Climate Change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead

[coldstream]

File that under .. support the Academic Orthodoxy... even if its ludicrous nonsense like AGW.. OR.. don't get into graduate school, don't get lectureships, don't get published, don't get tenure.

Everyone knows how gutless and slovenly academia has become these days (and the more presitigious the institution the more cowardly and slothful it becomes). This is the reason. It filters out any dissent on political correctness, feminism, multiculturalism, agw, homosexual affirmation at the front end. Certainly any real Christians need NOT apply.

And they are left with the heathen mob of 'professors' we have now, who endorse even a pure and obvious pseudoscientific scam, a political and ideological agenda without an ounce of scientific merit, like AGW.

Only morons think real science is proven by polls.

 

[darkbeaver]

Climate Change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead

Perhaps this figure of 99.94% is also too low. For Powell's studies examining peer review articles published during 2013 and 2014 there was 99.99% consensus.

https://www.wolfcast.co.uk/all/2018/4/6/climate-change-97-percent

Consensus with regard to political agenda, of course. If you have an interest you could review some of the very nice papers criticle of the state of peer review or even look to the dictionary meaning of the word and understand the various avenues by which consensus is routinly approached. Adolph Hitler managed to assemble consensus as a rule. Was he right or was he might?

Of course you know for a fact that there is no peer pressure with regards to peer review.

 

[Hoid]

the only scientists who doubt the current evidence about climate change are google scientists.

they carry out extensive google research using searches like "why is climate change a scam" and publish their findings wherever the like-minded go to huddle together for warmth - like here.

 

[darkbeaver]

the only scientists who doubt the current evidence about climate change are google scientists.

they carry out extensive google research using searches like "why is climate change a scam" and publish their findings wherever the like-minded go to huddle together for warmth - like here.

The current evidence about climate change is based on atmosphereic and galactic electrical current Void, charged particles from deep space during solar minimum 25. CO2 lags behind heat it does not ever lead heat. Pay attention to Global crop losses over the last two years and regarded as devastating again in this coming year.

 

[White_Unifier]

Climate Change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead

There is an increasing trend in journalism to cite a figure of 97% for the consensus among the scientific community in regards to human-caused climate change. We don't want to be too critical of organisations that highlight the immensely high level of agreement regarding climate change, however it is also important to maintain accuracy.

Where does 97% come from?

In 2013 a study by Cook et al. was published entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature".

This study analysed 11,944 peer reviewed papers published between 1991-2011 in climate science literature.

Of these papers, 4013 expressed a position on human-caused climate change. Of these, 3894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change.

The authors also state an increasing trend of acceptance over time of human-caused climate change.
99.94%

In 2017 James Powell published a meta-analysis of peer reviewed climate change literature from 1991-2015, inclusive of 54,195 articles.

Using rejection as the criterion for consensus he found 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change.

This is consistent with Cook et al. who described increasing acceptance over time.

Perhaps this figure of 99.94% is also too low. For Powell's studies examining peer review articles published during 2013 and 2014 there was 99.99% consensus.

https://www.wolfcast.co.uk/all/2018/4/6/climate-change-97-percent

And probably even the 0.06% hold a more nuanced belief that more closely resembles that of the climate-change accepters than that of the deniers.

 

[Johnnny]

A Third Of Millennials Aren’t Sure The Earth Is Round, Survey Finds

CBS Local — A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round. The national poll reveals that 18 to 24-year-olds are the largest group in the country who refuse to accept the scientific facts of the world’s shape.
A Third Of Millennials Aren’t Sure The Earth Is Round, Survey Finds « CBS Pittsburgh

Yeah they also believe there are 40 sexes, global warming causes snow, fakenews is real, and communism is good.

If the Earth is round then a helicopter should only have to travel up and and wait for its destination to rotate underneath it.

Jk

 

[darkbeaver]

If the Earth is round then a helicopter should only have to travel up and and wait for its destination to rotate underneath it.

Jk

The atmosphere would have to be eliminated first.

 

[Hoid]

Earth is neither round nor spherical.

The introduction of GPS mapping has resulted in the term Geoid being applied to Earth.

The Earth is - predictably - Earth shaped.

 

[Curious Cdn]

If the Earth is round then a helicopter should only have to travel up and and wait for its destination to rotate underneath it.

Jk

Earth is spinning at about 1000 Miles per Hour. Why don't you go flying off of it at 1000 mph every time you jump into the air?

