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: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:12AM
When they fall back on 'consensus' you know they have lost. Because 'consensus' has no place in science but everything to do with politics.
you are correct that consensus doesn't make something true. it doesn't matter how many people agree, thinking something doesn't mean it's true. what makes it true is physics which is why we have scientists record data for later analysis. what this study does is evaluate conflicting data analysis that would explain the incongruent finding. what they found was some scientists manipulated the data by omitting some of it. when the omitted data is put back in, the finding by these scientists are found to be in conflict with the data as a whole.
it's unfortunate that you think the data isn't evidence of the obvious but remember, thinking something doesn't mean it's true, no matter how many people agree with you.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:02AM
Oh, if only the Kock Brothers could get a majority of people to believe that Global Warming was a hoax!
but remember, thinking something doesn't mean it's true, no matter how many people agree with you.
What? Are you saying that the public relations campaign is doomed to failure, because even if it succeeds, it has no bearing on reality and truth (and all that is good and holy, and not part of the John Birch Society, of which the Koch Bros dad was a founding member). Nice to know that the rejection of majority opinion totally discredits those who are rejecting majority opinion. Except, it is majority opinion of scientist, not Lyndon LaRouche supporters and John Birchers, and Infowars, and, well, crazy people in general. A majority of crazy people is, well, still crazy. (After all these years, with apologies to Willie Nelson, who is not. )
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:35AM
You cannot prove something is correct by showing that something else is wrong. Quite often there are multiple wrong answers.
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:51AM
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
OH, oH, Oh!!! This is soooo logically correct that it almost hurts my brain. It also is a fallacy. Showing the deniers have fudged data shows they are lying sacks of shit with ulterior motives. Yes, it does not mean that the Climate Change Theorists (we call them "scientists"; "true believers" seems inappropriate) did not also. Of course, equally, and maybe a bit more so, it does not suggest they did fudge the data. Citation needed?
I am starting to think we need a special mod category (yes, yes, I know, and I am against more categories in general): How about Oil Troll? We seem to have so many. And their logic is easily identifiable. Trolls. Oily Trolls. Trolls of Oil. Petroleum Trolls. Climate Denier Trolls.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:24AM
I do not work for big oil, and I think it is quite likely that humans are changing the climate. Doubling the level of CO2 is going to have an effect.
However, the right way to tackle this is with science, not a 'green' religion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:45PM
And 97% of scientists agree with you.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @12:20PM
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:53PM
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
that is absolutely true, so perhaps we should have a study to see who fudged the numbers in support of human-caused global warming.