DrewTheDude wrote:Suture Self wrote:Oh hey, you linked me to a What's Up With That blogpost. Guess who the founder of of that blog is? Anthony Watts. Guess where he's gotten funding from? THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. What a surprise. Here's a link: https://www.heartland.org/anthony-watts
In that article Lawrence Solomon is quoted. Guess who Lawrence Solomon is funded by? I'll give you a guess: https://www.heartland.org/lawrence-solomon. Guess how many peer-reviewed articles he's published? None.
This is reaching comic levels.
Again, here's some real information:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
One of the many examples:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 7BEBED4.c1
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
I think the problem you're not addressing here is HOW this data was covered. You're ignoring his argument in that the questions were skewed to make it seem like more people supported the notion than they actually do. What you did is just cite sources basically reciting the same data again without any information on how this data was made.
In my job, as a journalist, no one considers scientists to be{usually} an unreliable or biased source regardless of their institute. I can also say, without a doubt, I nor my publication is corrupt and we function outside of the governments jurisdiction. Can you actually provide links that the Heartland institute is being paid off and is biased? Or am I going to be left here believing you're talking out of your ass?
Regardless of all of this, what's your point? Science has never been decided by consensus. If that was the case, we'd never go past the geocentric model or beyond the{nowadays} absurd things people like Aristotle and Plato said.
- Shogun was attacking a strawman of his own creation that I had nothing to do with. I never once referenced the Doran paper, and I don't give a shit about any of the polling stuff he's talking about, because it's completely inconsequential.
- How this data is covered is explained thoroughly in the links I've provided. All the information you could possibly want to know is there. It's actually quite simple. Read the abstracts. To keep it short: The climate scientists that matter are the ones publishing positions on climate science in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. +97% of these scientists believe climate change is real, it's caused by humans, and it's negatively affecting the biosphere. These are the people that matter because these are the people with legitimate authority on the subject. Along with the links I provided, just do some basic investigating yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_o ... ate_change
- I'm sorry to hear you trust any "scientist" you come across. That's bad journalism. Keep in mind, a lot of climate deniers involved aren't even scientists. And if they are, they are often people who have degrees that have nothing to do with climatology/climate science. For example, the Goldberg guy Shogun kept referencing has a PhD in welding. When it comes to reputable science, context matters. You have to ask questions about the information you've received. Questions like: Where has it been published? Has it been peer-reviewed? Where does the money come from? Is he/she faculty of a research facility or does he/she work for an institute or a corporation? There are a variety of factors. If you’re a scientist working for a corporation, often you can’t disclose certain data. If you're someone working for an institute, often you're being paid to stick to a certain narrative. I've discussed this in multiple posts already, so I'd recommend rereading some of what I've already written. Concerning the Heartland Institute, check the list of links in this post here: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5170&start=10#p49869. The Heartland Institute is a sham organization, through and through. This isn't a matter of debate. In fact, I'd argue what they do is criminal. Here's a quote that accurately summarizes what they do:
"These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected: That there is a campaign afoot by groups directly funded by the fossil fuel industry and right-wing foundations such as Koch Industries to mislead the public about climate change," Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann
- The changes you're talking about (changes like: geocentric > heliocentric, newtonian physics > relativity, etc) are scientific revolutions, which don't happen often and completely change the paradigm of a scientific endeavor. Science is absolutely decided on consensus within a given paradigm, and this is usually called "normal science", which occupies the vast bulk of the work most scientists do.