3 ms·

"near consensus" .. yeah I've come to realise that this is not as straightforward as it is often presented. For a start, a scientist would not find the term "c

"near consensus" .. yeah I've come to realise that this is not as straightforward as it is often presented. For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. "Percentage of Consensus" is more about social engineering, and it is more something a journalist might seize upon. But if you DO want to use the figure ... it has been pointed out that the 97% figure generally quoted came from a survey. Another survey at precisely the same time showed 51%. Which survey should be used? As I understand it, the 51% one apparently had a bigger sample size. One certainly sounds a lot less certain than the other. And finally, as was my point from the last post, even if you accept the 97% figure, don't you have to worry if there is the chance it is achieved through fear of reprisals for disagreement? Let them speak. Let's hear their crazy ideas. Crush their ideas, not their dissent. My favourite left-wing commentator used to always say "the solution to bad-speak is more-speak". He was saying that silencing is bad. Anyway, that's enough of this debate for me. Frankyl, it is all very unclear to me. I envy those who are completely certain.

klingonopera 7y ago
> For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. This is only true for hard sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, maths, etc. (EDIT: And even then, I'm just gonna throw in Pilot-Wave-Theory, as an example that some things have yet to be proven or disproven... and maybe even never will be?) Soft sciences have to rely on consensus, essentially by design.
cookie_monsta 7y ago
I don't want to debate facts either. It seems silly. The thing is that we've let the climate deniers speak. But science isn't something you get to have an opinion on. Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters. Don't you think it's strange that the only people who are interested in prolonging the "gee, is it actually happening?" speculation are the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
- zo1 7y ago
  "Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters." The other side has, arguably, beneficial (if not financial) interest in promoting their climate views. Just because on the surface it seems noble, doesn't mean it isn't being abused by those that wish to take advantage of it. And this is particularly pertinent if the "pro-climate" side has a very distinct pro-government-expansion component nested within it, if not downright socialism.

klingonopera 7y ago

> For a start, a scientist would not find the term "consensus" at all compelling. Things are either proven or disproven when it comes to science. This is only true for hard sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, maths, etc. (EDIT: And even then, I'm just gonna throw in Pilot-Wave-Theory, as an example that some things have yet to be proven or disproven... and maybe even never will be?) Soft sciences have to rely on consensus, essentially by design.

cookie_monsta 7y ago

I don't want to debate facts either. It seems silly. The thing is that we've let the climate deniers speak. But science isn't something you get to have an opinion on. Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters. Don't you think it's strange that the only people who are interested in prolonging the "gee, is it actually happening?" speculation are the same people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?

zo1 7y ago
"Particularly not if it's been proven that you have a financial interest in muddying the waters." The other side has, arguably, beneficial (if not financial) interest in promoting their climate views. Just because on the surface it seems noble, doesn't mean it isn't being abused by those that wish to take advantage of it. And this is particularly pertinent if the "pro-climate" side has a very distinct pro-government-expansion component nested within it, if not downright socialism.