Greta Thunberg vs. 500 Climate Scientists (bias, compare, state, claims)

[Corrie22]

Originally Posted by Chuckity

Do me a favor. Google this:

"97% climate debunked"

Let me know what happens.

CEI Files Formal Complaint Regarding NASA's Claim of 97% Climate Scientist Agreement on Global Warming

Information Quality Act Correction Request Regarding NASA’s Claim that 97 Percent
of Scientists Agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming

In support of its 97% statement, NASA cites five studies; two by John Cook, and others by
William Anderegg, Peter Doran, and Naomi Oreskes. But as shown below, none of these studies
adequately support the claim.
The oldest study cited by NASA is the study by history professor Naomi Oreskes. But as pointed
out below, due to criticism Oreskes had to issue a formal correction. The Doran and Anderegg
studies examined different aspects—a survey and public statements, respectively. However,
those authors acknowledge that these methods cannot determine the overall percentage of
scientist who agree. The Cook study was in many ways an attempt to redo the original Oreskes
study with a broader and more complete scope and without the problem that required formal
correction by Oreskes. Many of the scientists whose papers were evaluated by Cook claim their
research was inaccurately categorized, which raises basic questions about the study’s
reliability.

The paper then added the first three categories together (3,896 papers) and compared that to the
sum of the last three categories (78 papers) plus studies expressing uncertainty (40 papers). In
short, 4,014 papers (3896 + 78 + 40 = 4014), expressed or implied a position on AGW. Of these
3,896 or 97% supposedly affirmed the consensus view. But this was 97% of abstracts of papers
in which a position was taken. But this total did not include the 66.4% of all papers that did not take a position (4a).
In other words, at most, Cook et al. found that about one-third of peer reviewed papers containing the search terms “global warming” or “global climate change”
endorse the consensus viewpoint—a far cry from 97%.

Legates’s peer-reviewed independent study reevaluating the 64 articles that Cook said explicitly
endorsed AGW (that more than half of the warming was caused by humans) found that actually
only 41 made such claims

In other words, according to the Cook team’s own data, only 0.5% of the
papers reviewed support the NASA claim (64 of 11,944). The Cook researchers actually found
more papers skeptical of NASA’s statement than those supporting NASA’s claim.

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/...cent_Final.pdf

[L8Gr8Apost8]

And according to research in 2016, roughly 11 percent of the public understands that about 97 percent of the climate scientists agree on those two points – happening and substantially human-caused. True or False?




https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...onsensus-meme/

This article has links to all it's sources so you can examine it for yourself.

[RowingFiend]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

Year 2K had nothing to do with nature. Had to do with how we screwed up in computer code. It wisely called for some caution but the threat was mostly made up by those making money off it. We evaluated it for a Fortune 100 company and suggested little concern but that there were areas that could well be a nuisance.

Hey, just like the climate change hoax!

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by NorCalMan

Who should we believe?

You make yourself pretty hard to believe when you talk about "500 climate scientists". Breitbart doesn't even claim that, calling them "500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields". The link they provide actually shows only 14 signatories, 6 of whom are "professors", but not necessarily of anything to do with climate. Professor Ingemar Nordin, for example, "is professor emeritus at the Department of Culture and Communication (IKK) at Linköping University". The number of actual climate scientists involved in that statement could likely be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by newtovenice

Ask 100 people: What color is the sky? Report back.

What does trump have to do with what color people think the sky is?

if you asked 100 scientists, I sure hope < 3% would say it's blue.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by RowingFiend

Hey, just like the climate change hoax!

Nope. Could be at one unlikely outcome. Could be a terrible Armageddon at another unlikely outcome. Truth is some where in between. Worth fixing. Best not interfere if we can avoid it.

[censusdata]

An issue where I don't like the people on either side.

Any reasonable person should be concerned about environmental problems. That includes climate change along with a host of other problems that are easier to see with the human 75 year time scale. I was influence by my devout Republican grandmother to recycle and not waste food. It's good to instill the values of protecting the environment with better choices to the youth, it is not ok to fill them with so much fear they can barely function. Humans have come a tremendous way in maintaining affluence while reducing environmental impact. There is need for urgency to act, but not for hysteria.

The amount of anxiety Greta is filled with by the adults in her life reminds me of the young people I knew who were raised in ultra fundamentalist churches who by age 9 are waking up with nightmares that they are going to hell. It is child abuse. But attack Greta's parents, not her, a 16 year old.

[censusdata]

As to the science, there is no debate that since reliable records have been kept the earth on average is definitely getting warmer. The real debate is over the role of feedbacks (mainly water vapor) and how bad or negligible the warming will get. I am environmentally conscience but think there is too much obsession on long time scale warming whether than dealing with issues that people can see and comprehend in real time. You can reduce CO2 emissions a lot with saying "we're doing this to deal with climate change" which turns off some people.

For example, switching from coal to natural gas power plants not only reduces CO2 but also eliminates huge amounts of mercury and cancer causing coal ash dust from harming people. I think too often the primary discussion is on CO2 rather than all the other harmful things that are reduced as well.

[01Snake]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Don't forget 97% of the 'science' community support climate change

Got a source besides Greta?

crickets

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by brownbagg

that little girl is evil, she scares me

Seems that you are not the only climate skeptic she is scaring....Good for her!