The Worlds Largest Industry

[mdthornb]

No, you guys have characterized yourselves as to NOT understand how science works. That's different than me believing that I have some enhanced understanding of the scientific method. I just understand it. I assumed you guys didn't because you continue to believe in and push consensus.

So, if there is a topic you aren't an expert in (physics, biology, history, linguistics, economics, film, or anything) that you want to make a judgement about you have several methods in which you can inform your judgement:

1. Survey all or a majority of the experts in the field to determine what they are saying
2. Spend years of study and practice to become an expert yourself
3. Pick a small minority of experts or non experts at random or by some other criteria

You have chosen option 3. Why do you think option 3 will lead you to the truth more reliably than options 1 or 2?

 

[Joetboiler]

You have characterized yourself as having more understanding of science and the scientific method than the rest of us and I just want to understand how your omnipotent position was established.

I am old enough to remember when the “consensus” was that Covid originated in a wet market, I was told this because a bunch of scientists who were financially and probably criminally connected wrote a letter and anybody who challenged were deplatformed and ostracized.

Logically it’s obvious that a bat born virus most likely originated in a nearby lab which well studied bat born viruses possibly was the source. But when I said this on this board I was “anti-science.” You probably would have agreed with that.

 

[Droid12345]

Also, there isn't a consensus. It's literally about a 50/50 split.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/95/7/full-i1520-0477-95-7-1029-t01.jpg

Oh hey, you brought back this chart that you don't understand! And you conveniently left out any information about who this study surveyed and the conclusions of said study so it makes your argument look stronger. Good on you!

 

[tjreese]

Way ahead of you.

I've tried finding things from years ago that were on the net previously and it is more difficult since they get buried. Popular hits rise to the top and substance in anything is many times not popular. It is sort of the nature of today perhaps a bit more than years ago. It is easy to see it at work with alexa and music. Have a song with a close title to something today and many times it is not pulled up with anything but the most current...since that may very well have more hits. The average person may not be as bright as desired, but he or she is more popular...just part of the normal curve...and THAT is without any censoring

 

[tjreese]

You say you understand how science works but the rest of us don't, which is quite a highhanded statement don't you think?

I don't know who does and who doesn't understand science. However, if someone doesn't understand the limitations of data, that person is at a high risk of being wrong.

When you read projections outside the data for those predictions based upon elements in a model (time as a single example?) and do not understand the risk of that understanding, but believe it without any qualifications...then yes an elementary understanding of regression science is missing. When someone suggests that such and such is going to happen in teh future (outside the data), there exist a risk that it could be very wrong.

When someone states that such and such happened 10,000 years ago there is a high risk that the date could be wrong. There exists no data in those examples...and even if there was data inside the project and two points were used...does that mean a third point would not show it curvilinear instead?

Educated guesses based upon reasonable hypothesis are the best that can be done...but there is risk and when that risk is known as are the risk in opposition with respect to spending a lot of money to conform to something that may not be true...or if true the magnitude not known ,is very risky...like the costs of shutting down things without the shot when the shot didn't stop transmission.

 

[Bill4411]

I am old enough to remember when the “consensus” was that Covid originated in a wet market, I was told this because a bunch of scientists who were financially and probably criminally connected wrote a letter and anybody who challenged were deplatformed and ostracized.

Logically it’s obvious that a bat born virus most likely originated in a nearby lab which well studied bat born viruses possibly was the source. But when I said this on this board I was “anti-science.” You probably would have agreed with that.

That was the theory when we were all scrambling to figure out how Covid originated. I don't think anyone has ever conclusively been able to determine Covid's origins, since China isn't about to let us find out. China doesn't seem to have been terribly well prepared for it either-as those forced shutdowns have had underwhelming results. Was China trying to prepare a biological weapon in a lab it sure wouldn't surprise me?

 

[Bill4411]

I don't know who does and who doesn't understand science. However, if someone doesn't understand the limitations of data, that person is at a high risk of being wrong.

When you read projections outside the data for those predictions based upon elements in a model (time as a single example?) and do not understand the risk of that understanding, but believe it without any qualifications...then yes an elementary understanding of regression science is missing. When someone suggests that such and such is going to happen in teh future (outside the data), there exist a risk that it could be very wrong.

