SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-just-need-a-test-world-to-play-around-with dept.
From The Guardian
Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there's a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.
To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results.
Alas the results weren't good for that 3%...
Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions.
The article also notes,
..there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:25AM
Fuck you, ignorant fuck.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:42AM
You know, it is not often that I mod a comment that says
Fuck you, ignorant fuck.
But it seems appropriate in this case. So let me add my opinion to the consensus that is riding up the climate denier's crack, and say, "Fuck you, you ignorant fucks." I think that captures the scientific consensus as well as it could be captured. And I hope you realize, that when you are paid by petrochemical corporations (I have several family members who ended up there), they have nothing to pay you with but more crude.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:56AM
Love this 'logic.' I lay down some finishing moves like "makes no testable claims" and that AGW is "a faith based belief system" and instead of facts I get butthurt; like insulted somebody's religion or fav football team.
And of course the lame 'gotta be on the payroll of big petro' as deflection from the clearly observable reality that almost all bigtime AGW proponents directly benefit financially from the AGW theory. Al Gore made about a hundred mil. The government, which stands to gain almost limitless -power- from 'solving AGW' ladles out billions in grant money to believers who produce good propaganda.
But for the record, I do not work for big oil. I do own a few shares in the petro industry though, hell, the whole stock market was marked down to move early this week and BP was down near Gulf Coast oil spill levels... couldn't resist. :)
(Score: 5, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:50AM
And you expect us to take the word of a climate denier when they say they do not work for big oil? Jmorris! Do you take your fellow Soylentils for fools? If you were a shill for big oil, of course you would say that. And if you were not, even more would you say that. But this is not the issue. The issue is that this has been turned into a political issue by the unreconstructed ass-backward conservatives in the United States, and they will deny any and all scientific evidence. But it has finally come to this: if you are a climate change denier, your opinion on anything is worthless. You either are stupid (and just a while ago I read rational stuff by a certain jmorris), or you are bought. There is no other alternative, and your insistence otherwise just tightens the horns of the dilemma. Which are you? (Really?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:13AM
Some screws got loose in your little head, son.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:34AM
I contain multitudes. You? Not so much. Perhaps some work on insults is in order? For example, instead of just saying "screws loose" (congrats on not using "lose"), you could impute severe cognitive disability, or suggest a psychotic detachment from reality! So it has come to this! The only people the oil companies can hire are those not intelligent enough to realize they are being used, or what amount to the same thing, Republicans. (Almost said "Libertarians", since most Republicans are too embarrassed to admit to being Republicans, after the whole 2008 market implosion as a result of tax cuts and de-regulation of the Bush administration, and, oh, the illegal war of aggression against the United States erstwhile ally in the Middle East.) Which oil company is paying you to deny climate change? You know, a free market only works when there is zero cost to information about transactions, so the going rate for an oil company shill should be public information, otherwise they are engaging in distortion of the market! But then, they are Oil Companies, aren't they. But I have to say that either you are not being paid enough, since this is a dirty job and evidently no one else wants to do it, or you are being paid too much because you are so bad at it.
I have no idea how big your head is, but I am quite sure that I am not your son, because I knew my father.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:22AM
Did someone insult your sacred cow?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @01:16PM
No. I am a scientist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:38PM
More of a Sacred Bull, judging from the scat.