Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:32PM   Printer-friendly

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change:

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

“It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Journal Reference:
Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton, and Simon Perry. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Environmental Research Letters (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheReaperD on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:46PM (36 children)

    by TheReaperD (5556) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:46PM (#1188863)

    But, you can bet Exxon, Shell and the climate deniers will still say, not all scientists agree. There's still doubt! (I seriously doubt they'll roll out the 0.1% statistic, but they may pull a number from a fraudulent pseudo-study.

    --
    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04PM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04PM (#1188876)

      You can blame the oil companies, but they're just making products that their markets want.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:57PM (16 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:57PM (#1188900)

        Right, totally not their fault for spreading misinformation and funding hack science studies /eyeroll

        Reminds me of the carbon footprint tool some oil company put out trying to shift the blame to consumers. Or like the US auto and oil industry tanking public transit and electric vehicles. Totally the average citizen's fault because they kept buying ICE vehicles /eyesrolloutofhead

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:34PM (15 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:34PM (#1188962)

          You're not wrong, but why are people, er, sheeple, so stupid and gullible? Education system broken maybe?

          I'm sorry but I don't and won't blame a corporation for doing whatever they can to sell their products. They all do advertising. You and others like you are hurting your own cause by whining about corporations. Governments have the power and ability to limit things if needed.

          The truth is: the problem is simply due to population growth, and ICE vehicles becoming prevalent worldwide; and governments doing essentially nothing to limit the spread and impact.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:47PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:47PM (#1188970)

            You're not wrong, but why are people, er, sheeple, so stupid and gullible? Education system broken maybe?

            I'm sorry but I don't and won't blame a corporation for doing whatever they can to sell their products.

            Heh, wish I could say conservatives and libertarians used to be sane but it was only slightly less crazy. What if Heckler & Koch made a snuff film murdering your entire family to promote how effective their guns are? Would that be enough for you to blame them? You can't walk back your statement now, "whatever they can" was the limit you gave.

            Probably won't affect your stupidity one bit since conservatives are incapable of admitting fault no matter how insignificant.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:03AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:03AM (#1189020)

              I'm the stupid one? So somehow your shit attitude is going to change everyone who opposes you? Not much of a salesman are you. Not inspiring, leader, just a sore loser. Keep it up moron.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:16AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:16AM (#1189048)

                I'm the stupid one?
                Yes

                So somehow your shit attitude is going to change everyone who opposes you?
                Not likely

                Not much of a salesman are you.
                Hate sales

                Not inspiring, leader, just a sore loser.
                Not trying to lead, and sore losers were the ones that committed insurrection over it

                Keep it up
                Ok!

                moron.
                So somehow your shit attitude is going to change everyone who opposes you?

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:32AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:32AM (#1189094)

                  Opposes me? What do I stand for, Einstein?

                  Here, read this. I'm sure you'll make some kind of specious refutation.

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445 [bbc.com]

          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:29AM (8 children)

            by acid andy (1683) on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:29AM (#1189027) Homepage Journal

            Corporations, governments and consumers are all collections of individuals. Individuals in all of these groups need to grow a conscience and act on it.

            --
            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:42AM (7 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:42AM (#1189028)

              Currency units and the rationality they encourage in the calculation of debt is, and will remain the issue. What people fail to realize is that debt is equally economic and moral, but because of currency we can calculate damages, loss, gain. We can contract explicit values for renumeration without ever acknowledging actual human costs. Between this and the hot-takes market and the hellbent for-profit strategies of global corporations in hand with the relativistic landscape and naïve rationalism projecting progress ad infinitum humanity at large has become a machination from hell thanks to an amalgam of fallacies translated into a global technic. I don't think there's any stopping it.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Thursday October 21 2021, @01:09AM (6 children)

                by acid andy (1683) on Thursday October 21 2021, @01:09AM (#1189034) Homepage Journal

                I don't think there's any stopping it.

                I fear you're absolutely right. The concept of money is very, very old. If you try to redesign it, people will just find ways to bypass your new system to still optimize only for their own profit, whether through creating black markets, some kind of bartering, finding or making loopholes, or even creating their own currency (hey, it's already happening). Even if you obliterated every last trace of human civilization, human greed and short-sightedness would still remain.

                --
                If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:11AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:11AM (#1189137)

                  Everyone just needs to chill out. Why are we working ourselves to the bone to buy shit we don't even want? It's a kind of mass hysteria. Chill out brahs and hos.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:33PM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:33PM (#1189291) Journal

                  Even if you obliterated every last trace of human civilization, human greed and short-sightedness would still remain.

                  We have thousands of years of this history. We have basic game theory. Human nature isn't going anywhere soon. Further, there's obvious benefits to money, particularly its algorithmic simplification of trade.

                  Rather than merely hope humans will somehow spontaneously become better, let's do stuff that works - infrastructure. Money is part of that infrastructure that helps us be better people.

                  For example, consider the grandparent which states

                  What people fail to realize is that debt is equally economic and moral, but because of currency we can calculate damages, loss, gain. We can contract explicit values for renumeration without ever acknowledging actual human costs

                  What's missing from that analysis, is that a lot of moral debt doesn't exist in the first place! By forcing an effort to value, we impose some degree of discipline on that. Too often, things are moral because we aren't willing to put any more effort into making something right than a vacuous moral argument. Unwillingness to pay indicates insincerity.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:46PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:46PM (#1189417)

                    Moral debt begins at existence, every action is colored by its position in the moral spectrum. For every morsel grown from the ground a debt is incurred, owed to the soil, for every morsel eaten it is a debt to the farmer we owe. It is priceless, as life itself is priceless - in both meanings of the word. Yet the toils of the farmer, his crop yielding the propagation and forward moment of life is never so well compensated as the banal "labor" of the banker. He works a harder life, is dirtied and maimed by the years under the sun grovelling in the ridges and the furrows. The banker tows the line, espouses meritocracy and free market ideologies while he confers with lobbies behond closed doors in a conspiracy to indenture humanity. His only toil: the trappings of debt, and the barbs of usury, and he need not even enforce it, as he has the state to do it. It's plainly wrong. And capital is the sole medium for this transpiration of horrors.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:17AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 22 2021, @04:17AM (#1189487) Journal
                      +1 poetic. But no one has moral debt to someone who merely works hard. Nor is moral debt incurred because of how you choose to interpret the actions of bankers.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @04:58AM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @04:58AM (#1189499)

                        You're not worth attempting to convince. You had ought to know that your ideas are precisely the reason for the moral decay that allows corporations and groups of people to justify the destruction of the world at large.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @05:54AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 22 2021, @05:54AM (#1189509) Journal

                          You're not worth attempting to convince.

                          And you're not trying to convince. When one looks at the good side of one career and the bad side of another, they're merely showing extreme bias not any sort of moral insight.

                          You had ought to know that your ideas are precisely the reason for the moral decay that allows corporations and groups of people to justify the destruction of the world at large.

                          How? I think it's telling that you resort to a vacuous, morality-based argument here rather than an honest one.

                          Here's my real ideas. First, that honesty and integrity are more important than having popular or approved opinions. The story is about a very sloppy and dishonest [soylentnews.org] attempt to portray scientific consensus as being much better than it is, both by the researchers who wrote the study and the journalist who reported it. I can't guess at the motives, but we need less of this.

                          Second, if you want people to behave morally rather than merely natter impotently about moral decay, you need infrastructure that encourages good behavior. Sorry, contrary to opinion in this thread, money is one such tool that helps encourage said good behavior. I think your time would be better spent understanding how things like money make us better people, than natter on about things you don't understand, like moral decay.

                          Finally, I think the ultimate cause of moral decay is ignorance. Not understanding how bankers or money work is a great example of this moral decay in action.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:17PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:17PM (#1189258)

            I don't think it is population growth. I think it's economics. Say you're some backwards 3rd world shithole in the 19th century. Let's say you've got foreign dependency X. Your primary income is from industry Y. Industry Y has been mechanized in the developed world, it depresses prices globally. You can't buy X now because Y doesn't yield returns with your typical methods. What do you do? You're essentially coerced into adopting mechanization so you can continue trade for X.

            ICE is just the best way to move things from A to B given roads, without it can anybody compete against those with it? I think not, not that there aren't exceptions. And then what? To run cars you need access to fuels. Minuscule inaccessible oil reserves that aren't economical, but can produce oil domestically. Then you need refineries, then distribution.

            It's economic participation and policy that caused it. Population growth as a function of technological innovations simply exacerbated it, and this too can be attributed to economic participation.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:43PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:43PM (#1189298) Journal

              It's economic participation and policy that caused it. Population growth as a function of technological innovations simply exacerbated it, and this too can be attributed to economic participation.

              Economic participation is how you stay alive and better yourself. Any other way you can think of that does that with the cooperation of others would also be economic participation.

      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:19PM

        by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:19PM (#1188952)

        So...blame it on "marketing", eh. /s

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Barenflimski on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:18PM (12 children)

      by Barenflimski (6836) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:18PM (#1188886)

      I'm not sure they were deniers as the "company" had studied this 50 years ago and determined that we would see about this level of warming by now. Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago [scientificamerican.com]

      The bean counters decided that wasn't good for the company and invested in doing their best to focus on their core product, which was oil.

      Corporations are not people and do not function as normal human beings. I think we do ourselves a disservice talking about them this way as many of the conversations I come across seem to personify companies and corporations. By doing this, we simplify the discussion and therefore make it easy to derail the point of any topic. While I'm on this rant, money isn't free speech, its money and if it needs to be protected, these idiots in congress should write an amendment about it.

      If we put insane human beings in an asylum, why don't we have the same thing for insane corporations? Zuck4Pres?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:28PM (3 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:28PM (#1188890)

        normal human beings.

        Sadly, while corporations focus on the next quarterly results - most (51+%) "normal" people are just as short sighted.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:39PM (1 child)

          by Barenflimski (6836) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:39PM (#1188895)

          True. This is the same reason there is a warning light in a car when the gas gauge gets low.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:13AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:13AM (#1189138)

            The gauge is saying time to transition off fossil fuels.

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:04PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:04PM (#1189389)

          Sadly, while corporations focus on the next quarterly results - most (51+%) "normal" people are just as short sighted.

          Most "normal" people have no choice but to be so short sighted. Thanks to a lot of factors, of which corporate behavior is a significant part, far too many people are living paycheck to paycheck. They may even think about the future, but they're in no position to do anything about it.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:46PM

        by RS3 (6367) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:46PM (#1188969)

        Excellent post. Add that corporations are largely protected from prosecution. So although corporations are made up of people, legally the people are shielded therefore insulated and feel psychologically empowered. And add to that the psychology of bystanders, you know, where each person blames everyone else for the problem, whatever it is.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:10AM (#1189021)

        > Corporations are not people and do not function as normal human beings. I think we do ourselves a disservice talking about them this way as many of the conversations I come across seem to personify companies and corporations. By doing this, we simplify the discussion and therefore make it easy to derail the point of any topic. While I'm on this rant, money isn't free speech, its money and if it needs to be protected, these idiots in congress should write an amendment about it.

        But then moneyed interests and their sycophants wouldn't be able to "win" anymore. Ummm something something DEMOCRACY something something or we let the TERRORISTS win... And, freedom!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:20AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:20AM (#1189024)

        That's a fucking cop out.

        The bean counters (and CxO's) are people who decided to add line items to their marketing budgets to misinform the public and derail sane policy discussions. That's not focusing on their core product, that's deliberately fucking with society. They deliberately made it difficult to focus on and talk about the very real impact they have.

        People did this.

        Sure, corporations aren't people, but they don't just magically function without people. The list of people responsible is very short and we know where most of them live.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:03AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:03AM (#1189062)

          No it is not a cop out, because Citizens United deemed corporations to be people so the humans pulling the strings almost always escape the consequences for their decisions. At worst the CEO gets the chop along with a golden parachute. Not that your points are wrong, but seems like you're ignoring reality while trying to highlight your own point about it.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:13AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:13AM (#1189091) Journal

            because Citizens United deemed corporations to be people

            No, it doesn't. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction.3

            so the humans pulling the strings almost always escape the consequences for their decisions.

            No, it didn't. Citizens United merely recognized that corporations naturally inherited free speech (and some other rights) from their owners and employees and second, that such a right allowed to an individual is also thus allowed to a corporation. It's remarkable how this myth continues.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:21PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:21PM (#1189160)
              Corporations are not "We the People" for whom the Constitution was established.

              In shining a light upon the possible corruption and perceived corruption of the political system, and being minority dissent whilst so doing, Stevens also shone a light on possible corruption and perceived corruption of SCOTUS itself.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:07PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:07PM (#1189280) Journal

                Corporations are not "We the People" for whom the Constitution was established.

                Nobody alive today is. But the Constitution was intended to extended to future generations. This is such an extension.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:21PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:21PM (#1189231) Journal

          add line items to their marketing budgets to misinform the public

          Which is also known as FRAUD.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:54PM (1 child)

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:54PM (#1188899)

      "Climate Cover-up", Hoggan and Littlemore.

      It is a deep dive into the structure and tactics of the propaganda machinery.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:54AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:54AM (#1189073) Journal

      But, you can bet Exxon, Shell and the climate deniers will still say, not all scientists agree.

      Agree on what? I find it remarkable how dishonest this story is. Let's review the "agreement":

      More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

      Notice first, we're playing the usual rhetorical game of "climate change" not "global warming". Second, the story is grossly mischaracterizing the study, which in turn has really bad methodology. From the abstract:

      From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

      So, first, they didn't do a study of all 88k papers, but allegedly random selections - why not search all papers since many of the approaches would work on all papers with minor increases in time. Nor did they inspect the papers they did select for agreement, they instead looked for implicit/explicit disagreement. Finally, notice that the story claimed agreement was more than 99.9%. We find instead that the statistic method only estimated disagreement of 1% with an unknown number of papers that hadn't expressed an opinion on the matter. So we go from a 1% disagreement to 99% agreement, then to 99.9% agreement.

