- 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 4:24 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
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
Ding ding ding. If OP didn't flag your bullshite meter you should probably seek help
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 4:25 pm to buckeye_vol
The other problem is that it's 97% of all papers, not all scientists. And it's not even that, it's 97% of all papers expressing an opinion (since there are lots of papers that focus on the effects and therefore don't contain an explicit statement of the cause).
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:25 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
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
They're controversial on this board. Didn't you know that burning fossil fuels is actually good for the environment?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:26 pm to bmy
quote:
Didn't you know that burning fossil fuels is actually good for the environment
That is one hell of a straw man.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:28 pm to Iosh
quote:Yeah. I mean meta-analyses are a powerful tool, but they've somehow managed to use a tool that improves OBJECTIVE research to make it worse making it into something subjective.
The other problem is that it's 97% of all papers, not all scientists. And it's not even that, it's 97% of all papers expressing an opinion (since there are lots of papers that focus on the effects and therefore don't contain an explicit statement of the cause).
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:28 pm to Iosh
quote:
No? LINK
quote:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
It should be of no surprise that climate scientists have the opinion that human are causing global warming.
That's about the same results you would achieve if you polled 10,000 vodka drinkers. I would anticipate about 97% of vodka drinkers like vodka.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:28 pm to member12
quote:I don't think it's a straw man, "more CO2 is a good thing" is pretty common skeptic thinking. Off the top of my head Will Happer, Freeman Dyson, and Matt Ridley have all advocated this position in various forms.
That is one hell of a straw man.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:28 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
If this is true, no way that thesis should have been accepted.
yeah, but that's a huge hurdle for this assertion
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:29 pm to bmy
quote:
Didn't you know that burning fossil fuels is actually good for the environment?
Ho boy. Yeah murder is too because it lessens human carbon footprints. This could start to get really wacky thinking like this.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:30 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
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.
The biggest issue for "skeptics" is the underlying political agenda.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:32 pm to GumboPot
quote:So you're just gonna post through it huh?
It should be of no surprise that climate scientists have the opinion that human are causing global warming.
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?
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News