97%?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2016, 07:32 AM
RE: 97%?
(27-04-2016 08:01 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 07:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  There is no question climate change is happening. The 97% applies to scientists who believe humans are responsible and not just the planet or weather cycle.

Well of course climate change is happening, and I accept that even if humans had a part in it. The main argument I have heard against it is that the study only counted people who accepted climate change, and those who didn't were not counted. But then the question is, what about the 3% who does count?
I've heard that claim before. Denialist propaganda.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 07:36 AM
RE: 97%?
(28-04-2016 07:32 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 08:01 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Well of course climate change is happening, and I accept that even if humans had a part in it. The main argument I have heard against it is that the study only counted people who accepted climate change, and those who didn't were not counted. But then the question is, what about the 3% who does count?
I've heard that claim before. Denialist propaganda.

Exactly. It is a census of scientists who study climate change. Aka, the people best qualified to determine the role humans may or may not play in climate change.

What would be the point of taking a poll of the opinion of scientists who don't study anything directly related to climate?

(it's also worth noting that the climate denialist crowd, don't have a lot of people publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Why? For the same reason the creationists don't, because it's difficult to get bullshit past scientists)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-04-2016, 08:56 AM
RE: 97%?
(28-04-2016 07:36 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 07:32 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  I've heard that claim before. Denialist propaganda.

Exactly. It is a census of scientists who study climate change. Aka, the people best qualified to determine the role humans may or may not play in climate change.

What would be the point of taking a poll of the opinion of scientists who don't study anything directly related to climate?

(it's also worth noting that the climate denialist crowd, don't have a lot of people publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Why? For the same reason the creationists don't, because it's difficult to get bullshit past scientists)
Climate denialists share many characteristics with conspiracy theorists.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
28-04-2016, 05:52 PM
RE: 97%?
(28-04-2016 06:38 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  The odd thing about it all ----

There's three possibilities ---

1. The planet warms.
2. The planet cools.
3. The planetary temperature stays the same.

The only possibility that's never happened throughout planetary history is #3.

And that seems to be what people are shooting for.......


....

That's a bit of a simplification. Sure climate is constantly changing. It's the rate that you want to examine. If the rate of climate change exceeds the rate at which a species (or civilization) can adapt then that species will decline and may face extinction. Under normal circumstances that's business as usual, with slow climate variations influencing population cycles and extinguishing the occasional species here and there. New species evolve to take their place and there's no great excitement.

The rate of climate change being caused by anthropogenic factors is much higher than normal. The extinction rate is also worryingly high, and likely to go up. There is some evidence that we may be at the beginning of a mas extinction event, and that we are the cause of it. If that's the case and we don't do something aboutit then a few corporate bottom lines could well become everybody's epitaph.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
28-04-2016, 06:20 PM
RE: 97%?
(27-04-2016 08:01 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  The main argument I have heard against it is that the study only counted people who accepted climate change, and those who didn't were not counted.

Then how did they only manage 97%? That's either piss-poor math or piss-poor cherry picking. NASA has a decent page listing the various studies, proponents, etc.

Quote:But then the question is, what about the 3% who does count?

97% of scientists accept evolution. Shall we discuss those other 3% or would you like to join me in pointing and laughing? I brought popcorn. PopcornLaughat

But where would Einstein have gotten to if we simply dismissed the scientific minority? Look at the data. This one's a favorite: Volcanic vs Anthropogenic CO2 (PDF) . Punchline: Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed what we might reasonably expect from a supervolcano eruption. That's just CO2 mind you, none of that pesky ash or any of the other gasses. No stratospheric aerosols. Still, anybody want to tell me how you can crack off a Toba or Yellowstone worth of CO2 annually and not get climate change?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: