Originally Posted by Payday12 (Post 1726234)
Liberals and Democrats likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate. The real number is about 43%.
Although some scientists claim the exact figure may be more like approximately 73.5% |
Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.
For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#528f9dc73de0 Here's a skeptic of what causes global warming, I think we can safely say there as just as many voices on one side as on the other. I think myself that much worse than global warming is the out-of-control population explosion which no wants to talk about because it's happening in developing countries. I think that's a hell of a lot more important (and threatening to the environment) than global warming. The numbers are stagering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population I think that is the real threat to the environment. |
The reason he didn't provide sources is that his list is directly taking from a daily wire article and I guess OP didn't want it to seem like he was just regurgitating something he read. But he was.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9...aaron-bandler# The daily wire is run by Ben Shapiro, and I really try not to slip into attacks like this, but he is consistently one of the most dishonest people on the internet that also has a large following (I guess less than Milo or Alex Jones though?). To be honest, it feels like I've been fighting his shadow for YEARS because he's really popular among college conservatives (at least around here). More sustainable to debate his shadow than conspiracy theorists though (props to Yoda). Before this turns into a blog (I like that idea btw) I want to quickly (heh) talk about the 43% number. I want to say it's almost impressive how it was designed to be deceptive, but even the doctoring was kinda basic. Here is where the figure "originates": http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/file...nses_01731.pdf Let's take a look at the point from the Daily Wire article:
6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.
6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent.
Normally, I wouldn't really care about the inclusion of "likely" in conjunction with an already fuzzy number, DW does that all the time, but it's especially funny/hypocritical in context (more on that in a sec). Also interesting, where is the justification? 43% isn't anywhere in this report? Where did that number come from? DW didn't post a source for the number, they were just hoping you'd see the number, see a link with an in depth study, and figure it was true. But again, 43%, not anywhere in the report. Where it DID come from another piece that made its rounds on the conservative blogs: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29...finding-87796/ The part we are concerned with is here:
Those 797 respondents are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). The PBL survey finds that only a minority (a large minority) of climate scientists agree with the AR4 keynote statement {and the similar finding in AR5’s chapter 10} at the 95% level typically required for science and public policy
A) The IPCC went too far in saying the words "extremely likely" which he claims should be used to describe a 95% confidence rating. Which as a specific point is kinda wishy-washy (The IPCC never said 95% as far as I can tell), but honestlythe general point that the IPCC overstepped is well taken, it's both a misstep and unnecessary. The amount of consensus is actually quite high without trying to strive for near unanimity, which only invites conspiracy. B) If you look at this study, and if we apply a 95% confidence rating (which, again is kind of a number we pulled out of nowhere), we'd get 47% (43 if you include IDKs) that the majority of climate change is anthropogenic. Let's look at the numbers (I put them in excel in the second picture because the report is annoyingly vague with the exact numbers, which I use to calculate percentages) https://image.ibb.co/jzMqNk/GHGa.png https://image.ibb.co/dpCVNk/GHG1.png Now before you don your master internet genius cap and notice that there's a "More than 100%" category which MUST either mean scientists are idiots who can't understand something can't be more than 100% responsible or that they are liars, in this survey it means: https://image.ibb.co/nq6Da5/GHG100.png Can't tell you how many times I had to read snarky comments from people that don't read the study. You may have noticed three sets of percentages, T1, T2, and T3, they are: https://image.ibb.co/bRsVNk/GHG2.png The first is a straight total, which I don't think is actually wise to use. the second subtracts "Other" responses as you basically have to because we actually have no idea what was put in those responses, they had to write it in themselves and it wasn't tabulated as far as I can tell. I basically believe it to be misleading to include these in the total, but just so that there's total clarity I had the pure total. The third subtracts "Unknown" and other, unknown being the person believed they lacked the relevant knowledge, while I don't know meant unsure. I wish the study had used an opt not to reply due to lack of knowledge to make it more clear to those reading it, but they didn't. I won't subtract the I don't knows because those actually kinda are relevant. Those are ones with knowledge that won't quite commit, which there a number of scientists that do this. Here are the brackets: https://image.ibb.co/eP7x2k/GHG3.png So depending on Here are the confidence intervals for those that said 50% or more was caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions: https://preview.ibb.co/nkh88Q/GHG4.png Here are the confidence intervals for those that said less than 50% https://preview.ibb.co/gA7i8Q/GHG5.png Take from the numbers what you will. This is one study so I wouldn't base an entire worldview on it, but I think the claims are certainly distorted at the very least. Next piece of the DW quote:
The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies... On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey
that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus
Which brings me to a big point: Why do I care so much? Honestly, it's not a bad question. If you couldn't tell, I don't think this study is a standout study regardless. I don't think it's more useful than any other study, and I don't think even the people that created the study consider it above other similar studies on scientific consensus. But, conservative outlets gave the study their backing without reading it, and I love fighting them on their chosen turf. I let a lot go (here and elsewhere) that I start to respond to and I give up. But I knew I had seen that 43% before. As I looked into it I saw the DW article. Then I remembered it's source. And something I've had this tremendous personal problem with started to rear its head. This is a really good microcosm. This is what happened.