When someone states that such and such happened 10,000 years ago there is a high risk that the date could be wrong. There exists no data in those examples...and even if there was data inside the project and two points were used...does that mean a third point would not show it curvilinear instead?

Educated guesses based upon reasonable hypothesis are the best that can be done...but there is risk and when that risk is known as are the risk in opposition with respect to spending a lot of money to conform to something that may not be true...or if true the magnitude not known ,is very risky...like the costs of shutting down things without the shot when the shot didn't stop transmission.

I agree the shot has proven to be less than what it was represented to be unfortunately; however, I think the Covid shot did and do save lives but clearly is not a cure as the Covid virus mutates way too easily; many viruses don't mutate so easily like Covid.

 

[Joetboiler]

That was the theory when we were all scrambling to figure out how Covid originated. I don't think anyone has ever conclusively been able to determine Covid's origins, since China isn't about to let us find out. China doesn't seem to have been terribly well prepared for it either-as those forced shutdowns have had underwhelming results. Was China trying to prepare a biological weapon in a lab it sure wouldn't surprise me?

Umm. You are going through mental gymnastics to tell yourself you were on the right side and you are displaying a lack of knowledge on now publicly available documents through congressional testimony and FOIAs. Certain people pushed the wet market for cover - not because they were scrambling. And if you are as open to the scientific method you would be disgusted by what happened to those "crayzies" who suggested the lab leak was far more logical. Remember, social media banned highly regarded individuals who even suggested this theory. A podcast I listened to interviewed somebody who suggested origins and it was suspended from YouTube (owned by Google) for disinformation.

If you can't see that science has been politicized not sure you can be helped because we just had a 2-year case study to prove this true. Read the Substack article written by a lifelong liberal and explain to me what happened to Dr. Robert Pielke (who is actually a global warming proponent). The top individual in his field when he said, "No, my research and data show that intense hurricanes are not more frequent and are not causing more damage." He was destroyed and smeared by progressives pushing their agenda. You should also ask yourself why everyone on your side starts conveniently at 1980? Instead of presenting the complete NOAA data?

 

[Bill4411]

Umm. You are going through mental gymnastics to tell yourself you were on the right side and you are displaying a lack of knowledge on now publicly available documents through congressional testimony and FOIAs. Certain people pushed the wet market for cover - not because they were scrambling. And if you are as open to the scientific method you would be disgusted by what happened to those "crayzies" who suggested the lab leak was far more logical. Remember, social media banned highly regarded individuals who even suggested this theory. A podcast I listened to interviewed somebody who suggested origins and it was suspended from YouTube (owned by Google) for disinformation.

If you can't see that science has been politicized not sure you can be helped because we just had a 2-year case study to prove this true. Read the Substack article written by a lifelong liberal and explain to me what happened to Dr. Robert Pielke (who is actually a global warming proponent). The top individual in his field when he said, "No, my research and data show that intense hurricanes are not more frequent and are not causing more damage." He was destroyed and smeared by progressives pushing their agenda. You should also ask yourself why everyone on your side starts conveniently at 1980? Instead of presenting the complete NOAA data?

I do agree that science is politicized, and your post is a pretty good example of it given that you certainly sound like someone who thinks he has all the answers as to whether global warming has anything to do with fossil fuels or how Covid-19 came into existence. Global warming has occurred whether you refuse to admit it or not what it's causes are but I think it is a lot more than just the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So, if there is a topic you aren't an expert in (physics, biology, history, linguistics, economics, film, or anything) that you want to make a judgement about you have several methods in which you can inform your judgement:

1. Survey all or a majority of the experts in the field to determine what they are saying
2. Spend years of study and practice to become an expert yourself
3. Pick a small minority of experts or non experts at random or by some other criteria

You have chosen option 3. Why do you think option 3 will lead you to the truth more reliably than options 1 or 2?

No, actually the first 2 are all that has been done. There was a large survey and that survey shows that there is no consensus.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/95/7/full-i1520-0477-95-7-1029-t01.jpg

I HAVE spent years looking into this subject and I am 100% confident in what I've found. C02 does not cause global warming.

