8 ms·

How many times we we all have to see the Times cover and this History Channel pop science piece. 99% of climatologist agree on the science and the effects of wa

How many times we we all have to see the Times cover and this History Channel pop science piece. 99% of climatologist agree on the science and the effects of warming are plainly visible to the layman.

olivermarks 7y ago
Have the courage of your convictions and don't use throwaways to lay down the law with your opinion please?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The account is 6yr old. I'd wager it's not exactly a throwaway at this point.
  - olivermarks 7y ago
    fair point
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sachdevap 7y ago
  Have the courage of your convictions to argue the facts and not the account name maybe? This is a new kind of ad hominem attack.
sigzero 7y ago
"99% of climatologist agree" That is a false statistic.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  There might be a slight bit of exaggeration, but 97% is not that far from 99, for this purpose.[0] [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
kortilla 7y ago
>99% of climatologist agree on the science This is not a compelling argument for a skeptic. >99% of all numerologists agree on the science You need to highlight the backing by the rest of the scientific community to give confidence that it’s a real science.
- beat 7y ago
  When 99% of the experts in the field agree, and that's not a compelling argument to a layman with no expertise, "skeptic" is not a word I'd use to describe that layman.
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    Very much this. Ugh, so much ignorance in the name of "skepticism" in this thread!
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Did you take more than two seconds to think that through? If that was a compelling argument, everyone would believe in numerology because everyone that calls themselves a numerologist agrees that numerology is real. Same for psychics, priests, and on and on.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Doesn't that then stand that you need to qualify the backing of the rest of the scientific community, then qualify the backing of those backing the backing, then qualify the backing of those who are doing the back of the backing of the backing? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof decreases as the claims become less extraordinary. I'd suggest "a whole line of science which until this point hasn't been controversial" can probably be trusted, and that immediately choosing to disregard a group when it says something you don't like strikes as more reactionary than skeptical. I very much doubt you considered all of climate science a hack science until it started to butt up against your personal beliefs.
aeouaoea123123 7y ago
99% agree on the data in the WGI of the ARs because those are real scientific data. However, the interpretation published in the WGIII of each AR are decided by politicians and are known to take liberties with the factual data in WGI, which is why 32k scientists signed "Climate Change Reconsidered".

olivermarks 7y ago

Have the courage of your convictions and don't use throwaways to lay down the law with your opinion please?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The account is 6yr old. I'd wager it's not exactly a throwaway at this point.
- olivermarks 7y ago
  fair point
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sachdevap 7y ago
Have the courage of your convictions to argue the facts and not the account name maybe? This is a new kind of ad hominem attack.

sigzero 7y ago

"99% of climatologist agree" That is a false statistic.

sachdevap 7y ago
There might be a slight bit of exaggeration, but 97% is not that far from 99, for this purpose.[0] [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

kortilla 7y ago

>99% of climatologist agree on the science This is not a compelling argument for a skeptic. >99% of all numerologists agree on the science You need to highlight the backing by the rest of the scientific community to give confidence that it’s a real science.

beat 7y ago
When 99% of the experts in the field agree, and that's not a compelling argument to a layman with no expertise, "skeptic" is not a word I'd use to describe that layman.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  Very much this. Ugh, so much ignorance in the name of "skepticism" in this thread!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 7y ago
  Did you take more than two seconds to think that through? If that was a compelling argument, everyone would believe in numerology because everyone that calls themselves a numerologist agrees that numerology is real. Same for psychics, priests, and on and on.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Doesn't that then stand that you need to qualify the backing of the rest of the scientific community, then qualify the backing of those backing the backing, then qualify the backing of those who are doing the back of the backing of the backing? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof decreases as the claims become less extraordinary. I'd suggest "a whole line of science which until this point hasn't been controversial" can probably be trusted, and that immediately choosing to disregard a group when it says something you don't like strikes as more reactionary than skeptical. I very much doubt you considered all of climate science a hack science until it started to butt up against your personal beliefs.

aeouaoea123123 7y ago

99% agree on the data in the WGI of the ARs because those are real scientific data. However, the interpretation published in the WGIII of each AR are decided by politicians and are known to take liberties with the factual data in WGI, which is why 32k scientists signed "Climate Change Reconsidered".