Where does that statistic come from?Dr Zaius wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 4:08 pmWhich would be fine if it was a 50:50 split in opinions. But there is not, there is 98:2, which says to me that when it comes to people who know what they are talking about, there is no debate. There is always a 1-2% crackpot group in any craft group. More so when some of the most powerful companies in the world have a financial interest in those crackpot views.Northern Raider wrote:To be honest, in the debate about climate science it's very difficult to find a truly independent opinion on the topic. Pretty much everything published and readily accessible is pushing some form of agenda.
Climate change
Moderator: GH Moderators
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Climate change
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Climate change
I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pmhttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Climate change
If that were true, then the scientific consensus would not be so one sided. The cash available to companies that generate greenhouse gases is huge...Northern Raider wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:23 pmI would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pmhttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
I’d argue you haven’t worked in the scientific community.Northern Raider wrote:I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pmhttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Climate change
Its sounds like a blastgangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:32 pmI’d argue you haven’t worked in the scientific community.Northern Raider wrote:I would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pmhttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Climate change
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Just on this statistic claiming the 97% consensus. This is generated from a paper that is "based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4,014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming." While I'm not questioning the 97% figure its acutally 97% of the 34% that drew a conclusion. So its actually 32.5% of the published research papers conclude that the current climate change is human caused. 66% are on the fence, while the remaining 1.5% support alternative theories.
Just on this statistic claiming the 97% consensus. This is generated from a paper that is "based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4,014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming." While I'm not questioning the 97% figure its acutally 97% of the 34% that drew a conclusion. So its actually 32.5% of the published research papers conclude that the current climate change is human caused. 66% are on the fence, while the remaining 1.5% support alternative theories.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Climate change
Ouch that almost reversed the strength of the argument.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
Ah... no.
Because not in every paper related to climate change does it make sense to include a statement one way or the other. For example most papers relating to relativity will not include the line “we conclude relativity is happening”.
Because not in every paper related to climate change does it make sense to include a statement one way or the other. For example most papers relating to relativity will not include the line “we conclude relativity is happening”.
- dubby
- Don Furner
- Posts: 34013
- Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: You have never heard of it.
Re: Climate change
NoThe Rickman wrote:And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?dubby wrote:Check the alternative.
It's NOT man made
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
They're chasing funding.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Climate change
A huge percentage of the world’s climate scientists are all chasing funding and burning their time, legacy and dignity on panels and statements urging action?
It’s completely unrealistic.
It’s completely unrealistic.
Re: Climate change
If it is all about funding... we'd have a lot of studies proving that greenhouse gases are not an issue in climate change. Because the companies that produce them are rolling cash. But we don't have whole lot of studies that say that. Rather, the scientific community is quite clearly saying the opposite.
Re: Climate change
Like I've said previously what happens if you're wrong? Answer. There will be millions of displaced people and many lives lost. What happens if you are right? Answer. We will have wasted money on better renewable technology. Now what is the better option?dubby wrote:NoThe Rickman wrote:And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?dubby wrote:Check the alternative.
It's NOT man made
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
They're chasing funding.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Climate change
Nasa, CSIRO and dozens of other leading research bodies are government funded as are 1000's of reputable universities.Northern Raider wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:23 pmI would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pmhttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
- dubby
- Don Furner
- Posts: 34013
- Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: You have never heard of it.
Re: Climate change
Illusion of validity.
Over trusting data that's consistent even if it's weak.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Over trusting data that's consistent even if it's weak.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
- dubby
- Don Furner
- Posts: 34013
- Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: You have never heard of it.
Re: Climate change
This would be better in human discoursegergreg wrote:Like I've said previously what happens if you're wrong? Answer. There will be millions of displaced people and many lives lost. What happens if you are right? Answer. We will have wasted money on better renewable technology. Now what is the better option?dubby wrote:NoThe Rickman wrote:And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?dubby wrote:Check the alternative.
It's NOT man made
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
They're chasing funding.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
We need coal. Or uranium as a legitimate source of energy. We just do.
Should we continue to find a cleaner solution? You bet!
