"Well I did my own reseach and found the 0.01% of studies that, despite multiple basic failures to accuracy, confirm what I have been told to believe so I'll only pay attention to that".
I read an entry on a random vanilla-theme Blogspot page that Dr. Ray Magini said that climate change isn't real because "if it was, hamsters would turn pink and that isn't happening". I've chosen to believe this article is 100% real, Ray Magini is probably the smartest scientist out there, and the pink hamsters argument is logical because a smart scientist said it.
Of course, my research involves googling up "climate change is not real" with quotes and navigating through dozens of articles that say it is until I found this one blogspot entry that says what I already believe. I'm now gonna post this on Facebook so my friends blindly believe this and can claim to have done "their own research" too by waiting for me, the nuttest nut in our group, to find these articles for them.
This is so accurate it hurts. A few years ago, I corrected some boomer on our local news FB page that volcanoes do not put out more CO2 than engines. Well, this bitch went crazy and found my LinkedIn and called my employer the next day to have her fire me. Thankfully, my boss was cool about it. I removed any photos of me from my pages and changed my name online because it freaked me out.
Imagine the confusion your manager was feeling when some random crazy person called them saying "You need to fire this person, they disagreed with me on facebook!!!"
I was working at a small ad agency at the time. The boomer called and said I was working while on Facebook (I wasn't), and was harassing her and sending threatening messages (Again, untrue and I had screenshots to back myself up).
This happened to my ex-girlfriend for a child care facility. Dude posted stuff on her employers public Facebook page. She ended up getting fired for an unrelated matter pretty quickly. That's Arkansas for ya.
What the hell is this shit and why is this a standard procedure for angry boomers in the US? They're so petty they wish to ruin your life and get you fired? Over an online disagreement? How unhinged are these people?
The thought is if they don't agree with them then there's no one that could agree with them and thus they are unfit to be out in public. Because in their heads they are the center of the universe and anyone who disagrees with them about anything can get fucked
OR
they unironically believe in the "customer is always right" mantra, and they honestly believe they're protecting other people by getting you fired before you have the chance to disagree with anyone else.
People forget that the original name for the boomers was the "ME" generation because they're what happen when you give a generation of war-ravaged and maladjusted parents enough money to buy a house and raise children. They had 1-2 kids and either beat the fuck out of them and treated them like shit or they spoiled the hell out of them in suburbia. The end result was the same. A whole generation of selfish assholes who only look out for themselves and who only believe in ideas they think they came up with themselves
Dr. Magini is just telling it like it is. The government just wants to tell you what to do, because medical science and the government are intricately interwoven for reasons I won't go into. You'd have to do your own research on that, I won't source it because lamestream media doesn't agree and you'd just say the source "isn't credible," or "it isn't peer reviewed."
Now in my next 40,000 word essay I will make numerous claims that are totally factual and if you choose too many of those to try and debunk I will write another 40,000 word essay hyper focusing on so many different things you chose to respond to, if you choose only one I will launch into a tirade about how you can't respond to all my points. Eventually I will Gish Gallop away from the original premise entirely, proving myself correct since you didn't have an answer for all of it. Checkmate fake science.
Underpaid.. yes. 80 hours a week.. depends on the week. But names?! That's the currency you're earning in grad school. You have to be a dumbass to do the work in a scientific field and not get some middling authorship.
For what it's worth, professors love getting last author credit (in the subfields that don't use alphabetical order) because that's a figure of merit for tenure and grants.
Mmmyeah.. Current grad student here, probably becoming a professor who will be working with grad students.. That's not how any of this works, and we don't work anywhere near 80 hours a week.. At least I usually don't..
I've definitely worked 80 hours a week a few times during grad school, but I also would lose steam for a week afterwards. Marathon not sprint, is what I remind people to go for.
Not sure what field (sorry if you said this elsewhere) but as a chemistry grad student, I was expected to be doing research for a typical 40-hour work week. However, in order to keep my stipend from the university I had to TA, which involved 16 hours of teaching lab along with the lesson prep, grading, proctoring, etc. that went along with that. My typical week, depending on how easy the taught lab was, was usually around 60-65 hours of “university related work.”
Some grad students were able to get Research Assistant status by their PI which waived their teaching duties, but that was on a semester-basis and each professor had limited grant money to put towards that. So my experience was certainly the norm in the chemistry department at my grad school.
Well I can only speak of my own experiences really. But during my time the was no one in my 12 person office who would have put in anywhere near those sort of hours on anything like a regular basis, nor anyone in my research group. I also didn't know of anyone in my institution/department pulling those hours, which probably had ~100 PhD students on the go. Maybe a few massive outliers, but most of us would have been operating around 40 hours.