I don't know why you think I'm just picking people at random. Random being the key word here. I guess any scientist that doesn't agree with YOU is random.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Oh hey, you brought back this chart that you don't understand! And you conveniently left out any information about who this study surveyed and the conclusions of said study so it makes your argument look stronger. Good on you!

Please show me what I don't understand about this chart. I'm dying to know!

I haven't left out any information. This is all the information the chart provides.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I do agree that science is politicized, and your post is a pretty good example of it given that you certainly sound like someone who thinks he has all the answers as to whether global warming has anything to do with fossil fuels or how Covid-19 came into existence. Global warming has occurred whether you refuse to admit it or not what it's causes are but I think it is a lot more than just the fossil fuel industry.

Yes! Nobody is denying that any warming has happened. What we are saying is that the warming is 99% natural. C02 cannot have the warming effect that the alarmists claim. Otherwise we'd see this pattern over and over in history (which we do not, and often times the trend is quite the opposite). Then there was the recent 15 year period where warming pretty much stopped (which even James Hanson admitted to). That period goes against the C02 warming theory. Then they are/were wrong about storms, wrong about ocean acidification, wrong about coral bleaching, wrong about Mann's Hockey Stick, etc. Why are they wrong so much if they aren't intentionally trying to be deceitful?

Don't forget that there were alarmist scientists that were sending out emails saying they had to get rid of the Medieval Warm period. Why? Because it blows up the C02 warming theory. Why so much deceit?

 

[Crayfish57]

You are completely out of your depth. Have a good one.

You are out of your depth in a dried out mud puddle.

 

[indy35]

I do agree that science is politicized, and your post is a pretty good example of it given that you certainly sound like someone who thinks he has all the answers as to whether global warming has anything to do with fossil fuels or how Covid-19 came into existence. Global warming has occurred whether you refuse to admit it or not what it's causes are but I think it is a lot more than just the fossil fuel industry.

Just so you know who you're about to get into an argument with. Here's Boilermaker03 believing that the voter fraud evidence is on a server in Stockholm. He saw a video from a Swedish youtuber, and that was all he needed. He’s a very serious person.

In regards to this. A Swedish YouTuber made a video and this was written in his description.

"US special forces landed in Stockholm Bromma for some sort of drill on the 12th of November. A Swedish officer disappeared the same day. Huge burglary where lots of computer equipment was stolen from the head government building in Stockholm Raids in Frankfurt at the same time, where Sidney Powell says the Dominion server was taken by good or bad guys. The Swedish government also has servers in Frankfurt. The scale of the election fraud in USA is starting to become clear."

I don't know if he's talking about it because he has first hand knowledge or where he received his info.

We should all be able to agree that our elections need structural changes

Hopefully someday the trumpers will realize their leader is just what he's always been...a con man, and they are his marks

purdue.forums.rivals.com

 

[Crayfish57]

Just so you know who you're about to get into an argument with. Here's Boilermaker03 believing that the voter fraud evidence is on a server in Stockholm. He saw a video from a Swedish youtuber, and that was all he needed. he's a very serious person.

We should all be able to agree that our elections need structural changes

Hopefully someday the trumpers will realize their leader is just what he's always been...a con man, and they are his marks

purdue.forums.rivals.com

Speaking of Cons, how is the rogaine working these days?

 

[tjreese]

I agree the shot has proven to be less than what it was represented to be unfortunately; however, I think the Covid shot did and do save lives but clearly is not a cure as the Covid virus mutates way too easily; many viruses don't mutate so easily like Covid.

I got two shots...no boosters. Partially due to my age and the main reason was going to Italy. I think it did save some lives. However, there are people especially males in a certain age window that seem to be having a lot of heart issues as well as morticians noticing very odd shaped blood clots and so it wasn't a win-win for everyone. When the polio vaccine came out they stopped it after a year since it too had adverse effects. Later there were very few issues and was very effective.

The bigger point was that the economy was shut down, people couldn't visit loved ones dying or get surgery when needed, restrictions were placed on some and not others. People lost jobs and business closed along with adjusted voting rules and yet there was no evidence the shot stopped transmission. People attacked others for not getting a shot...and yet none of this needed to happen and so yes, some lives were saved...but many more lives were severely affected by something that didn't need to happen.