Which took the form of:
There's just something that deeply bothers me at how this is exactly what DW wanted. To stir readers without informing them. So I had to post something. TL: DR No. No Tldr. Read it or don't. Tldr is the problem. |
Originally Posted by Wplains (Post 1727465)
I need to sit on this one for a bit, but that really seems perfect. Quote from the article:
global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
|
Originally Posted by Slappydavis (Post 1727532)
Man, I love the stuff you guys use sometimes. That article is written by Peter Ferrara, a Heartland Institute analyst. Heartland used to work on (maybe still does?) trying to muddle the connection between smoking and lung cancer. And wow, smoking denialism seems like a great analogy for climate change denialism when I think about it.
I need to sit on this one for a bit, but that really seems perfect. Quote from the article: How's that working out so far? |
Originally Posted by Wplains (Post 1727584)
Since she is the only bona fide "expert" I know personally, you'll forgive me if I continue to take her word for it instead of yours, hmm? :D
Not upset with you for linking that dude though, legitimately turned a lightbulb on for a possible analogy, that's all. |
Originally Posted by Slappydavis (Post 1727597)
I don't believe I made any claim that rested on my word vs anyone else's? That's why one sources things.
Not upset with you for linking that dude though, legitimately turned a lightbulb on for a possible analogy, that's all. |
Re: The myth of global warming
I found my post-o-da-year frontrunner.
All this climate change fooey is why I run my home on nuclear. |
Originally Posted by doubledenim (Post 1727602)
I found my post-o-da-year frontrunner.
All this climate change fooey is why I run my home on nuclear. |
More interesting than talking about GW is to explain why some people deny it exists? I mean, its pretty obvious that there is massive and overwhelming evidence for its existence so why people deny it? The lobby from coal and oil is that strong?
|
Re: The myth of global warming
Originally Posted by Guaporense (Post 1727621)
More interesting than talking about GW is to explain why some people deny it exists? I mean, its pretty obvious that there is massive and overwhelming evidence for its existence so why people deny it? The lobby from coal and oil is that strong?
|
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1726843)
Not everything: he's right that the 97% of scientists thing isn't true. .
C'mon man... I believe your article is fake. Do you believe this site and its info is fake? Its 97%. I'm surprised you're still quibbling about the number to be honest. |
Re: The myth of global warming
Since when have 97% of any group of people been able to agree on anything, let alone scientists? :lol:
|
Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 1727698)
C'mon man... I believe your article is fake. Do you believe this site and its info is fake? Its 97%.
Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 1727698)
I'm surprised you're still quibbling about the number to be honest.
Anyway, I don't think this is quibbling. I realize that, when someone comes in with such a glib series of assertions, the temptation is to counterbalance that by saying "everything that guy says is a total lie." But it isn't. Not everything he said is totally false. Some of it is true, and some of it is sort of true, and I don't think we should be more or less willing to say those things based on which side someone is on. The goal is to speak the truth, not just to speak more truth than the other guy. |
Re: The myth of global warming
|
Originally Posted by doubledenim (Post 1727602)
All this climate change fooey is why I run my home on nuclear.
|
Originally Posted by Slappydavis (Post 1727972)
Real talk, support for nuclear power (and a warmer attitude than many toward fracking) gets me in trouble with my liberal friends. I think the dangers of nuclear are vastly overstated compared to the danger of coal (which we are okay with apparently).
It actually reminds me of your comment the other day about hunting helping to preserve wildlife. The through line of both is whether or not someone is primarily concerned with meaningful improvement, or virtue signaling. To me, productive discussion is possible the moment people agree to be open to what works, contra what they think that solution will say about them or which tribe it will ostensibly align them with, and not a moment before. Climate change as an issue (which, it must be noted, encompasses a lot more than "is the Earth getting warmer?") is so ridiculously intractable that you'd think people serious about it would jump all over such a promising compromise. |
Re: The myth of global warming
Re: 97% figure
Relying on any single study seems like a mistake in a subject area as heated (;)😲;)) as climate change. Saying that the scientific consensus is 97% feels odd, because it's citing only a few studies while other studies are lower Saying the scientific consensus is very high or even in the 90's while citing studies such as the ones that have 97% seems better. That said, also saying that the 97% isn't true feels odd too. It's not that it's not true, but that it's misleading or omitting context. Also, funnily enough that national review article ends in:
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.
|
Re: The myth of global warming
Going to be the coldest weekend in over 30 years I've just been told.
|
Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 1726839)
At least one person should point out that everything the op said was completely false by the way. There's tons of data out there. So the op (if he ever comes back) will not be able to provide you a source Iro.
http://principia-scientific.org/nasa...te-data-fraud/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...mmit-in-paris/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/...-95-certainty/ http://www.theblaze.com/video/fast-f...-change-myths/ |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 10:06 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums