats
honestly sometimes I think we should kill some of them to set an example that faking data isn't acceptable
Anthony Hall
science should be illegal. Only niggers, feminists and democrats like science.
Ryan Mitchell
Set to graduate as a geologist from the U of A in a few years, have a professor named Mihai who always talks about how bad a problem global warming is. But one day when just he and I were going over some work, we started chatting about politics and he's just like "yeah it's fucking ridiculous, but my colleagues [a large number of which are female] would shun me if I said anything out of line."
Dylan Stewart
You talk about science being bad if it gets political - well there has only been politically sanctioned science since 1939. It's just like listening to cucks saying journalism is mostly truth except for the odd occasion where politics manipulates it - all MSM is politically manipulated and you know that so why maintain religious faith in the proven liars of science. Wake up and research, or remain cucked. It's not as in your face as journalism or there is no way you would have been able to maintain your delusions this long, I sincerely promise you.
Nathaniel Sanders
come home, white man
Owen Clark
>I'm a geologist and don't know a single one that worries about global warming.
This. But I bet you don't know many that will say so publicly, for fear of losing their jobs when leftist nuts start picketing their employers and shit. A "consensus" backed by intimidation is not really worth much.
Ayden Anderson
name one good thing science has ever done. You seriously think the world is a better place with science? Look at all the niggers and liberals running around
Bentley Parker
>le mainstream media is bad >thats why i listen to retarded fringe stuff. alex jones would never lie to me. >why do you believe shit you read? just because it has verifiable, reliable data supporting it? fucking medieval peasant. I for one just believe whatever the fuck i want, thats what smart people do. >Here is that one article about that one, singular scientist who lied, or what i call "the SHOCKING EXTENT OF SCIENTISTS DISHONESTY" >Taking isolate cases, or case, singular, and blowing it out of proportion. A little trick i got from alex jones or whatever. >Posts a theguardian article, mainstream media which i use because they're a reliable source of information so i wont be told to fuckoff for posting an alex jones shitpiece. You make a great point.
Adrian Cook
>that there had been a 15-year hiatus in warming with temperature trends of “values very close to zero” (despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration in that time).
Caleb Lopez
>the sun was the main direct and indirect driver of climate change Yes the main driver but if sun activity isn't observably changing then warming isn't caused by the sun.
Aaron Parker
>But in the winter >Its cold outside. BTFO! Oh yeah fucking leaf too. Memes > Data
Caleb Murphy
You didn't even read the article, prick. It isn't restricted to one case. If you need me to hold your hand and walk you through it all you are out of luck and can stay a clown for all I care. Unbearably leafy.
Justin Jones
And go on then, you verify the data leaf. I'm sure you are capable, you're so much cleverer than we are. Fact is I couldn't nor could anyone except the scientists and this one obnoxious leaf.
Adrian Reed
Confirmed bullshit although keeping amog out of environment is good.
James Collins
Who is more likely to be corrupt tenured scientists at universities getting public funding or scientists in the private sector working for oil companies? Oil companies even say climate change is something to be concerned about now. Are they just doing it for PR?
Thomas Morgan
Similar to claims about the number of homeless in America. Supposedly there were 2.5 million in the 80s, expected to climb to 3 million -- so news reports just said there are 3 million homeless in America.
The number it turns out, was just made up to sound impressive -- it is very, very difficult to get a count on homeless people, and nobody had done so.
The left is bad about just throwing some made up number out there, and the media is bad about fact checking them.
Sebastian Butler
My only question is"to what degree". What percentage agree not JUST that climate change is real but that it has an anthropogenic source. And of those, to what degree so they claim humans are involved? 100 50 30 percent?
Climate change isn't a binary.
Tyler Morris
I am moral and care about the well being of other people.
Bentley Martin
Who is most likely to tell the truth CNN or the Telegraph?
Grayson Kelly
Look closely -- each has a thin band of cloud somewhere in it, that the sun shines through as photographed. Useful for trolls.
Oliver Cox
I did read the article. It is restricted to one very specific case involving a grand total of one scientist named Haruko Obokata and no one else.
It doesn't say a single thing about your imagined culture of making shit up in the scientific community.
Which lead me to believe its you that has not read the article. You probably got it of some retarded news aggregate and only read their misleading headline
Yes you can verify the data, i mean not you but anybody who knows what theyre talking about. You can ask for universities and goverment agencies for data, you will be given that data, and will be able to compare it with your own data. That is what scientists do, and that is how you are able to confirm the accuracy and authenticity of data. But if retards like you decide to make up nonsensical conspiracies and dismiss every single one of those scientists only because they have a degree and unlike you do understand the data, youre simply retarded and need some tinfoil on your head.
Juan Harris
>The left is bad about just throwing some made up number out there Prove that the left is worse about making shit up then the right.
Austin Reyes
>6.2 million scientists and engineers employed in the US
are you >implying that 97% of 6.2 million people in all, even unrelated sciences, plus the entirely unrelated field of engineering need to agree that anthropogenic climate change is real for it to be real?
that 97% is of CLIMATE scientist, the actual relevant discipline here
>A sample is asked, and a number is determined, with a statistical margin of error. The larger the sample is, the lower the margin of error is. This is something everyone understands.
Cool. Can you point me to the survey of scientists that was taken? I'd be interested in their methodology, how the representative sample was selected, etc.
Grayson Wilson
I bet you won't, though.
Noah Rodriguez
Did you make a long post about something that is described in one sentence on the front page of Sup Forums?
Dominic Green
As someone who has water front property I am very concerned about global warming and sea levels rising. While i am skeptical about the amount of impact anthropogenic forcing, I do drive a 7.4 liter vehicle with zero emissions equipment just in case it might make a difference. You see, there is a sandbar near me that prevents me from getting a fixed keel sailboat, which is what all the cool people have.. swing keel is kind of poverty tier, and while multihulls are cool, everybody knows you only get it because you are an autist or have a shit water depth at your dock.
>Yes the main driver but if sun activity isn't observably changing then warming isn't caused by the sun.
An yet, Mars seems to be warming to at the moment -- which suggests the possibility that something solar, or at least non-anthropogenic, has been happening.
Polar bears exist in gangs and they're extremely violent and there's so many of them that they're killing each other
John Stewart
A quick skim does not show any surveys of scientists, it shows "surveys" of publications by climate scientists. Not the same thing at all. Will look at it in more detail later, maybe I am missing the information I cam looking for.
But (and again after a quick skim) I am not seeing in your link a statistical survey of scientists of the sort described in , where a representative sample is asked and a statistical analysis is performed to work out, to within a margin of error, what the population under consideration thinks.
Since life is calcing, I'll leave it there, but I will look more deeply into the link you provided later.
Liam Ward
From your source: >The orbit of Mars regularly undergoes changes that greatly affect how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface, which in turn can strongly alter the Red Planet's climate. Similar orbital variations called Milankovitch cycles are known to happen on Earth. How are martian orbital cycles related to earth?
So they aren't saying that the sun is radiating more which would effect earth the same as mars. Did you even read the thing or just came to a conclusion from the headline?
>be a climate scientist >will not have thesis approved or get funding or tenure track if you do not support AGW >people act surprised when climate scientists support AGW
Its the equivalent of asking a group of Socialists whether they support Marx and acting surprised when 97% do.