      When this game was played [heartland.org] with the 97% paper (John Cook et al), about 70% papers fell into this category and almost none of the ones expressing an opinion expressed the aggressive level of opinion claimed by the study:

      Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

      To summarize that part, this study is terrible scientifically and follows the same methodology as a previous terrible and discredited study (which incidentally was treated as a valid study by the story). In fact, much of the flaws of the present study can be found merely by reviewing criticism of the 97% study.

      Then there's the conclusions.

      “We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

      One of the authors claiming a 1% explicit/implicit disagreement is 99% agreement.

      since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,

      Another author just making a radical claim, implying it's a natural consequence of the story. My take is that it's easy to get a lot of devastating impacts when people are paid to create those impacts such as via subsidized flood insurance.

      If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.

      Look, my take is that a real study rather than just another transparent propaganda piece will likely find plenty of consensus among scientists that human activity is the primary cause of global warming (with a bit less among geologists and similar earth scientists). This ship has sailed.

      So we don't need some shoddy bit of propaganda. We should ask who does?

      • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:58AM

        by shrewdsheep (5215) on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:58AM (#1189133)

        So, first, they didn't do a study of all 88k papers, but allegedly random selections - why not search all papers

        It turned out all the other 85k papers were reviewing the consensus among the remaining 3k papers.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:52PM (17 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @06:52PM (#1188866) Journal

    99.9% of studies may agree. But 0.1% of the studies disagree. Therefore there is a controversy! And the 0.1% of the studies must be considered to have equal weight and validity to the 99.9% of studies which agree.

    This principle is true whether we talk about climate change, evolution, medicine or any other scientific field.

    It's not about "absolute truth". It's about what has given humans the ability to predict things. Such as ability to predict and model how a vaccine will alter infection rates of a population. Or how CO2 in the atmosphere will alter the planet's solar radiation absorbed, and therefore weather, then sea levels and other effects. Or modelling how organisms change and adapt, especially microorganisms, where such modelling is based on evolution.

    It's not about science being an arbiter of "truth", it's about it being one of the best tools humanity has ever had.

    Science doesn't always agree with someone's politics. In which case the politics are wrong not the science.

    Reality has a strong liberal bias. Favoring peacemongers and tree hoggers trying to shave the whales.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:00PM (#1188870)

      Shaving the whales who are wearing N95 masks.

    • (Score: 3, Troll) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:03PM (8 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:03PM (#1188873)

      Science doesn't always agree with someone's politics. In which case the politics are wrong not the science.

      Careful there, feel out the room before you go alienating all the power players.

      Reality has a strong liberal bias.

      I'd say it's more that conservatives have a strong denialist streak.

      Favoring peacemongers and tree hoggers trying to shave the whales.

      99.9% of historical evidence being to the contrary...

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:33PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:33PM (#1188892)

        By ethnicity, the most unvaxxed are black, followed by Hispanic. Are these the raging conservatives you yell against? Wipe the political bias off you glasses, partisan.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:58PM (#1188901)

          Ooh some lite racism to really sell your point? Amazing how you think that is a valid retort.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:29PM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:29PM (#1188920) Journal
          [citation needed]
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:21PM (4 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:21PM (#1188953) Journal

          By ethnicity, the most unvaxxed are black, followed by Hispanic.

          Not by much.

          But a MUCH bigger margin, the most unvaxxed are Republicans verses everyone else.

          I've posted two journal articles with statistics and bar graphs from different sources.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:18AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:18AM (#1189049)

            Bonus points for minorities not trusting the US government due to the nasty shit that's been done to them in the past, and the constant fear of US law enforcement murdering them over a traffic stop.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:25AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:25AM (#1189127)

              Why minorities? NOBODY should trust the US government, if history is any measure.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:16AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:16AM (#1189139)

                *Except D. Trump and the R party obvs. Mismanagement in action.

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:08PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:08PM (#1189198) Journal

                What does "trusting the government" have to do with getting vaccinated?

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:06PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:06PM (#1188877)

      Someone has spent too many evenings with aristarchus.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:13PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:13PM (#1188882)

        THAT'S it! No lollipop for YOU!

        khallow

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:17PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:17PM (#1188884)

          If I give him a blowjob, you think he'll give me the whole box?

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:01PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:01PM (#1188903)

            Why would they give you above market rate? Only the highest class hookers get a whole box for one blowjob.

            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:30PM (#1188922)

              GP is a hooker of the highest class. She fishes with TheMightyBuzzard.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:27PM

      by Opportunist (5545) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:27PM (#1188954)

      Poe's Law really is strong in this posting...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:01AM (#1189018)

      But 0.1% of the studies disagree.

      That's because they were fake studies. How do I know? They weren't wearing lab coats or glasses, no clipboards, not even pocket protectors, and didn't look like Julia Roberts

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:00PM (1 child)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:00PM (#1188871)

    <sarcasm>Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

    Therefore, to please God, go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and be sure to send those generous donations as often as you are able, this G5 doesn't fuel itself!

    A strong economy begets a strong donation stream, may the band play on at least until I die!</sarcasm>

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:09PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:09PM (#1189199) Journal

      How about this verse: "It is appointed unto man once to diet."

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04PM (41 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:04PM (#1188874) Journal

    That number alone should trigger some critical thinking. You know it, I know it, any scientist knows it, but the media doesn't know it.

    Once again, I remind everyone that we've been experiencing global warming and climate change for the past ~20,000 years. Yeah, I know, not even aristarchus is old enough to remember the ice sheets extending down past the Great Lakes. In fact, I think the ice carved out the Great Lakes. They might have had something to do with the British Isles being separated from Europe.

    These clowns need to fall back and regroup. It was enough, and maybe more than enough, when they all agreed that mankind accelerated climate change. But, no, mankind most certainly did not cause it, all on his own.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by acid andy on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:27PM (14 children)

      by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:27PM (#1188889) Homepage Journal

      OK, OK, I'll bite with a lazy, low quality comment, because this place isn't getting enough comments and I haven't got the energy to do any better (or, y'know, read TFA) right now.

      In the first line of the quoted text in TFS:

      More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

      Mainly caused by humans. What they mean is that there would still be some changes to the climate if humans weren't here, but the evidence is that human activity greatly increases the amount of change that is happening.

      But, no, mankind most certainly did not cause it, all on his own.

      Not all on his own, no. Just mainly.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:29PM (12 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:29PM (#1188921) Journal

        And yet - the claim is that we could stop climate change if we just invest enough money, buy carbon credits, kiss the right asses. How can we stop what was never under our control? At best, we slow it a little. At worst, we speed it along. 99.9% of paper writers are idiots.

        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:34PM (3 children)

          by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:34PM (#1188924) Homepage Journal

          We're dealing with problems that in many cases kill people and animals. Slowing it down will mean fewer deaths. That's well worth doing.

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:58PM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:58PM (#1188937) Journal

            I can't disagree with your statement. The question is - what power do you have to slow it down? Remember, I offered a worst case, and a best case. What power do you have? Or, are you just along for the ride, like billions of other humans throughout history.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:10PM (1 child)

              by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:10PM (#1188983) Homepage Journal

              What difference can one person possibly make? That kind of poisonous thinking is what got humans into this mess--many kinds of mess--in the first place.

              As they said on Knight Rider, one man can make a difference.

              If most people reduce their consumption a bit, it will add up. If attitudes change for the better, eventually some of those in positions of great power might even do more to fix the problems too.

              --
              If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:20AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:20AM (#1189140)

                Population is increasing to 10B or 12B over the next century. Good luck reducing anything. It's all going down the toilet, friends.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:27PM (4 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:27PM (#1188956) Journal

          the claim is that we could stop climate change if we just invest enough money

          What if we had started twenty years ago?

          How can we stop what was never under our control?

          We are causing it. Therefore it is under our control.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:06PM (3 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:06PM (#1188981) Journal

            Well, that's the claim, anyhow.

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:57PM (#1189003)

              If you climb into the tiger enclosure at a zoo you'll be killed. Well, that's the claim, anyhow.

              Why don't you be a pal and test that claim for us?

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:11PM (1 child)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:11PM (#1189200) Journal

              Some claim the sun rises in the East. Others claim it rises in the West.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:54PM (#1189302)

                The sane know that the sun neither rises nor falls, but is the point around which our planet orbits.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:11AM (#1189023)

          * Yawn *

          Go back to school and learn what "mainly" means.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:53AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:53AM (#1189095)

          And yet - the claim is that we could stop climate change if we just invest enough money, buy carbon credits, kiss the right asses.

          Oh, you contrarian you; you're so cute.
          You know what? Go kiss the number of wrong asses that you allotted daily for youself, that will show everybody how critical you're thinking.

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:27PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:27PM (#1189406)

          And yet - the claim is that we could stop climate change if we just invest enough money, buy carbon credits, kiss the right asses. How can we stop what was never under our control? At best, we slow it a little. At worst, we speed it along. 99.9% of paper writers are idiots.

          This is mostly speculation on my part based on seeing how poorly human efforts to control nature often turn out in the long run, but here goes. It is likely we are still in a cycle of ice sheets descending every few tens of thousand years. What human generated warming is doing is disrupting the natural cycle of this occurring. Now one might think that stopping a turn towards another period of glaciation is a great benefit, but in the long run it is likely to lead to one of two worse outcomes. One, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which most life on Earth ends up dying off, or two, when the cooling rebound comes it will be that much worse by having been delayed so much longer as far more of the planet and remaining life ends up being greatly impacted. None of us will be alive either way, so most won't care, but I think that if mankind survives long enough to populate other than our close neighbors in the solar system, we will have to be willing to solve things like the current climate crisis, and solve them based on the long term benefit of the planet and not just some corporation's balance sheet.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @11:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @11:57AM (#1189156)

        Climate has changed since the Earth was formed. Even if there were no such things as humans it would still be changing one way or another. Claiming that it is gas cars and cow farts and not the 8 billion people wanting to live like we do in the U.S. is for idiots. Cut the population!

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:04PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:04PM (#1188905)

      Well at least you are edging closer to reality, but still hell bent on making excuses for the oil companies. We know you can comprehend simple graphs such as temperature over time, so this is just partisan hackery as you work through the decades of fox programming.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:08PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:08PM (#1188908)

        Replying to myself: when 1% of the warming is coming from natural processes and 99% is due to human activity you don't quibble over the 1% to minimize the 99%. Interesting parallels to economics as well.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:58AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:58AM (#1189075) Journal
          Last I checked, it was something more like 20% due to non-human processes, not 1%. That includes both warming and sea level rise.

          Interesting parallels to economics as well.

          Interesting narratives are often false narratives.

      • (Score: 2, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:25PM (8 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:25PM (#1188918) Journal

        but still hell bent on making excuses for the oil companies.

        You're confusing me with . . . someone. I am not, never have been, an oil company phanboi. They are crooked sons of bitches in the best of light. In the worst of lights, they are much worse than merely crooked SOBs. Bush Senior was an oil baron, and Bush Junior was a wannabe oil baron.

        That said - do you use their products? How much do you complain about stupid shit like single-use plastics? Plastic pipe? Plastic dishes? Plastic, plastic, plastic - you can't escape it. Do you burn gasoline, or diesel? Do you wear plastic? Is your furniture plastic? Is your girl friend plastic?

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:36PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:36PM (#1188926)

          That just makes it clear that you are unaware of your own mind and can't even see how propaganda has influenced your subconscious away from your supposed conscious ideals. Then you go on to try and shift the conversation to "liberals use gasoline too, CHECKMATE." This whole situation would be funny if not for the looming environmental catastrophe bits.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:57PM (4 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:57PM (#1188935) Journal

            Someday, when you have a lucid moment, you'll look back at your post, and be embarrassed.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:11PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:11PM (#1188985)

              Here you go buddy https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-current-global-warming-trend-different-previous-warming-periods-earths [climate.gov] that should help you understand why bringing up the natural warming period of the Earth's climate cycle is tantamount to propaganda.

              If I decided to eat ten thousand calories a day and then complained about gaining weight so quickly and whined that I'm naturally big boned you'd probaby call me an idiot.

              Same thing here, brining up the natural warming trend when human activity has accelerated it ~45X makes you the idiot. Would you rather crash into the tree at 1mph or 45mph?

              • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:23PM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @10:23PM (#1188991) Journal

                that should help you understand

                Don't you find it difficult to talk down to people, when you're at the bottom of a well?

                Maybe we should have another global conference, and fly about 20,000 people to some resort city, so they can talk about saving the planet in between swimming and night clubbing. Take a close look at the scam artists who scream loudest about global warming, and see if they aren't the most prolific at those activities that are supposed to cause global warming. Remember Al Gore? Rat bastard got richer off his carbon credit scheme, and fixed nothing.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:48AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:48AM (#1189056)

                  Ironic, the really frustrating part is how it is clear we agree on lots of things but then magically Fox rhetoric comes pouring out just before we can make any progress. Then you get mad when your incongruities are pointed out. Anger is all you conservatives respond to, so that is all you get these days.

                  Just so you are aware, I've defended you at times when you've made sense and others attacked you. Little did I know they were more aware of your double personality, though I will still defend when you're talking sense. Also, I used to be much more reasonable thinking that facts and reason could penetrate the brain fog you're in. After literally years of being shat on by bullshit rightwing propaganda I finally came to realize there is no convincing you lot of anything and being reasonable just made you consider liberals as "pussies." So fuck you ignorant old bastard, you're ideals are dated cold war propaganda and your humanity is sorely lacking.

                  Here, I'll even be nice enough to address your stupid "gotcha" points.

                  "Maybe we should have another global conference, and fly about 20,000 people to some resort city, so they can talk about saving the planet in between swimming and night clubbing."

