The Cornell paper does not seek to prove climate change is due to human activity. It’s just an algorithm-based survey of published peer-reviewed research that attempts to measure the degree of consensus on the question. The methodology (they call it “C13”) seems OK to me for the intended purpose, but I’d be interested in why you seem to think it is flawed.
Repeating lies in an attempt to gain legitimacy isn’t a new tactic. Politicians here and around the world have been practicing the art for ages. It’s just that with ideology-driven “news” outlets and social media, they and their minions have a bigger megaphone. However, it seems as if you’re suggesting that a huge majority of scientists (whether 97% or 99.9% doesn’t matter) are repeating lies about the cause of climate change under the guise of research. If I’m misreading your point, I apologize, but if I’m not, please provide some evidence. Personally, I think it would be impossible to organize that many scientists - a jumble of notoriously independent characters - around any idea or cause.
How can anyone real know how many scientist agree or disagree. Its a made up number. It’s a ruse to suggest legitimacy. I’ve seen many respected meteorologist show historic records to dispute claims made by warming theorists. The problem comes down to who made what claims. All Gore made outrageous claims about water levels that are just untrue. He’s a hack.
I’m shocked that any scientist would jump on a band wagon as vague as the global warming debate. The topic is so scattered, what are the 97% attesting to, and how much do they believe. Is the belief that the earth is .2 degrees warmer, or that Antarctica will be gone in 20 years. Stop accusing people of being doubters when the doubters aren’t sure what you even believe. It makes believers look like ninnies. Is the climate reversible, and do 97% or the full 99.9% think it is, or do 7% think it isn’t. Many of the predictions never materialized, so did the 99.9% or just the 97% believe that ruse. Are people from central America really coming here to escape global warming. This is a circular argument about something that isn’t defined, and much of the money has been linked to frauds.
So why are US companies selling off mineral rights to a country that wants to crush us, why do we not invest in renewable resources instead of giving money to companies that take the grants and go bankrupt.
You made my point maybe better than I could. Cornell did a study for whatever reason and picked thru some 88,000 climate related papers and took out of that subset of 3,000 pro and con papers and researched them and found 4 that took a negative slant and then looked for pre-identified words. They went thru some process and came up with a number. That’s all great if someone wants to go thru the exercise. Then one of their science writers puts together a article writes an article with the headline (More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change.)
The first step of the process is maybe based on some logic/science. The second step takes some liberties with the facts. Then comes the politics. The Guardian that has an agenda to push takes it a step more and authors a piece with the headline (Case closed: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans.) their moto is Fearless, factual, global news. They site a well known prestigious university like Cornell and that make their headline seem factual.
The next step is NBC, CBS, ABC …. Repeat the factual news over and over until folks sitting in their local barber shop are telling each other 99.9% of the scientists agree that if we don’t go zero carbon by 2050 we are done.
My point in the post is I was quoted the old number of 97% and if you really want to sound convincing you need to step it up and use the more equally accurate number of 99.9%.
This is like the parlor game where you go around the room whispering a sentence to each other and see what comes out the other end.
Why don’t someone get all the climate scientists in a room together and hear what they have to say.
Like Einstein said I don’t need 100 people telling me I’m wrong I just need one to prove to me I’m wrong.
Something this big that will change the world so profoundly ether way it goes really deserves an actual 99.9% certainty of the outcome.
Did you actually read the Cornell paper?
It says: “We searched the Web of Science for English language articles added between the dates of 2012 and November 2020 with the keywords ‘climate change’, ‘global climate change’ and 'global warming’”. Are those biased search terms in your mind? They seem neutral to me.
Then it says: “Given the large number of papers found using our approach we randomly sub-sampled 3000 abstracts out of the 88125 total papers identified in our search.” Random sub-sampling 88K papers is not the same as “picking through” them. Not even close.
I do agree that media reports often show a profound lack of scientific understanding. And I also agree that some, especially those with stronger ideological slants, will intentionally twist results to fit their world view. Usually, however, when credible media outlets misinterpret research, it’s because the writer and the editor (if there is one) don’t have an adequate science background. In fact, researchers dread having their work mischaracterized in the press. They gain nothing and, in fact, can be professionally harmed.
