97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans, study finds

[Masark]

"We asked 2200 people and from that we can assume that everyone else thinks the same way"

Yes, we actually can, within a margin of error.

Try reading up on the concept of sampling.

[Aehl]

Yes, we actually can, within a margin of error

0.010 percent is a representative sample of nothing.

[Masark]

0.010 percent is a representative sample of nothing.

Would you then care to explain how those results are fairly consistently in agreement with actual whole-population polls like elections?

[Aehl]

I'll bet we could find quite a few people (those that haven't died yet) around Chernobyl and Fukushima, who were never of the "rabid Greenie" type, that don't like nuclear power. Fukushima has not been contained for over 5 years now and still, the Japanese are covering up and have no solution for containment. If they have another tsunami or quake, Japan could well be kaput. No more Japan.

You might talk to Germany, which has been in the process of shutting down its 17 reactors since Fukushima happened and is converting to green power. Some people learn from history. Others are too blinded by greed to know their asses from their elbows.

Fukishima

As of September 2012, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures cannot be ruled out, and according to one expert, might be in the order of 100 cases.[12] A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure.[65]

Chernobyl?

The operating crew was planning to test whether the turbines could produce sufficient energy to keep the coolant pumps running in the event of a loss of power until the emergency diesel generator was activated.To prevent any interruptions to the power of the reactor, the safety systems were deliberately switched off.

....and then you blame the reactor for human stupidity????

- - - Updated - - -

Would you then care to explain how those results are fairly consistently in agreement with actual whole-population polls like elections?

They arent. Thats the entire point.

The polls a few years back in oine election indicated that the sitting government would lose some seats. What they lost was ALL OF IT. In one night that state government went from maybe 20 or 30 sitting members to a party that could hold its next meeting in a phone booth.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...lls-inaccurate

New research into May’s general election sheds light on what went wrong with the opinion polls, which notoriously all failed to predict David Cameron’s outright win.

When that poll was published, the almost universal roar of laughter was accompanied by asking who they had polled, the local party branch?

2200 out of 24 million is a tenth of one percent.

[Masark]

They arent. Thats the entire point.

The polls a few years back in oine election indicated that the sitting government would lose some seats. What they lost was ALL OF IT. In one night that state government went from maybe 20 or 30 sitting members to a party that could hold its next meeting in a phone booth.

Hence the "fairly consistently". Sometimes they, like everyone else, fuck it up.

[Akka]

*looks outside and then at a a map*

Umn...no.

Damn, I hope it's not contagious then...

[Pterodactylus]

In addition to that, this science all but ignores a long list of natural mechanisms such as geo-thermal/volcanic activity, plate movements, solar cycle, milankovitch cycle, etc that have global effects on our oceans which in turn create atmospheric effects.

Ignores? Just because you are ignorant to the science around these subjects, doesn't mean we don't know a great deal about them and their consequences on climate. But for many of the things above (excluding volcanic activity), the rate of change is much slower than what we are doing with CO2 forcing.

Climate change happens regardless or human involvement.... Do people think the ice age didn't happen now or am I missing something?

Rate of change is what you need to tell yourself. Plus, it's not like scientist ignore the "natural" variations - but they are SO slow, they are essentially negligible when we are talking about AGCC.

When you have a renewable power source that can power a city of 5 million or more, call me.

Actually we DO have one..only the rabid Greenies dont like it

Nuclear power.

Turns out, the fuel for reactors is a finite resource - so don't call it renewable. Should we use nuke energy as a bridge? You bet. But don't try to call it renewable energy!

[Akka]

0.010 percent is a representative sample of nothing.

Statistics (among other things it seems) is not your forte, right ?

[Aehl]

Turns out, the fuel for reactors is a finite resource - so don't call it renewable. Should we use nuke energy as a bridge? You bet. But don't try to call it renewable energy!

Never heard of breeder reactors?

Reactors that make their own fuel?

FBRs have been built and operated in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the former USSR, India and Japan.[1] The experimental FBR SNR-300 was built in Germany but never operated and eventually shut down amid political controversy following the Chernobyl disaster. As of 2014 one such reactor was being used for power generation, with another scheduled for early 2015. Several reactors are planned, many for research related to the Generation IV reactor initiative.[61][62][6

- - - Updated - - -

Statistics (among other things it seems) is not your forte, right ?

When you choose a select group of people with a bias towards a specific political party, then claim that these people speak for "everyone"..they dont.

[Spl4sh3r]

I don't believe 97% thinks so. Did they ask 100% of the scientiest to answer that question?

[Chrysia]

I don't believe 97% thinks so. Did they ask 100% of the scientiest to answer that question?

You don't need to ask 100% of anyone to extrapolate an accurate or semi-accurate representation of the prevailing attitude. It's statistics 101.

[Pterodactylus]

Never heard of breeder reactors?

