John Oliver - Global Warming Video

[Ben Davis]

I'm not convinced that a change in our behavior is needed. However I'm not opposed to changing our behavior either. This is one of those instances were I differ to crowd wisdom. Let the Climate Asserters and the Climate Disputers duke it out....some change in behavior will result and the amount will probably be more optimal then my own judgment would dictate.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ad populism argument

[Ben Davis]

Ad populism argument

...and deferment of responsibility.

[Clueless Morgan]

We also need to stop breeding.

I'm doing my part.

If I decide in the future to have kids, I'm going to adopt. No use bringing another person into the world when there are so many of us here already.

[Raeven]

For those who haven't figured out how Google works:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

[Minimalist]

THAT is what scientists are saying. They agree not just that it's happening, but that it's human caused. 97% agreed, actually. How did you miss that part?

Citation please? Putting aside the appeal to authority/consensus… I keep hearing that figure.

Is that National Academy of Science good enough.... or would you demand some crackpot blond shithead on FOX say it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...7.abstract

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

[Darth]

Don't send me down a citation rabbithole please, just link to the original study or studies.

That website cites that figure as being from 3 different sources, in one citation.

The first article cited looks at those that publish more, and says this:

Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community...

Gone then, easy, we're talking consensus here.





The second is not the full study, it is a 2 page summary:

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008])

and even if it were the full study:

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

This is where '97' appears, some consensus you have there in such a large field, 76 people. Note that this is not a case of it being a representative sample, in that case I'd be fine with 76. This is them whittling down thousands through other means before then getting their figure.






The third is a one page essay, nowhere can I see a 97% figure.

10.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

So it's an 'essay', an excerpt from a lecture. Gone.

Is that National Academy of Science good enough.... or would you demand some crackpot blond shithead on FOX say it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...7.abstract

I don't live in America Min, and that's the first one from the Nasa link, good job.

[Heywood]

THAT is what scientists are saying. They agree not just that it's happening, but that it's human caused. 97% agreed, actually. How did you miss that part?

Citation please? Putting aside the appeal to authority/consensus… I keep hearing that figure.

The source of this 97% figure is so nebulous it is useless. However I can see it being something like this:

Poll Question 1: Is climate change happening?
Poll Question 2: Is human activity a factor in climate change?

Any scientist worth his salt would answer yes to both those questions. Then someone with an agenda can spin those results and claim 97% of scientist agree humans are a driving force behind climate change.

Climate change is happening, no educated person should claim otherwise. Humans are a factor in climate change, again no educated person should claim otherwise. Do 97% of scientist believe we are headed toward a climate catastrophe? I doubt it.

---

Citation please? Putting aside the appeal to authority/consensus… I keep hearing that figure.

Is that National Academy of Science good enough.... or would you demand some crackpot blond shithead on FOX say it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...7.abstract

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

The claim is 97% of climate researchers most actively publishing support the tenets of the ACC.

Does anyone know what those tenets are? For all we know one of the tenets might be, "Jello tastes good".....and of course 97% of scientist would agree to that.

[popeyespappy]

The claim is 97% of climate researchers most actively publishing support the tenets of the ACC.

Does anyone know what those tenets are? For all we know one of the tenets might be, "Jello tastes good".....and of course 97% of scientist would agree to that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...vanced.htm

[Rampant.A.I.]

Don't send me down a citation rabbithole please, just link to the original study or studies.

That website cites that figure as being from 3 different sources, in one citation.

The first article cited looks at those that publish more, and says this:

Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community...

Gone then, easy, we're talking consensus here.





The second is not the full study, it is a 2 page summary:

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008])

and even if it were the full study:

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

This is where '97' appears, some consensus you have there in such a large field, 76 people. Note that this is not a case of it being a representative sample, in that case I'd be fine with 76. This is them whittling down thousands through other means before then getting their figure.






The third is a one page essay, nowhere can I see a 97% figure.

10.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

So it's an 'essay', an excerpt from a lecture. Gone.

Is that National Academy of Science good enough.... or would you demand some crackpot blond shithead on FOX say it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...7.abstract

I don't live in America Min, and that's the first one from the Nasa link, good job.

Do they not teach the Carbon Cycle in your grade schools?



http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library...n-Cycle/95