SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For example, one on GM foods:
"Consuming foods with ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming foods modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
The primary conclusion is that for a number of claims that are generally held to be true by consensus, opposition to those results show interesting correlations: opposition correlates negatively with objective knowledge (what the final test indicated that the subject knew about the field), and positively with subjective knowledge (what the subject thought they knew about the field). Those who were most opposed tended to exhibit a large gap between what they knew and what they thought they knew.
Here's the list of subjects and then I'll get to the punch line:
- GM foods
- Vaccination
- Homeopathic medicine
- Nuclear power
- Climate change
- Big bang
- Evolution
Which one wasn't like the others?
Climate change!
The question was in the same vein as the rest:Most of the warming of Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century has been caused by human activities.
Unlike every other field listed in this research, there was a slight positive correlation between opposition to the claim and objective knowledge of the subject (see figure 2).
What other consensus viewpoints are out there where agreement with the consensus correlations with greater ignorance of the subject? Economics maybe?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24 2022, @11:43AM
There is no difference. You provided no evidence that the droughts during those dates were actually more severe, just a link. I provided you a link to a page that includes three peer-reviewed papers. You're just too lazy to actually click the three links on the page and read the papers. If we're applying your own standard, you've given me no evidence that those droughts were actually more severe, because I'd actually have to click a link to read the evidence. I dealt with you in good faith. If you can't be bothered to click an extra link, I can't be bothered to do your work for you.
Your only source for this is known to not be credible. Until you post evidence from a credible source, this should be treated as BS.
AMS and AGU have multiple journals that focus on climate. If this is a known issue, then surely you should be able to provide me a peer-reviewed source from one of their journals. Roy Spencer isn't credible. If he's your only source, then your claim can safely be treated as BS.