 

[Twila]

Spanky won a fair election to be his party's candidate, which is more than you can say for Hillary. Then he won a fair election for President under the rules that have prevailed for 231 years, and to which folk only object when it produces an outcome they don't like.

Well lets wait for Mueller to conclude his findings and then revisit this if necessary. With cambridge analytica and the other company in victoria....things are afoot, Watson.

 

[Cliffy]

Earth is spinniing at about 1000 Miles per Hour. Why don't you go flying off of it at 1000 mph every time you jump into the air?

The atmosphere is part of the Earth and rotates at the same speed because it is attached. You have to get out of the atmosphere to have the Earth rotate under you. But that seems to escape the small minds.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The atmosphere is part of the Earth and rotates at the same speed because it is attached. You have to get out of the atmosphere to have the Earth rotate under you. But that seems to escape the small minds.

No, if there were no atmoshere, you would go straight up but you are also orbiting around the center of the Earth at the same speed as the spin of the big ball. You would jump up and be pulled straight down towards the center of the Earth in the same gavity field as the Earth. You are exactly like a satellite circling the center of the gravity field up in orbit except that the ground is blocking your downward fall.

see: angular momentum

 

[Johnnny]

Earth is spinning at about 1000 Miles per Hour. Why don't you go flying off of it at 1000 mph every time you jump into the air?

You Sphere the fact that the Earth could be flat.

We are a strong community with members around the globe.

:lol:

 

[Curious Cdn]

You Sphere the fact that the Earth could be flat.

We are a strong community with members around the globe.

:lol:

I like that! The centre of the Earth is mostly made of irony.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well lets wait for Mueller to conclude his findings and then revisit this if necessary. With cambridge analytica and the other company in victoria....things are afoot, Watson.

They certainly are, but they won't overturn the election. Spanky is NOT an aberration, NOT some nefarious Manchurian Candidate, he is the people's choice. He won over some very acceptable candidates (O'Malley, Webb, Graham, and Kasich spring to mind).

Power in the United States rests squarely and exclusively in the hands of the people.

We're screwed.

 

[Colpy]

the only scientists who doubt the current evidence about climate change are google scientists.

they carry out extensive google research using searches like "why is climate change a scam" and publish their findings wherever the like-minded go to huddle together for warmth - like here.

Google is your friend.

Then again, maybe not.

Use it or some other search engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

[Hoid]

a wiki reference.

perfect.

 

[Murphy]

You should try substantiating your claims, Flossy. Even fake websites would be a step up for you. You sure BS here a lot.

 

[Colpy]

a wiki reference.

perfect.

Is this an academic paper?

 

[mentalfloss]

Well, even if that was true (and I doubt it immensely), in 1550 99% of scientific observers believed the Earth was the centre of the universe.



Well, in this case the disbelievers are actually correct, the earth is not round.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.

The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true.

1. Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists. Galileo was not suppressed or “outvoted” by other early scientists. Many scientific contemporaries agreed with his observations[2], and were appalled by his trial.[3] Galileo was persecuted by the religious-political establishment – the Catholic Church, which in 1616 ordered him to stop defending his view of the solar system, which contradicted church dogma. After Galileo published his famous Dialogue, the Roman Inquisition tried him in 1633 for defying Church authority, and found him guilty of suspected religious heresy, forced him to recant, banned his books and sentenced him to house arrest for life.[4] Galileo died eight years later.[5]

2. Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based. The key difference between Galileo and the Church concerned Galileo’s “way of knowing,” or epistemology. How is knowledge attained?

Medieval scholarship and Catholic Church dogma relied on the authority of Aristotle and a literal interpretation of the Bible to place earth at the center of the universe.

In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.

The vast majority of vocal skeptics are not engaged in climate research. The common bond uniting them, observers note, is an ideological belief system: Government regulation is bad, so problems that may require regulation must be resisted.[6] From there, they search for ways to cast doubt on the science.[7] Unlike Galileo and modern scientists, they do not change their view when presented with new evidence, because their position derives not from open-ended scientific inquiry, but from strongly-held ideological convictions.

In contrast, climate science applies the scientific method pioneered by Galileo. Scientists make observations, form logical hypotheses, then test their hypotheses through experiments and further observations. They follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The Church’s attack on Galileo and the skeptical assault on climate science are far from unique. History is full of examples where new scientific findings threatened powerful vested interests – whether religious, financial or ideological — and provoked a furious backlash.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm