4 ms·

> The paper does not list the data for these endorsement levels so we cannot know the distribution. There’s a link to supplementary data at the top of the pape

> The paper does not list the data for these endorsement levels so we cannot know the distribution. There’s a link to supplementary data at the top of the paper, and a further link within the paper explicitly stating to look there for more details: I haven’t checked, but it’s entirely possible that a breakdown of the 1-3 agreement levels is available there, just not explicitly described, which is perfectly fine if an explicitly listing of such data doesn’t do anything to elucidate the answer to the research question. And, except for someone seeking to find or manufacture dissent, there’s nothing wrong with this “lumping together”… doing so DOES NOT imply “97% consensus that [human impact != 0]”, it DOES imply “97% consensus that [human impact > 0]”. Now, that may look like splitting hairs, but what you are providing here is the idea that “approximately or nearly zero” is a likely position for those who didn’t explicitly quantify, and that’s simply not the case… anyone with such weak agreement is, if anything, MORE inclined to quantify their position on the power effect, not less. To Godwin early, you’re acting as if there’s a problem with lumping together these groups that sum to a consensus: 1) The Nazis were responsible for killing [a series of specific, very large number of] Jews, Poles, Russians, Masons, LGBTQT+, etc individuals in the Holocaust. 2) The Nazis were responsible for killing untold millions in the Holocaust. 3) The Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust. … and calling that “97% consensus that the Nazis were responsible for a non-zero number of deaths in the Holocaust”. The reality, presented by this and numerous other papers, is that an overwhelming majority of those with sufficient expertise to form an opinion share the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is — shockingly — anthropogenic… to an overwhelming degree they agree that such impact is substantial enough to mean not merely contributory (Imp != 0 and Imp > 0 where Imp is potentially small) but to rise to responsibility ((Imp != 0 and Imp > 0 where Imp is not small)… those who oppose this consensus are, usually, not experts or, if experts, not publishing their opinions in their abstracts. Now, there is a legit research question there… of the substantial number of papers that stated no opinion whatsoever (not part of the 97% of the opinionated you’re not really succeeding to nitpick), how many held a conflicting-to-consensus opinion but didn’t state it, and what factors led to them not stating that opinion? The authors who didn’t place a stake are where you should be focusing, rather than letting your confirmation bias try and put a wedge where it won’t fit.

late_to_party 4y ago
The authors' conclusion is that 97% think that humans are the main contributing factor. That may be true but does not follow from the data collected in this particular study. It's a non sequitur.
- yawpitch 4y ago
  No, again, their conclusion is that 97% who state an opinion on anthropogenic climate change agree with the notion that anthropogenic (literally, “caused by humans”) means, not to put to fine a point on it, “anthropogenic”. You’re trying to infer that the choir doesn’t believe strongly in what that the preacher is preaching… THAT is the non sequitur. Your dispute isn’t with the consensus of orthodox experts, which this paper does successfully establish, your dispute is with how the media portrays that orthodoxy as being 97% of climate scientists (rather than 97% of climate scientists who stated an opinion). Regardless, you’re unlikely to get to a rational conclusion on any of this, as you’re nitpicking about the direction the wind is blowing in a hurricane. Greenhouse gasses affect the environment, this is an indisputable fact of chemistry and physics. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, equally established. Human beings release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today at a vastly higher scale than has ever been released by any known terrestrial biological source — also indisputable, unless you wish to dispute the Industrial Revolution. If you’re willing to accept that 97% of experts with an opinion believe humans are responsible for a non-zero impact on the client then you’ve already given up all moral impetus for disputing the point… ANY human contribution to climate change is something we must, necessarily, mitigate, eliminate, and reverse… if ANY percentage of climate change is anthropogenic, we’re responsible for it. Moreover, if we’re not responsible for it — a philosophical stance that beggars belief — the point is moot, because we must work to mitigate, eliminate, and reverse non-anthropogenic greenhouse emissions as well, anyway. Why? Venus… lots of atmospheric carbon dioxide there, not a single human (or, as far as we can tell, living thing). Approximately 100% of climate scientists agree that we cannot survive the climate on Venus, and that allowing our atmosphere to tilt in that direction == bad… any heterodoxy on that point is NOT trustworthy. Disputing the degree to which humans are causing the problem is INANE, once you’ve accepted the problem exists at all, unless you’re one of those people who believes Jesus will come back and snap His fingers and put all the oil back. Now, if you are one of those people — IIRC one of Little Bush’s energy appointees was big on that theory — then there’s likely little I can do to help, except gently prompt that maybe, maybe, just maybe, assuming that’s Plan A, perhaps — just perhaps — we should put a wee little thought into having a Plan B, just in case.

late_to_party 4y ago

The authors' conclusion is that 97% think that humans are the main contributing factor. That may be true but does not follow from the data collected in this particular study. It's a non sequitur.

yawpitch 4y ago
No, again, their conclusion is that 97% who state an opinion on anthropogenic climate change agree with the notion that anthropogenic (literally, “caused by humans”) means, not to put to fine a point on it, “anthropogenic”. You’re trying to infer that the choir doesn’t believe strongly in what that the preacher is preaching… THAT is the non sequitur. Your dispute isn’t with the consensus of orthodox experts, which this paper does successfully establish, your dispute is with how the media portrays that orthodoxy as being 97% of climate scientists (rather than 97% of climate scientists who stated an opinion). Regardless, you’re unlikely to get to a rational conclusion on any of this, as you’re nitpicking about the direction the wind is blowing in a hurricane. Greenhouse gasses affect the environment, this is an indisputable fact of chemistry and physics. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, equally established. Human beings release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today at a vastly higher scale than has ever been released by any known terrestrial biological source — also indisputable, unless you wish to dispute the Industrial Revolution. If you’re willing to accept that 97% of experts with an opinion believe humans are responsible for a non-zero impact on the client then you’ve already given up all moral impetus for disputing the point… ANY human contribution to climate change is something we must, necessarily, mitigate, eliminate, and reverse… if ANY percentage of climate change is anthropogenic, we’re responsible for it. Moreover, if we’re not responsible for it — a philosophical stance that beggars belief — the point is moot, because we must work to mitigate, eliminate, and reverse non-anthropogenic greenhouse emissions as well, anyway. Why? Venus… lots of atmospheric carbon dioxide there, not a single human (or, as far as we can tell, living thing). Approximately 100% of climate scientists agree that we cannot survive the climate on Venus, and that allowing our atmosphere to tilt in that direction == bad… any heterodoxy on that point is NOT trustworthy. Disputing the degree to which humans are causing the problem is INANE, once you’ve accepted the problem exists at all, unless you’re one of those people who believes Jesus will come back and snap His fingers and put all the oil back. Now, if you are one of those people — IIRC one of Little Bush’s energy appointees was big on that theory — then there’s likely little I can do to help, except gently prompt that maybe, maybe, just maybe, assuming that’s Plan A, perhaps — just perhaps — we should put a wee little thought into having a Plan B, just in case.