A great question about climate change and a great response

[Cthulhu 2020]

No no no, it's fine as long as 99.99999% agree on it. But if it's only 97%? Not good enough.

Thing is that 97% figure comes from a study done in 2011 the reviewed papers from as far back as the 90's to see which ones directly supported that human activity is warming the climate at a drastic rate. The other 3% did not refute climate change, but had inconclusive results, in other words what they studied could not conclude a full support of that theory.

But since 2010, the number of papers the directly support human driven climate change is above 99.9%.

Since this is such a heated debate, it gets a lot of funding ON BOTH SIDES (any time someone screams "follow the money, scientists are being paid to push climate change!" You can follow the money and find way more funding for anti-climate change). Thus there are literally hundreds of thousands of papers at this point that either directly study climate change itself, its effecta, what's causing it, etc. At this point it's more studied and conclusive/agreed upon than even gravity.

- - - Updated - - -

Great watch. Milo always is.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't believe that's what he's saying, however, it sounds similar to the famous Mark Twain quote:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
--Mark Twain

Basically: If a position is majority-held, it's the status quo. People accept the status quo simply because it's the status quo, without critiquing it. This results in the majority growing stronger based on appeal to popularity, not its merits.

Essentially, that's what the "97% consensus" is in climate change. How many of those scientists who make up the consensus support climate change because of the consensus?

Go and read their research papers. They don't agree because of majority pressure. That 97% figure comes from analyzing their papers themselves, so they did personally question it, test it, and got their answer.

This isn't just group think, this is literally hundreds of thousands of experiments that are designed to question the theory for over half a century.

[Kraenen]

I'm not sure why you think Milo knows anything on climate science or the research around it?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe that's what he's saying, however, it sounds similar to the famous Mark Twain quote:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
--Mark Twain

Basically: If a position is majority-held, it's the status quo. People accept the status quo simply because it's the status quo, without critiquing it. This results in the majority growing stronger based on appeal to popularity, not its merits.

Essentially, that's what the "97% consensus" is in climate change. How many of those scientists who make up the consensus support climate change because of the consensus?

They actually don't. They've done what you just said: pause, reflect, critique, be skeptical. That's academia in the natural sciences. The people outside of science tend to believe in the majority consensus, but those working within science are the ones trying to disprove the paradigms and gain evidence either in support or against the best theory. They don't just go "well, all the other people believe this so I will". I'm sure @Endus will chime in with a better statement than mine, though.

[Silver Forte]

As MysticSnow posted: Milo believes that anything 97% of experts agree on should be questioned because agreement is never that unanimous. I find that logic supremely flawed. When a majority agree on something, it's more likely to be true.

If Milo stayed true to this line of thinking, I wonder if he questions gravity or the existence of dinosaurs.

I live with people who think dinosaurs are a myth.

[s_bushido]

Why do people insist on taking Milo seriously?

He tells them what they want to hear. Same with any other popular figure.

[sarahtasher]

Here is something very painful to hear .

The argument ''learn for yourself'' is a fallacy. On most technical/scientifical subjects in 2017, there is a gulf between the qualified specialist and the common man. A YouTube video might teach you how to cook chili, it does not teach you cardiology.

Are you a climatologist or in an close field ? Yes ? You have a valuable opinion on global warming. No ? You are free to express your opinion, but the said opinion is worthless.

[Machismo]

It's not about consensus, it's about the data itself. One shouldn't wait for everyone else to agree to something before he or she agrees... that's just plain stupid. There are still people who don't believe the world is round, or think gravity doesn't exist.

You should question everything, until there is evidence to support it. That's what science is all about. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that the world is getting warmer. There's also evidence to show that humans are the driving cause, although not as much as the evidence that it is getting warmer (there's still a shit ton, though).

[sarahtasher]

People droning about about STEM diplomas are the only thing in value sure have a very peculiar attitude on actual science. I really wonder what kind of STEM diplomas believe that vaccines are an hoax, global warming an hoax and that evolution is a tool of Satan.

[Shadowferal]

Why do people insist on taking Milo seriously?

We have a winner!

We shouldn't be feeding the trolls at all.

[LilSaihah]

People droning about about STEM diplomas are the only thing in value sure have a very peculiar attitude on actual science. I really wonder what kind of STEM diplomas believe that vaccines are an hoax, global warming an hoax and that evolution is a tool of Satan.

Most STEM degrees don't touch on any of those.

[Draco-Onis]

It's not about consensus, it's about the data itself. One shouldn't wait for everyone else to agree to something before he or she agrees... that's just plain stupid. There are still people who don't believe the world is round, or think gravity doesn't exist.

You should question everything, until there is evidence to support it. That's what science is all about. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that the world is getting warmer. There's also evidence to show that humans are the driving cause, although not as much as the evidence that it is getting warmer (there's still a shit ton, though).

I think the United States is in an unique position most of the world has gotten past this level of stupid, besides even if you don't believe the science pollution and fossil fuels aren't good for human health. I simply don't understand what these people are fighting for no one goes hmm I wish the air was filled with smog today.

[Shadowferal]

Most STEM degrees don't touch on any of those.

I don't believe it's the STEM degree itself. It's the person and how s/he thinks that's being looked at. If you have such degrees how can one possibly view other sciences as a sham?

[Phookah]

People seriously need to accept that a movement to green energy is inevitable. Even absent Climate change it's still better for us as a species to get our energy from renewable sources. There is really no reason at this point to delay the transition any longer, we've waited long enough as it is.

Exactly. I've never understood the argument against going green or accepting climate change is a thing.

Like if climate change somehow turned out to not be real and we'd already implemented lots of renewable energy thinking it was... How is that a bad thing?
Where as the alternative is we do nothing and it fucks our whole world up for billions of people.

So we "waste" (not that I think renewable energy is a waste, but some people sure as hell do) a bunch of money going to renewable sources, OR we all begin the descent of humanity.

Tough call. /s

[Bodakane]

What else can we expect from a person that thinks having sex with a member fof another race means you're not racist?

[s_bushido]

I simply don't understand what these people are fighting for

Climate change has been sold as a liberal idea, so that means conservatives must oppose it.

[Pterodactylus]

I mean, if you are a low-info, too lazy to learn kind of person, go ahead and deny climate change. If little videos of professional trolls helps in your quest for ignorance - congrats!

[Blur4stuff]

wouldn't this mean that if at least 97% of Trump supporters support Trump that they are wrong?

[Kraenen]

What else can we expect from a person that thinks having sex with a member fof another race means you're not racist?

Yeah I mean that just means they're even more racist!

[Darkeon]

What else can we expect from a person that thinks having sex with a member fof another race means you're not racist?

I agree. Sexual preferences are usually heavily tied with hatred!

[Bodakane]

Yeah I mean that just means they're even more racist!

I agree. Sexual preferences are usually heavily tied with hatred!

Sigh.

You know that slave owners used to have sex with their slaves, right?

Maybe if you gusy understood what racism actually was you wouldn't be screaming it doesn;t exist and supporting douche canoes like milo or Trump or Bannon or Putin, etc.

[sarahtasher]

As said in other threads, when a 19th century dude, fireeaters or proponent of colonialism, droned on and on about racial purity and one the natives were animals inferior to the white man, you can be sure he was fathering children with the ''maids''.