Phizer never tested to see if it would stop transmission is what they say...or perhaps they knew, but didn't care. Point is things were used to control people that should never have happened since the government didn't have the relevant knowledge needed to affect so many needlessly, but there were some people that benefited financially. Look at all the people that have grown their wealth way past their salary while in office...as well as some with ties to those in the government or just the wealth in the last couple of years due to the Chinese virus that was leaked...and then not restrained within China, but spread throughout the world.

 

[mdthornb]

No, actually the first 2 are all that has been done. There was a large survey and that survey shows that there is no consensus.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/95/7/full-i1520-0477-95-7-1029-t01.jpg

I HAVE spent years looking into this subject and I am 100% confident in what I've found. C02 does not cause global warming.

I don't know why you think I'm just picking people at random. Random being the key word here. I guess any scientist that doesn't agree with YOU is random.

I don't believe you pick at random, I believe you have criteria for picking and that criteria is whether it agrees with your preconceived opinion on the matter.

Also, about your link: This is directly from the Discussion section in the paper that has the chart you posted:

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010)."

You can put that with the numerous other surveys of the literature and surveys of the direct responses of climate scientists that show a consensus on the issue.

 

[Bill4411]

I got two shots...no boosters. Partially due to my age and the main reason was going to Italy. I think it did save some lives. However, there are people especially males in a certain age window that seem to be having a lot of heart issues as well as morticians noticing very odd shaped blood clots and so it wasn't a win-win for everyone. When the polio vaccine came out they stopped it after a year since it too had adverse effects. Later there were very few issues and was very effective.

The bigger point was that the economy was shut down, people couldn't visit loved ones dying or get surgery when needed, restrictions were placed on some and not others. People lost jobs and business closed along with adjusted voting rules and yet there was no evidence the shot stopped transmission. People attacked others for not getting a shot...and yet none of this needed to happen and so yes, some lives were saved...but many more lives were severely affected by something that didn't need to happen.

Phizer never tested to see if it would stop transmission is what they say...or perhaps they knew, but didn't care. Point is things were used to control people that should never have happened since the government didn't have the relevant knowledge needed to affect so many needlessly, but there were some people that benefited financially. Look at all the people that have grown their wealth way past their salary while in office...as well as some with ties to those in the government or just the wealth in the last couple of years due to the Chinese virus that was leaked...and then not restrained within China, but spread throughout the world.

The government was under a lot of pressure to come up with a solution and rushed the vaccines, but they didn't turn out to be quite as good as "operation warp speed" was making us think they would. In hindsight shutting down the economy seems like a big mistake as Covid was not quite the killer that was predicted but many people were scared and there seemed to only be bad choices and they chose to shut down and a lot people died. I don't blame either administration as they really had no good choices only a lot of bad options.

I don't think there was any grand strategy to take our money either by the pharmacy companies for the vaccine's developments. We were practically shoveling money to them to come up with something ASAP no matter what the costs. My concern will be if we ever have anything like Covid again how poorly the public reacted. My family used to talk about rationing during WWII and how that was tough to get cooperation for those programs. It's pretty obvious that they better have a different strategy the next time as Americans are very impatient people.

 

[Droid12345]

Please show me what I don't understand about this chart. I'm dying to know!

I already explained that in April 2021.

I haven't left out any information. This is all the information the chart provides.

You've left out the explanation of the chart that indicates what the columns actually mean and the conclusions of the study itself in which the study authors clearly state that they DO find consensus and that consensus grows the greater the expertise of the individual. How you can reference a study that says...

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming."

...and then pretend to say that study claims it's only 50/50 is beyond me. The chart takes into account people who AREN'T experts, too, to arrive at a number of 62% (adding the first two rows) who say humans have contributed to climate change. Not 50-ish%. Look at the ones who are identified as experts and the consensus is even greater. THAT'S what you left out.

 

[mdthornb]

I already explained that in April 2021.

You've left out everything explanation of the chart that indicates what the columns actually mean and the conclusions of the study itself in which the study authors clearly state that they DO find consensus and that consensus grows the greater the expertise of the individual. How you can reference a study that says...

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming."

...and then pretend to say that study claims it's only 50/50 is beyond me. The chart takes into account people who AREN'T experts, too, to arrive at a number of 62% (adding the first two rows) who say humans have contributed to climate change. Not 50-ish%. Look at the ones who are identified as experts and the consensus is even greater. THAT'S what you left out.

And then he includes the “yes - not enough info” in the no category as well even though they said yes

 

[Droid12345]

And then he includes the “yes - not enough info” in the no category as well even though they said yes

I mean, to get to around 50/50, you actually have to count some of the yes votes as no, the 10 percent who said it's part human activity and part natural. But, even then, the percentage of yes votes is only that low in the whole sample because the ones who were surveyed who AREN'T experts drag down the average. The opinions of non-experts is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not there is a consensus among experts.

 

[mdthornb]

I mean, to get to around 50/50, you actually have to count some of the yes votes as no, the 10 percent who said it's part human activity and part natural. But, even then, the percentage of yes votes is only that low in the whole sample because the ones who were surveyed who AREN'T experts drag down the average. The opinions of non-experts is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not there is a consensus among experts.

I agree. The non expert opinion should really be excluded from the main table. Maybe include it as a supplementary table just to acknowledge it was received.

Anyway, it is absurd we have regressed to the point of arguing what the expert consensus is on this issue. That should not be controversial at all. It makes me like long for the days of “climate scientists are all shills of Big Green Energy” and “global warming violates the second law of thermodynamics “

 

[Droid12345]

I agree. The non expert opinion should really be excluded from the main table. Maybe include it as a supplementary table just to acknowledge it was received.

Anyway, it is absurd we have regressed to the point of arguing what the expert consensus is on this issue. That should not be controversial at all. It makes me like long for the days of “climate scientists are all shills of Big Green Energy” and “global warming violates the second law of thermodynamics “

Well, given the point of the study was to determine if there was a correlation between expertise (among other things) and opinion on the subject, I think the chart is fine, because it highlights the differences in opinion between experts and non-experts well. If it were simply a survey to determine IF there was consensus, then, yes, I'd agree with you.

 

[threeeputtt]

I already explained that in April 2021.

You've left out the explanation of the chart that indicates what the columns actually mean and the conclusions of the study itself in which the study authors clearly state that they DO find consensus and that consensus grows the greater the expertise of the individual. How you can reference a study that says...

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming."

...and then pretend to say that study claims it's only 50/50 is beyond me. The chart takes into account people who AREN'T experts, too, to arrive at a number of 62% (adding the first two rows) who say humans have contributed to climate change. Not 50-ish%. Look at the ones who are identified as experts and the consensus is even greater. THAT'S what you left out.

26.3% response. Lot's of other problems in the opening paragraph. Yes, I read it and it is not conclusive. I hope you read the problems with the 97% in the Cook study. Problem abound. The climate has warmed. The question still is; WHY?

 

[Droid12345]

26.3% response. Lot's of other problems in the opening paragraph. Yes, I read it and it is not conclusive.

I agree that having a 26.3% response rate allows for the possibility that there is NOT consensus among those who didn't respond, if, indeed the respondents are not a representative sample of the whole. However, that's not the same thing as evidence there isn't consensus. Do you have anything to suggest that 26.3% would not be representative of the rest of the AMS members? Maybe it isn't, but that needs to be demonstrated. No survey-based study can ever be perfect, but boilermaker03 is posting this study that concludes "there is consensus among experts" and suggesting it says the exact opposite of that. To demonstrate that there is not consensus, we need actual data that support that claim.

Maybe there's not consensus, but my point here is that this particular study does not demonstrate a lack of consensus.

I hope you read the problems with the 97% in the Cook study. Problem abound.

This is not the Cook study, so whatever problems it may have had are not relevant to this one.

The climate has warmed. The question still is; WHY?

It might be a question for you, but it's not for the majority of the world's scientists as supported by the best available evidence. If you think the scientific process has been corrupted by politics, I suggest you or the OP find some funding from some right-wing anti-climate-change group and prove the current understanding of science to be incorrect. I have confidence that if you do so, you will change the position of the scientific community on this issue (because THAT'S what scientists actually do, they change their position in the face of new evidence). Your Nobel Prize awaits.

Anyway, I'm done here. Question the science all you want, just don't come with studies to support your opinion when those studies literally suggest the OPPOSITE of your opinion.

 

[tjreese]

The government was under a lot of pressure to come up with a solution and rushed the vaccines, but they didn't turn out to be quite as good as "operation warp speed" was making us think they would. In hindsight shutting down the economy seems like a big mistake as Covid was not quite the killer that was predicted but many people were scared and there seemed to only be bad choices and they chose to shut down and a lot people died. I don't blame either administration as they really had no good choices only a lot of bad options.

I don't think there was any grand strategy to take our money either by the pharmacy companies for the vaccine's developments. We were practically shoveling money to them to come up with something ASAP no matter what the costs. My concern will be if we ever have anything like Covid again how poorly the public reacted. My family used to talk about rationing during WWII and how that was tough to get cooperation for those programs. It's pretty obvious that they better have a different strategy the next time as Americans are very impatient people.

I understand the rush. My point is that if you are going to inflict rules based on whether a person had teh shot or not, don't you think it would be good to ask if the shot stops transmission? Had that question been asked, things would have been different and so much less damage would occur. Doing all the things that happened and not asking if the shot stops transmission seems pretty basic if you are going to create such a disaster which obviously was going to take place. I get the rapid response for the shot...I get some errors and the decisions that should be left to each...but implementing something so damaging in the dark didn't need to happen.

This scenario is precisely what must be avoided in the future and devastating climate change is not settled science at this time and it too has people that will get rich off the taxpayer's dime. See, when I was at Purdue it was all about global cooling and a half a century later and nothing... Stay tuned it, study more and watch, but don't revamp the economy overnight...

 

[SIBoiler2]

I understand the rush. My point is that if you are going to inflict rules based on whether a person had teh shot or not, don't you think it would be good to ask if the shot stops transmission? Had that question been asked, things would have been different and so much less damage would occur. Doing all the things that happened and not asking if the shot stops transmission seems pretty basic if you are going to create such a disaster which obviously was going to take place. I get the rapid response for the shot...I get some errors and the decisions that should be left to each...but implementing something so damaging in the dark didn't need to happen.

This scenario is precisely what must be avoided in the future and devastating climate change is not settled science at this time and it too has people that will get rich off the taxpayer's dime. See, when I was at Purdue it was all about global cooling and a half a century later and nothing... Stay tuned it, study more and watch, but don't revamp the economy overnight...

The "shot" had some positive effect but was not a magic bullet yet the DOD is still digging in its heals and throwing out qualified military members over failure to get vaccinated. I understand the need for following of orders but when it becomes apparent what is being ordered is ineffective it would be wise to adjust said orders.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Just so you know who you're about to get into an argument with. Here's Boilermaker03 believing that the voter fraud evidence is on a server in Stockholm. He saw a video from a Swedish youtuber, and that was all he needed. He’s a very serious person.

We should all be able to agree that our elections need structural changes

Hopefully someday the trumpers will realize their leader is just what he's always been...a con man, and they are his marks

purdue.forums.rivals.com

Dude, you're lying about me again. You brought this up recently and I responded with the fact that I never said I believed that there was evidence there, right? So please, tell me where I said I believed it was there. Oh, wait, I didn't.

Jackass

 

[tjreese]

The "shot" had some positive effect but was not a magic bullet yet the DOD is still digging in its heals and throwing out qualified military members over failure to get vaccinated. I understand the need for following of orders but when it becomes apparent what is being ordered is ineffective it would be wise to adjust said orders.

DOD is woke as well! Just how many things make sense today if for the best in the country? There is a systematic destruction of the USA with too many instances to be random chance of stupidity...although the probability of that has grown recently. Everyone in this forum knows the shot did not stop transmission and so why are government employees being fired for not getting the shot...good question, but don't expect a logical answer...

Phizer admits the shot was not tested for transmission. Asking to understand if it stopped transmission before the shutdowns would have saved a LOT of destruction. It had to be known that there would be consequences to shutting down teh country and yet the elementary understanding to make that decision was not asked...at least that is the public understanding.

Where was Fauci on this? His wealth doubled during the pandemic. Things of similar nature need known before the government goes down another road insufficent in understanding relative to climate change.

 

[indy35]

Dude, you're lying about me again. You brought this up recently and I responded with the fact that I never said I believed that there was evidence there, right? So please, tell me where I said I believed it was there. Oh, wait, I didn't.

Jackass

Why post something so stupid if you didn't think it was true? Just another entry in the long line of things you found on Youtube and immediately believed. You don't understand how to vet information.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I don't believe you pick at random, I believe you have criteria for picking and that criteria is whether it agrees with your preconceived opinion on the matter.

Also, about your link: This is directly from the Discussion section in the paper that has the chart you posted:

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010)."

You can put that with the numerous other surveys of the literature and surveys of the direct responses of climate scientists that show a consensus on the issue.

No, I never cherry picked who to listen to. I've listened to all of the different sides. I believe in the scientists that actually bring good data (not manipulated) and the ones that, to this point, have been the most correct. What I absolutely don't do is listen to media reports on climate because they have been completely wrong to this point.

As far as the conclusion in that paper, they are doing some major spin to claim that the results are anywhere near 93% or the original claim of 97%. If you look at the chart, the top line and all the way to the right gives you the totals for those that believe it's mostly human caused (52%). The very next line down it says equally human and natural (10%). So even if you decide to combine the two, you're still only at 62% which is a whopping 35% off from the 97%. The criteria for the original 97% claim though was that it was mostly man made. So you cannot add that 10% to the 52%, which leaves you 45% off of the original claim.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I already explained that in April 2021.

You've left out the explanation of the chart that indicates what the columns actually mean and the conclusions of the study itself in which the study authors clearly state that they DO find consensus and that consensus grows the greater the expertise of the individual. How you can reference a study that says...

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming."

...and then pretend to say that study claims it's only 50/50 is beyond me. The chart takes into account people who AREN'T experts, too, to arrive at a number of 62% (adding the first two rows) who say humans have contributed to climate change. Not 50-ish%. Look at the ones who are identified as experts and the consensus is even greater. THAT'S what you left out.

Can you not read the chart? The findings are nowhere near that of 93%. Even if you take their spin on it and only talk about those that publish (because apparently those that don't publish aren't worthy of consideration for some reason?), you still only reach 56% ((790+231)/1821).

So please, show me from the chart how they are getting anywhere near 93%.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I mean, to get to around 50/50, you actually have to count some of the yes votes as no, the 10 percent who said it's part human activity and part natural. But, even then, the percentage of yes votes is only that low in the whole sample because the ones who were surveyed who AREN'T experts drag down the average. The opinions of non-experts is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not there is a consensus among experts.

I'm seriously starting to think you guys don't know how to read. Global Warming as it's asked in this survey does not conclude that it's man made. It simply is asking if the Earth is warming. Almost all scientists would agree with that. It's the man made attribution that is the contention.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I agree. The non expert opinion should really be excluded from the main table. Maybe include it as a supplementary table just to acknowledge it was received.

Anyway, it is absurd we have regressed to the point of arguing what the expert consensus is on this issue. That should not be controversial at all. It makes me like long for the days of “climate scientists are all shills of Big Green Energy” and “global warming violates the second law of thermodynamics “

What non expert opinion? They are all of the same field in the survey. Some just aren't publishers. How does that make them non experts?

 

[Boilermaker03]

I agree that having a 26.3% response rate allows for the possibility that there is NOT consensus among those who didn't respond, if, indeed the respondents are not a representative sample of the whole. However, that's not the same thing as evidence there isn't consensus. Do you have anything to suggest that 26.3% would not be representative of the rest of the AMS members? Maybe it isn't, but that needs to be demonstrated. No survey-based study can ever be perfect, but boilermaker03 is posting this study that concludes "there is consensus among experts" and suggesting it says the exact opposite of that. To demonstrate that there is not consensus, we need actual data that support that claim.

Maybe there's not consensus, but my point here is that this particular study does not demonstrate a lack of consensus.

This is not the Cook study, so whatever problems it may have had are not relevant to this one.

It might be a question for you, but it's not for the majority of the world's scientists as supported by the best available evidence. If you think the scientific process has been corrupted by politics, I suggest you or the OP find some funding from some right-wing anti-climate-change group and prove the current understanding of science to be incorrect. I have confidence that if you do so, you will change the position of the scientific community on this issue (because THAT'S what scientists actually do, they change their position in the face of new evidence). Your Nobel Prize awaits.