Once again, the purpose of the Cornell study was to survey the scientific literature on climate change. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. It was not designed to identify the cause(s) of climate change, and it makes no such claim.
The idea that a bunch of unethical scientists got together and decided they wanted 99.9% instead of 97% is ludicrous … and a good way to end all of their careers. I see zero evidence of such behavior, but am more than open to seeing yours.
I also have no bone to pick with Cornell and their research. And yes I did read the study and may have incorrectly paraphrased some of the methodology of paring down the subsets.
My point is exactly what you said because the 97% number was equally misrepresenting the core belief of all the climate scientists in the world and when Mr. Obama was one of the first to use it.
This number 97% or now 99.9 no one cares if a bunch of technical papers run thru a word analyses program came back and said 97% of the words related positive to the fact of climate change being real. What they want to tell you and what they want you to believe is 97% of the climate scientists agree totally that not only that the climate is changing but that it is totally the result of man and the use of carbon fuels and then they stress the importance of immediate action and portray the results of inaction having dire consequences in the relative short term.
A version of this usage was related to me by @Doggy_Paddler who replied to me that thru a friend who is a forest ranger has known for decades the world is warming and it is caused by mans activity and proof of that is 98% of all scientists agree to that fact. Meaning to Doggy_Paddler that the science is settled. Mentioning this has been a hard true fact for decades in their brain.
I know it is hard to relate to something as maybe not 100% true when it has been part of your belief system for decades, but lets say for the point of argument we actually got together say 1000 climate scientists and isolated them in a way they felt they could answer questions freely without feeling the powers above would know or that their project funding wouldn’t be in danger by how they answered. Say we asked them questions like is climate change caused exclusively by manmade usage of fossil fuels? Or is the world going to slowly burn up in our grandchildren’s lifetime because of increasing CO2 producing human extinction? Or any other appropriate questions based on what people now think will happen. Say the results come back even 50/50 or 60/40 would we say the science is settled. Would we want a measured approach or continue wanting a all in approach putting all our eggs in one basket.
Maybe I’m the only person that sees something like this Cornell report being intentionally or unintentionally a starting point for fake news / misinformation. Sure if my neighbor reads a report and then extrapolates the end of the world out of it there is not much I can say. But my neighbor doesn’t make that leap in one step. He lets The Guardian start the process and then MSNBC changes it a little more then a bunch of politicians jump on it and then a forest ranger hears it he passes it around some and pretty soon my neighbor hears it. He tells it to me and I call BS because I tracked it back to some white paper as the origin. He tells me I’m crazy because he heard the same thing from a dozen other people and I need to stop watching Fox News because all they do is tell lies.
That’s the state of the world IMO.
Mmmm I’ve gone part way.
We keep our house less than 60 F, don’t burn fires, hang our clothes on the radiator
But our energy here is 40 cents KWh.
@bud16415 sounds like what I learned by studying research methods. The answer depends on how you ask the question. Do you believe the earth is warming?: yes. Do you believe it is the result of human interaction?: yes. Do you think the global elites are looking to solve the problem?: no (it’s a power grab). Is there a solution: yes, stop burning things.
People burned wood and then coal to power industry and drive transportation like trains and ships, and it was used to cook and heat homes. At one time, the mountains in this area were stripped of trees to make charcoal for processing iron ore.
The process took 10 to 14 days and a collier would manage between 8 to 10 charcoal pits. There were 200 colliers on the payroll. Between May and November, the air was thick with smoke from the slow burn fires that smouldered for days. That iron built this nation and supplied the world. It requires tunnel vision to drive over bridges and use building, then condemn the people who made it possible for our modern society and conveniences. There are many less developed countries, but isn’t it peculiar that the green crowd is intent on letting those places catch up to the developed nations, as if that is the standard, but the developed areas are BAD for embracing progress.
Fossil fuel replace much of the coal and wood as a cleaner alternative. It’s myopic to just see fossil fuel as bad, yet not understand that it’s better than what it replaced. Natural gas was simply burned off as a nuisance. Now its collected, and used as a cleaner alternative. Today, a select crowd only see it from their limited space in time as a dirty dirty thing that’s ending the world.
It’s easy for critics to take advantage of modern conveniences, then condemn the people who made it possible by improving technology. Ok, so let’s go back in time and make it all better. Spin the wayback machine and decide where to stop. I’m aware of only a few members of the forum who would stop anywhere along that time warp and say this is just fine. A few wouldn’t even be impacted significantly.
Well, between 97 and 99.9% want to fix it, yet when I asked how each individual is solving the problem, it’s not surprising that only two replies mentioned steps that he and she took to cut back to save the earth. I’m sure there are others, but it seems to me that 97 to 99.9% of the population on earth want someone else to fix it but are not intent on sacrificing, or they don’t think it important enough to sincerely demonstrate a commitment. I suspected as much, which is why I don’t take the crying seriously.
What a person says is less important than what the person does.
No, you’re not the only one. Not by a long shot.
Unfortunately, ideologues of all persuasions take good science and irresponsibly twist it to their purpose. They then attempt to convince the public that their misrepresentations are factual by repeating them over and over again, and social media makes that easy.
Unfortunately, many who don’t bother to look beyond the fakery assume it’s the original research that is flawed, or blame the research scientists for being nefarious conspirators. It’s not right, but it is common.
I mean, your neighbor is right. 
Is it Cornell or Fox who has to pay a near $800 million dollar judgement for “fake news”?
And the forest ranger isn’t passing along info like the telephone game. He’s like your doctor or any other professional, who, if they are competent, are reading studies (not just white papers) to keep abreast of their field.
Despite the inference here, there are plenty of people who don’t base their knowledge on memes and “many people are saying.”
Yeah, Fox News - bad, very bad. Rachel MadCow good. Very good. Still waiting for her apologies for perpetuating the Russian Hoax and more. Hillary still crying about her stolen election. So is that woman who lost in Georgia. And hanging chad Gore. Stop it please. It rings hollow when you compare. Unfortunstemy, you’re to obsessed to see the duplicity. Trump stole classified documents under the presidential retention act. Biden kept the classified info from the senate days and as VP despite no legal authority, NONE, because they’re “mine!” Kutchner is bad for making some deal with the Saudis, but Hunter has made millions and millions sellingbour fuel reserve to china, brokered a deal for selling a mineral rich resource that was held by a US company so China could monopolize battery production. Made 1.5 billion on a loan from China while a member of a US company involved with dual use technology (you do know what that is, eh!). Hunter made 1 milllion represented a Chinese executive from the 1.5 billion deal by representing him on espionage charges filed by the FBI. The guy lost the case, so don’t tell me poor Hunter didn’t know he aiding chinese intelligence, and dear “god-love-him” dad knew nothing about it. Actually, that’s very possible, pass the pudding, please. Did you hear it from your mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann, the image of trustworthiness personified, despite being fired from every job he had:
No. Mississippi, I don’t trust your judgement or your resources, but I do agree that the temperature on earth is rising, so stop being a shill for fake news and we might reach an agreement.
I don’t watch the TV box except for weather and college sports and this is the entirety of my social media participation, but believe whatever you want. I didn’t have cable for 15 years of my life; I didn’t even own at TV for 10. (Now, if they had a paddling channel, I’d be down for that.)
As well, if it makes you feel better to obfuscate the original point by bringing up strawmen, go ahead, I guess. Literally, the last I saw or read of Keith Olbermann was when he was doing sports on ESPN.
I see that judgement against Fox didn’t teach you anything, either.
Don’t use my personal friend as a straw man please. That’s not what happened. What happened was way before you probably even knew about global warming he was studying it and telling his friends what he’d learned. We’ve been reading about it now for decades since before any of this was ever turned into a dumb political ball.
Post deleted to avoid confusion.
Sorry, Mississippi, I was trying to respond to Bud, not you. We’re in agreement!
That was probably my mess up considering I’m back and forth outside hoping the clouds will part enough for me to glimpse the eclipse. All good!
I’m outside at the peak time and it’s nothing. I’ve seen a couple of people looking with no protection and one looking at his phone pointed up.
And a several car collision in pur busiest intersection.
I’m not concerned about what source you get your information. However, you parrot the same misinformation. That you don’t watch tv or simply follow sports is irrelevant as well.
No, I did not respect the judgement of a court fnding against Fox. I’m no shill for Fox and agree with others that its too liberal. You can believe what you want. You either have no clue about the topics I discussed, or worse still, you don’t care and dismiss the facts, or put your own bias on them. I spent 38 years handling sensitive classified material, building and certifying secure facities, 26 years either investigating incidents of mishandling classified information, adjudicating eligiblity, preparing legal briefs to deny access, assessing individuals regarding ties of loyalty to foreign interests. I have a certified track record of decisions that were upheld by courts. You apparently can’t see obvious issues, but then how could you - you won’t find the answers on the sport channel, and you won’t find it on Fox. A few of my colleagues were on Fox news programs as subject matter experts. One example was a polygraph expert discussing Ballsy-Ford. Laura Ingraham didn’t keep her mouth shut long enough to hear the expert opinion, but at least what the guest said was accurate. During the Kavaugh hearings, three star witnesses against him were proven to lie and they admitted the lie - nothing was done to prosecute those lies. If it had been me, i would have sued them for their “eye teeth.” Then you expect me to believe the charges against Fox. I followed the tragedy of prosecutorial abuse by this pack of hoodlums in New York and elsewhere. Listen to what Liberal legal scholars say about that travesty, but where would you hear of that misguided degradation of justice. After all, for leftist, the end justifies the means, as long as they stick it to Orange Man. Our political system is just one step from Putin. He just has his goons pit radioactive isotopes in their tea, or kills them in prison. This isn’t fabrication - what did Schumer say: if you get on the wrong side of CIA, they stick it to you seven ways to Sunday. That vile leach. Look it up, but what’s the point; you know better than me. I’m just an ignorant climate denier who can’t believe 99.9% of the astute scientists.
Based on your comments, I simply don’t trust your judgment, mainly because you don’t know what you don’t know. Half of the public still hasn’t accepted the fact that Hillary Clinton had her mule who had direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood steel classified computer data and place it on the internet. Is the public senseless!? She left the Benghazi consulate fend for itself, and in hearing she railed on, "What difference does it make, now . . . " What a self agrandizing statement. Lots of difference to her, I assure you. The FBI set up Trump with false affidavits, what was it, four times in FICA submissions, and the judge did nothing when exposed (because he was complicit). Comey blatantly violated Flynn’s 5th amendment rights and laughed about it, while the crowd got a big charge out of it. Tjen the prosecutor dropped the case and the judge pursued prosecution anyway (if you don’t understand the protocal, I’ll explain it off channel). I hope you missed it, because anyone who accepted that transgression of justice should personnal experience all of the same injustce.
No, he wasn’t. He was dismissive and illogical. He was dismissive by claiming @bud16415 's contrary viewpoint was simply regurgitation of “fake news” from Fox instead of considering that bud came to his conclusions through reading and considering multiple media and non-media sources, and not providing a thoughtful counterargument.
Additionally, he was illogical because while some sources may have bad reputations and have produced incorrect and untruthful information it doesn’t necessarily follow that all their information is incorrect and untruthful. Each claim must be evaluated separately.
Finally, I would add the neighbor is naive and/or extremely biased himself if he is implying that Fox is the only biased and flawed news media. Any and all news should be looked at with healthy skepticism and evaluated critically.
I agree that each article and news outlet should be judged with skepticism and double-checked against other reputable sources. However, the latest media that Bud posted was a Tucker Carlson video, who was fired, at least indirectly, as a result of said case against Fox. As well, his lawyer even argued in court that his program wasn’t news but entertainment. The judge from that case wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”
Look, at some point, if you can’t figure out who the con man is, you’re the mark.