But the targets in the meantime are unrealistic, unnecessary, and oppressive.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Climate change
Correct.Green eyed Mick wrote:Nasa, CSIRO and dozens of other leading research bodies are government funded as are 1000's of reputable universities.Northern Raider wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:23 pmI would argue that the scientific community are motivated by those that fund them.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pmhttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Northern Raider wrote: Where does that statistic come from?
On your previous post regarding agenda. In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist. Plus, in my experience the vast majority of scientists are not well paid. Most are motivated by their own curiosity. It’s not a profession particularly prone to agendas generally.
Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Climate change
The reason it seems oppressive is because the entire world has sat on their hands for the past 20 years. Tell the Pacific island nations that change is unnecessary and see how that goes.dubby wrote:This would be better in human discoursegergreg wrote:Like I've said previously what happens if you're wrong? Answer. There will be millions of displaced people and many lives lost. What happens if you are right? Answer. We will have wasted money on better renewable technology. Now what is the better option?dubby wrote:NoThe Rickman wrote:And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?dubby wrote:Check the alternative.
It's NOT man made
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
They're chasing funding.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
We need coal. Or uranium as a legitimate source of energy. We just do.
Should we continue to find a cleaner solution? You bet!
But the targets in the meantime are unrealistic, unnecessary, and oppressive.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: Climate change
This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Climate change
You do that a lot??Manbush wrote:This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51221
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Climate change
As a race, we absolutely should NOT be relying on coal as a means for generating electricity. It's absolutely mind-blowing that we "seemingly" haven't developed the technology to power the whole world through the sun and waves.
Another big thing that needs to happen is more trees need to be planted (although a lot of countries are actually taking this initiative), and obviously the shift to electric cars will make a massive impact too.
And anyone here arguing the 98% are just doing it to "chase funding" when all the biggest players on the globe money-wise would be backing the 2% is just absolutely kidding themselves.
Another big thing that needs to happen is more trees need to be planted (although a lot of countries are actually taking this initiative), and obviously the shift to electric cars will make a massive impact too.
And anyone here arguing the 98% are just doing it to "chase funding" when all the biggest players on the globe money-wise would be backing the 2% is just absolutely kidding themselves.
Re: Climate change
With one of my known passions yes it comes up a lot.T_R wrote: ↑February 28, 2019, 11:32 amYou do that a lot??Manbush wrote:This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51221
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Climate change
Ah yes, would be careful with that though, Pell just got brought down for the same thing!Manbush wrote: ↑February 28, 2019, 11:41 amWith one of my known passions yes it comes up a lot.T_R wrote: ↑February 28, 2019, 11:32 amYou do that a lot??Manbush wrote:This, so much this! You have no idea how often I have to make this point when discussing biology and cosmology.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 5:15 pm In general the scientific community are motivated by disproving consensus. That’s what makes you a rockstar scientist.
Re: Climate change
I would have to say the same thing to Pell after his run in with Richard Dawkins on Q&A a few years ago.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Climate change
lack of affirmation doesn't infer disagreement.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 7:12 pm Ah... no.
Because not in every paper related to climate change does it make sense to include a statement one way or the other. For example most papers relating to relativity will not include the line “we conclude relativity is happening”.
But equally it doesnt infer agreement, it is no position.
Your right, the argument isn't reversed, but it certainly isn't as strong as how it is referred to.
- Northern Raider
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 32584
- Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
- Location: Greener pastures
Re: Climate change
I think Nickman was more suggesting that pursuing your 'passions' is not always a good thing.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: Climate change
I know what he was suggesting but instead of pointing out the false equivalency I’d redirect to more on what I was originally talking about.Northern Raider wrote: ↑March 1, 2019, 10:42 amI think Nickman was more suggesting that pursuing your 'passions' is not always a good thing.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Climate change
Did some more research on George Soros. Dubby might be onto something
Re: Climate change
Jones cracks me up, absolute nutjob.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
- yeh raiders
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 17140
- Joined: June 21, 2008, 3:04 pm
- Favourite Player: Jack Wighton
- Location: Sydney
Re: Climate change
Severe cringe warning
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51221
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Climate change
Yayyyy, I've been waiting for this thread to be bumped in light of recent events!
Re: Climate change
Greatest ham acting ever
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51221
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
It seems to always come back to people are jerks.