                  Good point, no disagreement here except I wouldn't have cared if they'd actually gotten the ball rolling. BTW you sound like Greta there ;)

                  "Take a close look at the scam artists who scream loudest about global warming, and see if they aren't the most prolific at those activities that are supposed to cause global warming."

                  Uh ok, I don't care enough to research every single climate activist but I agree there are more than enough grifters just looking for their 15 minutes.

                  "Remember Al Gore? Rat bastard got richer off his carbon credit scheme, and fixed nothing."

                  Wouldn't really surprise me, he did reach the 2nd highest office in the US which makes him suspect by default. However seems like he actually cares about the problem. Weird take from a conservative though, shouldn't you be applauding Gore getting rich while trying to do something good? Am I in opposite world?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @06:59AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22 2021, @06:59AM (#1189523)

                    I've defended you at times when you've made sense and others attacked you.

                    You defended what made sense from all the intellectual diarrhea he's committing, not him. You can't defend him from him and do it against his will.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:17PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:17PM (#1188950)

          Are you plastic?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:29PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:29PM (#1188958) Journal

      we've been experiencing global warming and climate change for the past ~20,000 years.

      One could correctly say we've had climate change since the beginning of the Earth.

      But that is to deflect and deliberately distort the meaning of what is commonly meant when people talk about Climate Change. What people mean is a specific thing that is happening now. To a much bigger degree than anything natural. And caused by human beings.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 4, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:08AM (8 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:08AM (#1189125) Journal

      That number alone should trigger some critical thinking.

      More than 99.9% of all scientists think the Earth is round. Does that mean the flat earthers have a point?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:43AM (7 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:43AM (#1189130) Journal

        Not exactly. I have verified to my own satisfaction that the earth is round, and many people have the ability to do so. Hop on an airplane, and fly around the world, returning to your origin point, and that should satisfy most people. You have to jump through mental hoops to convince yourself otherwise.

        Global warming and climate change being man-made isn't nearly so simple. Especially when global warming was an ongoing phenomenon long before the industrial age. You cannot say that man has contributed .0005%, or he has contributed 9.5% to global warming.

        Oh, it's easy to stand back, and say that mankind has released gazillions of joules of potential energy into the world as thermal and kinetic energy, and just as easy to say that mankind has released gazillions of tons of greenhouse emissions. That part is easy. Quantifying the effects isn't so easy.

        Meanwhile, environmentalists are backing off of plans to green the earth. We've removed endless tracts of forest heat sinks, why aren't we replacing them? Every nation on earth should be striving to plant trees in all areas where trees will grow. Instead, we see everyone searching for technological solutions.

        Start planting trees if you want to be taken more than half seriously. I'm far more willing to listen to ideas from people who are doing something demonstrably good for the environment.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:25AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:25AM (#1189141)

          > I have verified to my own satisfaction that the earth is round, and many people have the ability to do so.

          How very fucking generous of you. Thank you for yielding this point. We may now proceed to "Is water wet?".

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:50AM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:50AM (#1189145) Journal

            Generous, my ass. I've pointed out that some scientific facts are easily verified, without terribly sophisticated or expensive equipment. That is, any damn fool can prove the world is round.

            Conversely, climate change is complicated, expensive, and requires an extensive network of moderately expensive equipment - not to mention a lot of guesswork. I can't check it out as part of a hobby.

            Meanwhile, you can find instances of monitoring stations placed in bright sunshine, on concrete, beneath/beside the exhaust of an air conditioning unit, poisoning the data. How many such stations does it take to poison the whole database?

            "Holy Shit, professor! Downtown Atlanta stays over a hundred degrees, all night long, during THE WINTER!! During the summer, it reaches 180 degrees on sunshiny days!"

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:18PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:18PM (#1189259)

              And nobody but right-wing nutjobs are aware of this deep scienctifical factology. Conspiracy! The sheeple must be TOLD.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:45AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 22 2021, @04:45AM (#1189494) Journal
                Apparently nobody but those right-wing nutjobs are aware of the opportunity for fraud and other dishonesty from a scientific black box.

                The sheeple must be TOLD.

                Another poster trying hard to be sarcastic. But failing.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 21 2021, @01:19PM (2 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday October 21 2021, @01:19PM (#1189178) Journal

          Especially when global warming was an ongoing phenomenon long before the industrial age.

          Not nearly as fast as after industrialization. And you surely have seen the graphs countless times. You just chose to not believe them.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:16PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:16PM (#1189228) Journal

            Correlation ≠ causation until we start talking about a politically hot subject.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:20PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:20PM (#1189262)

              lol the old chestnut of denialism. You've gone off topic old man.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:13PM (3 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @02:13PM (#1189201) Journal

      That number alone should trigger some critical thinking.

      Why should it?

