Re: Forbes
Forbes is a reputable site. The interests of the site definitely lean toward a business lens, but that's less about POV bias and more attention bias.
And because there's a host of contributors, you're not going to be able to cleanly say any content on the site is "good" or "bad" or "biased" without reading it and considering the individual author's POV.
The Forbes article linked is pretty fair. Beyond thinking it fair, I'd go as far to endorse this particular section:
I think focusing on one number in a discussion as large as climate change (where there are literally thousands of "numbers" to choose from) is a mistake via these types of discussions. Though I understand when politicians use figures like this they either 1) don't appreciate the details or 2) let their gamesmanship get the better of them. And I actually can't really blame them the way I don't really blame someone for writing a flashy yet misleading title to try to get people to read the article. The problem is when people just read the title or just quote the statistic.
I'm probably wading into a much more generalized debate with this, but I also do believe that a sizeable portion of the arguments against specific numbers and specific claims of overwhelming consensus are motivated less by truth seeking and more about delay tactics.
I'm always glad to see skepticism get popular, but it's pretty frustrating to see skepticism used as a cloak for willfully creating ignorance (dare I say it's politically correct?) rather than an honest commitment to verification. I say that less for those here and more for certain political skeptics. See: Agnotology.
I think I agree with you more than I don't agree with you PW. But I think we disagree on strategy. I believe that GW being driven by human activity is extremely compelling (requiring widespread conspiracy to make me doubt the level of consensus). 97% is an easy way to hook someone into a belief perhaps, but we can admit the specific number has faults (like most numbers) while retaining that consensus is very high. Specific numbers will not get a debate like this anywhere (or most debates), it's too complicated.
And more importantly, pinning hopes to specific numbers invites the other side to figure out problems with that one number. I'd rather skeptics/deniers have to debate the general idea of "consensus" than 97%. It's easy to nitpick 97%. It requires a broad argument to dispute consensus.
Or better yet, get down to the actual question. Is the level of scientific consensus robust enough, and the possible negative consequences serious enough, to compel widespread public action?
Honestly, for me, it's an easy yes.
True story, I got lazy and instead of going back to the first page to find the link to the forbes article, I googled "Forbes 97 climate change" and I found this article and I started to get upset because that article crosses over from misleading to dishonest.
I got partway through a condemnation for me to realize I had to be missing something as it was starting to seem really out of character, and indeed, I found the wrong one.
Forbes is a reputable site. The interests of the site definitely lean toward a business lens, but that's less about POV bias and more attention bias.
And because there's a host of contributors, you're not going to be able to cleanly say any content on the site is "good" or "bad" or "biased" without reading it and considering the individual author's POV.
The Forbes article linked is pretty fair. Beyond thinking it fair, I'd go as far to endorse this particular section:
Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”
Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry.
Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry.
I'm probably wading into a much more generalized debate with this, but I also do believe that a sizeable portion of the arguments against specific numbers and specific claims of overwhelming consensus are motivated less by truth seeking and more about delay tactics.
I'm always glad to see skepticism get popular, but it's pretty frustrating to see skepticism used as a cloak for willfully creating ignorance (dare I say it's politically correct?) rather than an honest commitment to verification. I say that less for those here and more for certain political skeptics. See: Agnotology.
I think I agree with you more than I don't agree with you PW. But I think we disagree on strategy. I believe that GW being driven by human activity is extremely compelling (requiring widespread conspiracy to make me doubt the level of consensus). 97% is an easy way to hook someone into a belief perhaps, but we can admit the specific number has faults (like most numbers) while retaining that consensus is very high. Specific numbers will not get a debate like this anywhere (or most debates), it's too complicated.
And more importantly, pinning hopes to specific numbers invites the other side to figure out problems with that one number. I'd rather skeptics/deniers have to debate the general idea of "consensus" than 97%. It's easy to nitpick 97%. It requires a broad argument to dispute consensus.
Or better yet, get down to the actual question. Is the level of scientific consensus robust enough, and the possible negative consequences serious enough, to compel widespread public action?
Honestly, for me, it's an easy yes.
True story, I got lazy and instead of going back to the first page to find the link to the forbes article, I googled "Forbes 97 climate change" and I found this article and I started to get upset because that article crosses over from misleading to dishonest.
I got partway through a condemnation for me to realize I had to be missing something as it was starting to seem really out of character, and indeed, I found the wrong one.
Last edited by Slappydavis; 07-07-17 at 03:32 PM.