- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Have you ever wondered where that "97% of all scientists" assertion came from?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:19 pm
quote:
Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.
LINK
15
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:21 pm to GumboPot
Are you attacking the methods used or the fact that it was in a master's thesis?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:21 pm to GumboPot
I mean I don't even like the 97% paper and have criticized it in the past but this is just flatly wrong.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:22 pm to GumboPot
quote:
10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.
If this is true, no way that thesis should have been accepted. There is always valid reasons to exclude data, but geez that is a significant. Not sure how 77 could be a representative sample.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:23 pm to GumboPot
What I think is the most problematic is how the 97% is used.
As I understand it, the 97% refers to (1) belief that earth is warming and (2) belief that humans have at least SOME contribution to that warming. That two statements are not really controversial in the first place.
The problem is that any level of skepticism is countered with the 97%, BUT it's very possible that the skepticism doesn't disagree with the low bar set by the consensus figure.
In other words, they set a low bar for consensus, then often raise the bar when countering claims. It's dishonest through and through.
As I understand it, the 97% refers to (1) belief that earth is warming and (2) belief that humans have at least SOME contribution to that warming. That two statements are not really controversial in the first place.
The problem is that any level of skepticism is countered with the 97%, BUT it's very possible that the skepticism doesn't disagree with the low bar set by the consensus figure.
In other words, they set a low bar for consensus, then often raise the bar when countering claims. It's dishonest through and through.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:25 pm to GumboPot
The 97% figure was from a sample size of 77?
WTF?
WTF?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:25 pm to GumboPot
You are incorrect about where the 97% comes from.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:32 pm to GumboPot
The real question is when will liberal climate alarmists stop using fossil fuels and stop flying on planes?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:41 pm to GumboPot
There are issues with the 97% claim but the OP is just a flat out lie
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:48 pm to GumboPot
60% of women say I have the biggest schlong they've ever seen.*
*I deducted the women I didn't sleep with. And I only used the girls I did in HS.
*I deducted the women I didn't sleep with. And I only used the girls I did in HS.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:54 pm to GumboPot
Waters and every other person from a foreign country should STFU and worry about their own lives in their own country. This is the USA, Roger Waters. STFU and let us handle our own problems in our own way.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:24 pm to GumboPot
I just one of them to tell me why I should give a shite about global warming? I thinks its pretty awesome actually. This winter has kicked arse!
More global warming, please!
More global warming, please!
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:47 pm to GumboPot
How come no one has ever done a "study" to determine the percentage of pro-climate change scientists who live off government grants?
just no scientific curiosity whatsoever about that one
just no scientific curiosity whatsoever about that one
Posted on 2/21/17 at 5:50 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Have you ever wondered where that "97% of all scientists" assertion came from?
OP is too limited in it's criticism of the claim. Members the individual included in the 77 publicly disputed their inclusion
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:01 pm to GumboPot
There was some speaker on this subject awhile ago...and basically said:
"if 97% of scientists agree on something...(if even true) doesn't make the point fact. Some of our greatest discoveries and breakthroughs have been the few or 1% or lone wolf which dissents and finds the truth."
"Promulgating that almost all scientists agree on something and therefore it must be true...isn't science...it's theology...and what's worse is the misguided thinking that high % claims makes the assertion fact."
Science isn't "did you like that movie, Rotten Tomatoes, consensus."
High percentage points supposedly like 97% don't further the argument as fact but show more a tendency to silence science because of dogma.
Most real science has a more even amount of dissenters, pros and cons, for and against...than wild numbers like 97%. That's a sign of stifling science and contrary views...not endorsing the majority to the level of fact.
"if 97% of scientists agree on something...(if even true) doesn't make the point fact. Some of our greatest discoveries and breakthroughs have been the few or 1% or lone wolf which dissents and finds the truth."
"Promulgating that almost all scientists agree on something and therefore it must be true...isn't science...it's theology...and what's worse is the misguided thinking that high % claims makes the assertion fact."
Science isn't "did you like that movie, Rotten Tomatoes, consensus."
High percentage points supposedly like 97% don't further the argument as fact but show more a tendency to silence science because of dogma.
Most real science has a more even amount of dissenters, pros and cons, for and against...than wild numbers like 97%. That's a sign of stifling science and contrary views...not endorsing the majority to the level of fact.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 8:02 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News