svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Ran across the Wikipedia page on climate deniers (didn't see a corresponding page for the other side). It's the same length as the Climate Change page. They have a lot to say about how deluded deniers are and surprising little detail on the science page. Interestingly, they said:
That's pretty different than the 67%. How do you get 100% of people to agree to anything, even if it was all in hindsight I can't get 100% of people to agree to anything. So I looked at where the reference and it's:
So what about the report of 67%, where did it come from? That was from fair.org, unfortunately, the link takes you to the main page I haven't found search criteria that identify the article to get to there so don't have anything on it.
Wikipedia has two pages, one a survey of scientists and the other scientific concensus that both say the same thing: all participating climate scientists now agree 100% - both are really about published papers. Saw it twice... so it must be real!
That it's 100% speaks to me of a tragedy where any dissenter was ostracised as a denier and probably can't even get published regardless of the accuracy of their science; possibly like Pons and Fleischmann they may have lost their jobs. I love how the scientific community works. Dr. Becker, had a lot to say about that in his book, The Body Electric....but it's too frightening to go into.
So, the argument is over and if you don't believe the extensive body of evidence (which is amazingly hard for a non-climatoligist like myself to find) then you're a denier and idiot. Way to make friends & influence people. Excuse me for thinking for myself and not believing every talking head. At least I can console myself that my cheapskatedness with solar and energy efficiency means I'm probably doing more for the environment than most believers are.
But just because one group is silencing another doesn't mean their science is bad or evil. In fact, it's often good to suppress dissenting views in the scientific community so political entities get a clear message (doesn't seem to work though). However, all the side-band noise is making it hard for me at least to understand the science for myself.
So, that's the afternoon rant... a lot of searching, nothing particularly new.
A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]
That's pretty different than the 67%. How do you get 100% of people to agree to anything, even if it was all in hindsight I can't get 100% of people to agree to anything. So I looked at where the reference and it's:
based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.
So what about the report of 67%, where did it come from? That was from fair.org, unfortunately, the link takes you to the main page I haven't found search criteria that identify the article to get to there so don't have anything on it.
Wikipedia has two pages, one a survey of scientists and the other scientific concensus that both say the same thing: all participating climate scientists now agree 100% - both are really about published papers. Saw it twice... so it must be real!
That it's 100% speaks to me of a tragedy where any dissenter was ostracised as a denier and probably can't even get published regardless of the accuracy of their science; possibly like Pons and Fleischmann they may have lost their jobs. I love how the scientific community works. Dr. Becker, had a lot to say about that in his book, The Body Electric....but it's too frightening to go into.
So, the argument is over and if you don't believe the extensive body of evidence (which is amazingly hard for a non-climatoligist like myself to find) then you're a denier and idiot. Way to make friends & influence people. Excuse me for thinking for myself and not believing every talking head. At least I can console myself that my cheapskatedness with solar and energy efficiency means I'm probably doing more for the environment than most believers are.
But just because one group is silencing another doesn't mean their science is bad or evil. In fact, it's often good to suppress dissenting views in the scientific community so political entities get a clear message (doesn't seem to work though). However, all the side-band noise is making it hard for me at least to understand the science for myself.
So, that's the afternoon rant... a lot of searching, nothing particularly new.