Reactors that make their own fuel?

Yes, and how do you think that process works out over time? Just infinite recycling of material? Or do we just get a bit more oomph, out of that finite resource? It's the latter if you are wondering.

I am all about nuclear as a way to transition to a new energy paradigm, but you deny reality if you call nuclear energy a "renewable" energy.
This is not some conspiracy, it's just physics.

[Akka]

When you choose a select group of people with a bias towards a specific political party, then claim that these people speak for "everyone"..they dont.

You're switching your argument from "they are only a tiny percentage !" (which is dumb) to "they are biased" (which would be a much better argument IF true, but wasn't the one you made).

Are you changing your point because you realize you've put your foot in your mouth, or are you simply missing the core difference between both arguments ?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe 97% thinks so. Did they ask 100% of the scientiest to answer that question?

Holy shit, yes it seems that...

Damn, I hope it's not contagious then...

- - - Updated - - -

Never heard of breeder reactors?

Reactors that make their own fuel?

Do you even know how they work ?


I'm tempted to start a "is 0,999... = 1 ?" thread here. I expect the results to be entertaining and depressing at the same time.

[Alakallanar]

I'm tempted to start a "is 0,999... = 1 ?" thread here. I expect the results to be entertaining and depressing at the same time.

There already is one of those. Please don't revive it.

[breadisfunny]

He trusts engineers until he doesn't.

no he trusts whoever tells him what he wants to hear.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a pile of steaming horseshit.

your not even trying anymore are you?

[Akka]

There already is one of those. Please don't revive it.

There is one of those in every forum.
And it's a marvelous tool for noticing people who are most susceptible to the Dunning–Kruger effect, which tends to be in full force in all science threads.

[Spectral]

Have you even practiced science at a high level? Given your posts on scientists I find it highly doubtful.

This depends what you think is a "high level". I have a Ph.D. in immunology and did four years as a postdoc.

Scientists don't tailor themselves to fit in with "in" groups in the way you suggest.

This is obvious nonsense. Humans tailor themselves to fit in with in groups. The only exceptions to this are sociopaths and most scientists are not sociopaths. They're people with the same normal, healthy impulses to engage in pro-social behavior, get along with colleagues, and advance in their careers.

That's just the usual republican dog-crap that liberuuals are purging (oh-noes!) the education system of anyone who is right-wing, phrased in a slightly different way, when frankly its just garbage. Have you ever heard of the phrase "managing scientists is like herding cats?". There is a reason that that phrase has sprung up. Scientists are VERY independent minded and do NOT sheep-follow as you suggest. They question what they know, what others say, and long standing beliefs, and that inevitably leads them to being aligned with the left.

Just look at the meaning of the word conservatism which is basically defined as a resistance to change. Now how likely do you think it is for a group of people who are extremely open minded, very questioning, and extremely willing to challenge what is long held to be true if the evidence does not support that belief, to be resistant to change? Frankly, this is also true of most of the education establishment, that they have these types of personality traits, which is why inevitably they are also very left leaning. The republican ideas that they purge out others with different views, or follow each other like sheep, is just more self-serving denial of reality because they don't like the truth, and so have to use their usual trick of denying reality to get out of the mental angst it would otherwise cause. God forbid that they adapt and change instead.

None of this seems like anything other than self-congratulatory pablum. You're claiming that academics have all sorts of virtues that aren't really in evidence. Seriously, read this back to yourself and see if you think it'd be compelling to someone that doesn't already hold a pretty similar political ideology. Do you suppose the, "well, we think what we do because we're virtuous and the other side is close minded and ignorant" view really has as much merit as you're framing it with here?

- - - Updated - - -

Their all getting paid by the same groups, you act like they are the ghostbuster scientists working out of a warehouse. These are fully entrenched liberal scientists getting paid to just be as liberal (and anti western civilization) as they wanna be. All for one, one for all, the ends justify means brother. Sorry sista soldier this isn't 1965 anymore.

Is there anyone in charge of letting scientists in on this conspiracy? I never got the memo.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a scientist myself by training, so its not idolizing but understanding the traits of those like me.

At least idolizing someone else wouldn't be quite so self-serving though.

[Thepersona]

0.010 percent is a representative sample of nothing.

god, you really don't know how samples work

[Endus]

god, you really don't know how samples work

You thought that people who will deny observed fact wouldn't also deny fundamental mathematics?

They aren't concerned with what's real, they just want a comforting lie.

[Spectral]

You thought that people who will deny observed fact wouldn't also deny fundamental mathematics?

They aren't concerned with what's real, they just want a comforting lie.

On the sample size thing, I think you might be giving them too much credit - they're not really denying anything, they just genuinely don't understand how samples work. In every fucking thread with a poll, some dipshit has to swing by and say, "did they ask everyone? WELL HOW DO THEY KNOW THEN???". These are not clever people.