Anyway, I'm done here. Question the science all you want, just don't come with studies to support your opinion when those studies literally suggest the OPPOSITE of your opinion.

I still don't get how you guys are coming to the conclusion that this shows consensus when by the chart it CLEARLY doesn't.

Even if you totally remove the "non" experts (which I don't see how you can be in a field and not be an expert simply because you don't publish) the "consensus" is 64.5% (231+790 + 1021) then (231 x 0.73 = 169) and (790 x 0.62 = 490) then (490+169 = 659) thus (659/1021 = 0.6454456). That's still a whopping 28.5% off of the 93% claim.

Edit: BTW there was another study done by John Cook similar to this one back around 2012 I think that came to roughly a 42.7% agreement that global warming is man made.

 

[Droid12345]

Can you not read the chart? The findings are nowhere near that of 93%. Even if you take their spin on it and only talk about those that publish (because apparently those that don't publish aren't worthy of consideration for some reason?), you still only reach 56% ((790+231)/1821).

Yes, I can read the chart. You're ignoring that some of the people surveyed were not experts as defined within the study. We're not the ones saying they're not experts, the people who conducted the study are. That was the whole point of the study, to see if greater expertise correlated with opinions that humans affect climate change, so they necessarily had to classify people by level of expertise. Just because someone belongs to the AMS doesn't mean they are an expert in climate science.

"AMS members are scientists, researchers, students, educators, broadcasters, and professionals..."

AMS Membership

The AMS is a global community committed to advancing weather, water, and climate science and service.

www.ametsoc.org

So please, show me from the chart how they are getting anywhere near 93%.

No, read the study yourself.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Why post something so stupid if you didn't think it was true? Just another entry in the long line of things you found on Youtube and immediately believed. You don't understand how to vet information.

How many fukking times do I have to write that I post stuff for people to check out and decide for themselves. Just because I find something interesting, does not mean I just believe in it. You do understand you can be skeptical of something but sill find it interesting right?

This line right here "I don't know if he's talking about it because he has first hand knowledge or where he received his info." should have been enough indication that I was skeptical about it because I didn't know his source. I try not to put faith in something unless I know the source.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Yes, I can read the chart. You're ignoring that some of the people surveyed were not experts as defined within the study. We're not the ones saying they're not experts, the people who conducted the study are. That was the whole point of the study, to see if greater expertise correlated with opinions that humans affect climate change, so they necessarily had to classify people by level of expertise.

No, read the study yourself.

The study was conducted by alarmists. When they saw the results they made it out to be that some were not experts. Still doesn't give them the conclusion they wanted. Do the math.

Do you honestly think they are polling students for this? GTFOH. They have 12,000 members if you include students. They only tried to survey ~7100.

 

[mdthornb]

I still don't get how you guys are coming to the conclusion that this shows consensus when by the chart it CLEARLY doesn't.

Even if you totally remove the "non" experts (which I don't see how you can be in a field and not be an expert simply because you don't publish) the "consensus" is 64.5% (231+790 + 1021) then (231 x 0.73 = 169) and (790 x 0.62 = 490) then (490+169 = 659) thus (659/1021 = 0.6454456). That's still a whopping 28.5% off of the 93% claim.

Edit: BTW there was another study done by John Cook similar to this one back around 2012 I think that came to roughly a 42.7% agreement that global warming is man made.

Are you talking about the John Cook study that concludes that 97% of surveyed publications that express an opinion support human caused climate change?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Are you talking about the John Cook study that concludes that 97% of surveyed publications that express an opinion support human caused climate change?

No, there was another one he did after that.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bart-Strengers/publication/283697879_CLIMATE_SCIENCE_SURVEY_Questions_and_Responses/links/5643538808aef646e6c69ccf/CLIMATE-SCIENCE-SURVEY-Questions-and-Responses.pdf

However, the study he did that came to that 97% conclusion was so fraudulent. Those that tried to replicate what he did came to only 0.3%. Cook came to 97% by a LOT of cherry picking and manipulation of conclusions.