 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
| Member Poll | |
|
| Comments |
on July 19 2017 14:57:08
If you want to know more...
The short version: The Consensus Project
The longer version: SkepticalScience |
on July 19 2017 15:35:10
Also relevant: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? |
on July 20 2017 19:30:30
Not A great fan of this whole consensus business. I looked at one of those 97% studies, and found it quite flawed. That particular study examined the abstract of a bunch of papers of which about 40% (if I recall correctly) voiced any climate change opinion. of those 40%, 97% were in favor of human climate change.
That belief in climate change correlates with expertise might also indicate, that those with the highest number of referenced papers (I assume that "expertise" was measured by counting papers or some similar method) are also those who have already doubled down on the issue and have the most to lose by taking a position outside the mainstream.
Scientists are humans just like anyone else, and are subject to the same biases, logical pitfalls, group mentality etc. when they step outside the scientific method. A Consensus on a hot-button topic like this, is more about politics and less about science in my opinion.
Anyhow, i'm not disputing there is a consensus, and I love that SkepticalScience website - has helped me a lot. |
on July 21 2017 09:51:53
I agree that the reason we're even talking about a consensus is political; it is an effort to try to convince politicians to take the right decisions.
But to say that scientists just go with the flow or even collude in a conspiracy (because they have stock in the windmill business??), is just ridiculous (Just to be clear, I'm not saying you say that). Scientists have disagreed on just about everything from ulcers to tectonic shift to the big bang, and there were vehement disagreements, and conflicting theories, but they always reach a consensus by the end, convinced by evidence.
Global climate change has gone through exactly that. It ended with a consensus, it didn't start with it. |
on July 21 2017 13:28:37
I'm totally saying that scientists go with the flow. This is especially true of the softer sciences where hard evidence is scarce or nonexistent. Your reputation as a scientist has a huge impact on your life, making it very risky to support controversial claims, even if you are convinced by the evidence.
And yeah, I guess I'm also saying that some scientists are definitely in it for the money. One example might be William Happer but I'm not sure he's not just being smeared by Greenpeace. I certainly do not find it ridiculous that scientists might have impure motives, and if you accept that tobacco and oil companies are exerting influence on the scientific debate, why can companies with green interest not do the same. I'm fairly certain there is some corruption there - it is not ridiculous conspiracy fantasy.
That being said, I do not think issues like these have any major influence on the scientific consensus that climate change is real and man made. |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| | 
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
Followup