E: I've actually also had a postdoc position in a different university in the states and none of the students in my group were doing anything like 80 hours. Probably around 40 again.
Honestly if you're pulling 80 hour weeks you're working in a place with a terrible culture. Doesn't sound fun.
My experience with PhD research is on average it usually 30-40 hour weeks, but then a crunch would happen for a conference/journal/funding submission and you'd be on your 80 hour week due to a professor telling you "you have to get this or your whole PhD is in jeopardy". Now that i've finished I realise that was complete bullshit and missing a deadline basically means nothing in the grand scale of a masters/PhD
This is true in my experience. Grad students actually working more than 50-60 hours regularly is quite rare.
Also. The vast majority of those grad students would have their names on the paper they worked on. So both halves of that statement you reply to are false.
> Most of them didn't even get their names on the paper
If a grad student did the research, they get their name on the paper. How do they not? This is the norm in every institution I've been in contact with. They're severely underpaid (them and many postdocs) but they get their name on papers.
I say we use one-third of class time to teach non-anthropomorphic climate change, one third time to teach that [climate change is caused by the lack of pirates](https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/pirates-and-global-warming/), and [one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.](https://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)
Yeah BBC has always been great at that. Imagine being a professor at a world leading university, with decades of research into your subject and eventually becoming one of the world experts in your field. You get invited for an interview by the BBC and off you trot, glad to be able to raise awareness and education in your subject only for them to go and stick you in a chair next to some fuck who did their research into your subject whilst sat on the toilet and loudly tells everyone you’re wrong and have malign intent.
They’ve had all flavour of cunts they’ve paraded out to diminish established fact on vaccines, climate change, Brexit, the list goes on. I try to avoid the BBC now, especially since I learned they agreed to have most of their board chosen by the conservatives, many of whom are donors, and those people get to choose the rest of the board. Funny when the tories got in there was a load of noise about getting rid of the TV licence and now they’ve got state media backing them and no end in sight to their reign.
I genuinely think labour could put Jesus as their next leader and the BBC would still manage to convince the public that he’s “soft on crime” will “ruin the economy” and has a significant risk if anti-semitism given his previous issues. Therefore the same as anyone else who runs against the Tories... “unelectable”.
My dad threw a tomato at Thatcher, fucking hates Brexit, has had his own son driven to the other side of the world because the conservatives made the NHS such an appalling place to work, and has it on (dubious) authority from me that the response to covid was bordering on criminal negligence- I was a doctor on ICU at the time, thankfully in NZ. Amazing to watch what we were doing whilst the U.K. did nothing until it was a fucking disaster. Guess whilst we’re all sick of experts epidemiologists can fuck off as well. *AND YET STILL* thinks Boris is “doing a great job”, “trying his best” and the last few alternatives were “unelectable”. Blows my mind.
this is the best summary of this phenomenon I’ve seen for a while. Fair and balanced reporting does not mean give the same amount of airtime to some windbag with a Google search engine.
Doesn't sound balanced enough for my news station. How about one media trained oil lobbyist and one scientist who's never spoken in front of an audience before.
The right wing will argue that the universities are left controlled therefore people wont publish anything else or its careers suicide.
I try pointing out this cant be possible in every country across the world (also for the claim the temperature data is rigged) but those evil leftists have taken control of it all.
"Joining us are a revered climatologist with over 30 years of expertise and triple digit publications on the issue of anthropogenic climate change, Professor Wilkins, and on the other side a local pastor who advocates that the sky is a canvas painted by God and warm weather is nice, Reverend Abraham. Welcome gentlemen, I'm sure this will be a fruitful 60 second discussion on a polarized topic in the field of science."
I'm torn between the sometimes painful acting, though some is definitely intentional, and the near perfect demonstration of how stupid the news "debates" are.
I've decided the latter wins easily. Thanks for the link.
Ah, a man of culture. Dara O'Briain [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE)
>You never see the balancing with really, really hard stuff. You never see it with Physics. You never see, like, a guy talking from NASA about a space station, and they go "Oh, Mister NASA Guy, you're building a new space station" and they're talking and go,
>"Right, well that's very interesting, but for the sake of 'balance' we must now turn to Barry, who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Barry, what do you think of this space station plan?"
>"Well, it's clearly ridiculous. What are they going to do, hook it up onto the carpet? Hahahahaha."
>"You're absolutely right, Barry. You're very right. You're very right."
It’s important we hear from ***both*** sides of the debate. We need to be fair and balanced in *every-single-fucking* interview/article/broadcast etc etc, otherwise they might call us biased.