      What if 100% of studies claimed the sun rises in the East and not in the West?

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:13PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:13PM (#1189226) Journal

        "should trigger some critical thinking"

        Is there a circumstance in which critical thinking is inappropriate?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:43PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:43PM (#1189241) Journal

          Critical thinking is always appropriate. So why ask the original question other than to try to refute the 99.9% without actually saying anything of substance.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:25PM (#1189264)

        Sure but that's some serious delusion to maintain. Worldwide conspiracy, across disciplines by people who are going out doing the legwork... And all to fool a few RWNJs who still believe in trickle down theory and pizzagate? Hmmmm.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:18PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @07:18PM (#1188885)

    Who was the maniac who self immolated their career? Consensus is not how science even works, especially when everyone knows one result ends your funding and career. It becomes a circular argument. Climatologist is now defined as "the study of human caused changes to the environment" and anyone who dissents is declared to not be a climatologist. Then the obvious fact all "climatologists" now agree is touted as an important fact. It is easy to achieve "consensus" when you intentionally exclude any dissenting view. Rephrase it to 99.9% of people who believe man is causing harmful change to the environment, declare that man is causing harm to the environment. It makes as much sense. It is like polling members of ALF and reporting that they all agree killing fluffy animals is bad.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:52PM (4 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 20 2021, @08:52PM (#1188934)

      Who was the maniac who self immolated their career?

      What do you know of their career? Fossil fuel company consultants make a hell of a lot more bank than academics.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:28PM (#1189266)

        No no, they are the lone Ayn Randian heros winning against the odds against institutional communism. Those poor multi trillion dollar companies that totally not corrupt.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @04:47AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 22 2021, @04:47AM (#1189495) Journal

        What do you know of their career? Fossil fuel company consultants make a hell of a lot more bank than academics.

        But do they publish? I find it remarkable how elaborate these fantasies are.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 22 2021, @11:05AM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 22 2021, @11:05AM (#1189569)

          Yes, they do publish. Run down the "climate change is natural, not manmade, no cause for alarm" publications that were cited in political debates 10-20 years ago and tell me where the lead authors worked after publication.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @02:46PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 22 2021, @02:46PM (#1189611) Journal
            How about you do that since you're the one claiming that they exist?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20 2021, @09:15PM (#1188947)

      Ignoranus.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:31AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:31AM (#1189143)

      > Consensus is not how science even works

      Correct. Science works by PhD-managers slurping grant money and trying to find cheap untrained Chinese labor to deliver on their promises. Since everyone's onto the p-hacking nowadays, the new trick is to increase N and rent university equipment for MOAR money. Add in a statistician and a few research assistants, and bingo suddenly it feels like a SERIOZ study - it must be, look at the budget. It's the new paradigm - no ideas but large N and lots of AI - feel the quality.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:44PM (6 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday October 21 2021, @12:44PM (#1189165) Homepage
      > Consensus is not how science even works

      What else do you call the agreement that it attained by surviving peer review and being cited by others?

      I'd argue that consensus is the almost the only way that hard science works. For example, only when there is general agreement amongst those proficient in the field that experiments demonstrate a rule do scientist consider the rule sufficiently proved.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:10PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @03:10PM (#1189221)

        > What else do you call the agreement that it attained by surviving peer review and being cited by others?

        Popular opinion. Many things we now take for granted will be proven to be laughably wrong in the future, just as our current theories did to those before them. Science works through demonstration and experimentation, standards and accepted truth are social lubrication to ease collaboration.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:35PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @04:35PM (#1189269)

          Its funny how guys like this - who equate scientific method with popular opinion - are the same ones that employ propaganda and manipulate popular opinion.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:57PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @05:57PM (#1189303)

            Really? Show me where I equated the scientific METHOD with popular opinion, rather than scientific CONSENSUS with popular opinion. I made the words big so you don't mess up, kay? Next, prepare a report of my propaganda and attempts to manipulate popular opinion, and show examples.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21 2021, @08:32PM (#1189363)

              Go save Western civilzation somewhere else.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:38PM (1 child)

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday October 21 2021, @09:38PM (#1189411)

        I'd argue that consensus is the almost the only way that hard science works. For example, only when there is general agreement amongst those proficient in the field that experiments demonstrate a rule do scientist consider the rule sufficiently proved.

        Unfortunately, this generates few headlines. Controversy sells, so while people who work in a field and understand the science behind it may have consensus, it only takes a headline or two to convince the general public that there is doubt. Somehow things have degenerated to 1% getting equal press to 99% is "fair and balanced".

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 22 2021, @06:36PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 22 2021, @06:36PM (#1189694) Journal
          Like 1% expressing a negative opinion on climate change somehow becomes 99.9% expressing an opinion for climate change?
(1) 2