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: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 24 2022, @12:43PM
More severe than what? You haven't presented evidence that there is an unusual extreme weather event against which I need to provide such counterevidence. Thus, what I presented is sufficient (and ignores that it really is evidence such as that 1765-1768 drought). I guess I'll just have to shrug at your ignorance and move on.
Indeed. So what? You haven't provided any evidence that I'm missing out by being lazy! Keep in mind it's not my job to make your arguments for you.
Same here despite several mild signs of bad faith on your part such as that continued whining about laziness rather than just providing evidence for your claim of unprecedented extreme weather due to climate change.
My "only source" here was your source (the Gavin Schmidt et al paper that a good portion of your rebuttal link was based on) - that's where I got the evidence for understating carbon sinks. The half of predicted warming not yet happening is just using the IPCC's own models and data (I do the work here [soylentnews.org] and found an independent party who did the same math in this journal [soylentnews.org]).
Finally, on being lazy, I think that's a good strategy to use here. With the vast amount of research out there, it's way too easy to do a snow job. So often, when I've dug into research I find it's garbage - heavily biased tripe more suited to acquiring funding than to make serious decisions about humanity's future. And let's face it, there's massive, ridiculous propaganda out there (SN examples, here [soylentnews.org] (TL;DR oil company propaganda is magically vastly better than green propaganda) and here [soylentnews.org](TL; DR discussing that Cook paper, a peculiar thing that ridiculously exaggerated scientific consensus on climate change even though they didn't need to).