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.
Now, to dissect it:
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.
Here, we have some interesting weasel words. OP notably changed their carefully chosen words from "likely closer to 43" to "about 43" which is a huge difference. Closer to 43 than 97 would 69 or below. They also leave in "likely" because they aren't even willing to commit to 69 or below (OP didn't mind this point, as the DW intended, DW carefully word these because they want plausible deniability when its actually looked into, knowing full well that their supporters will run with the numbers and make posts exactly like this one).
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
Here's what the author is arguing:
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)
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:
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:
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:
So depending on
Here are the confidence intervals for those that said 50% or more was caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions:
Here are the confidence intervals for those that said less than 50%
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
At the risk of belaboring (who? me?) this pretty much already perfect quote, this type of cherry picking approach to studies is 1) way too prevalent and 2) why we have meta analyses.
that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus
This is probably the part that made me want to write about all this the most. Because trading
"43% of respondents in one survey that was designed to reach out to skeptics as well as non-skeptics said they were 95% sure that more than 51% of global warming to anthropogenic GHG emissions" for
"only 43% of scientists believe in man-made climate change" is pretty damn cynical.
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.
- Blogger posted an article that (mostly) has a specific bone to pick with a particular finding. Somewhat misleading, but within the normal wheelhouse of rhetoric.
- DW picked up on a single figure and distorted it with no explanation; because they knew it'd be used that way and get repeated with even LESS context and explanation.
- It got repeated here, distorted even further. As intended by DW.
Which took the form of:
- Blog: 43% of scientists surveyed in this one study were 95% sure or more that >51% of global warming is due to anthropogenic GHG emissions.
- Daily Wire: Liberals lie! They say 97% but maybe it's 70% or less, maybe 43%!
- OP: Liberals lie! They say 97% it is actually 43% of believe in man-made global warming!
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.