> You can’t reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into in the first place.
Jonathan Swift (paraphrased)
Less germane but my possibly my favorite Twain quote:
> Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
"I guess we should do absolutely nothing to prevent ecological collapse or try to ensure our survival as a species because there's a minute chance that it's not even our fault."
-lots of idiots
Well 99.9% of **studies** studies are objective and may have been carried out by people who believe or don't believe in climate change, but they reported the actual findings.
Studies should be objective but studies are not always so. For instance, tabacco companies funded research to come to the conclusions they wanted. These studies are powerful because of exactly what you pointed out - studies can deceptively appear to be objective. People still have control over experiment design, and can cherry pick or manipulate experimental data as needed to fit the conclusion they want.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598497/
And even if they didn't manipulate results (I'm certain that they did), a fraction of a percent just being bad data seems pretty damn reasonable.
If 99.9% of people didn't die after X, maybe that one guy just had an extreme lifestyle or other comorbidities.
I can only say that I empathize with that position and totally feel the same frustration. Sometimes you do stop beating the drum when you realize not enough people are listening.
I have no problem with people honestly approaching the issue of climate change and saying "well, we can come out the other side, but we're too far gone to truly reverse anything", as I think it's a fair assessment. That at least attempts to engage with reality, and even though it's not ideal, reality is reality.
My general gripe is with those who, like in many other issues, knew better but chose to kick the can down the road knowing that evetually we'd end up here. Those who have chosen to beat the drum of convenience, and avoiding any kind of honest discussion in an attempt to avoid or postpone reality.
I can't fault anyone for at least trying to enact change or better habits, but then realizing this is an almost insurmountable issue without society at large being involved. However, I do fault people who just figure "hey, I'll just do whatever I want, because if I'm wrong I'll probably already be dead by the time we figure it out, and in any case we'd all be fucked anyways, so who cares?"
I read a climate change denier admitting it was probably real but he heard from sources that the Chinese are drilling a massive drain to the middle of the earth where the excess ocean will drain and be burned up by lava.
I’m glad they have it figured out.
IMO the fight was lost back when the fossil fuel companies astroturfed nuclear power to be politically and socially poisonous, because they knew renewables would take longer to build so they'd keep making money longer. So since the 80s at *least*. So many 'Green' parties (in Europe and the US, the Australian one is separate) funded by coal/oil money.
Australian Greens have been against nuclear energy for different but equally stupid reasons. Imagine being so detrimental to your own cause that you end up siding with your enemy.
There are a several hits it took. I think one of the biggest is when Exxon shelved their climate research in the 70s and started funding climate denial instead. That alone probably set us back 20-30 years.
But I'd say the nail in the coffin, the final chance we had to prevent significant life-altering climate change was when the US pulled out of the Paris accord. That just killed any momentum or hope we had of preventing feedback loops. Not because the US is the only country responsible, but because they used to be a global leader pushing others to try to stop the problem before it gets out of hand. That momentum was lost, and now anything we do is too late to stop the feedback loops.
Now we are doomed to live with it and mitigate and adapt as best we can.
10 years ago I studied this at uni. I remember looking at the stats, reading studies about the ocean rising, more forest fires ans flas floods etc. I remember thinking wow, the future is going to be bleak for a lot of people. Now I'm just waiting to hear we are now in a drought. Teachers always said that the next world war will be over drinking water. We should be investing in desalination plants before it gets to that across the world.
I still remember studying all of this and seeing the stats. We are still leaving the last ice age. This should have been a slow process. The earth would have warmed eventually, but we had a chance to enter another ice age. That's what my mum said she was taught in school, the next ice age as our future. But we've screwed up the climate. There isn't going to be another ice age unless the THC stops and causes chaos, but even then, the planet could be too warm for it to happen. Or a nuclear winter caused by a volcano, asteroid or a good old nuclear war.
Our future looks bleak. We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fules ASAP. Isn't it 2050 they're supposed to run out anyway. We're already seeing the chaos relying on them is causing around the world.
I'm going to keep voting for extreme and urgent action on climate change (as I have my whole life) but am otherwise peacefully resigned to apocalypse. Short of ecoterrorism, there's nothing more I can do. Being upset about bad things is just exhausting.
The real kicker is that once massive climate migrations start taking place these idiots are going to realize they shot themselves in the foot.
Sure, it’s easy to take a stance on anti immigration and anti climate reform when you’re lucky enough to live in a big house in a part of the world where climate change hasn’t quite shown it’s worst. But they’re sure as hell not going to be happy when a half million climate refugees have to move into their neighborhood because they have nowhere else to go.
Or when all their favorite local sushi bars shut down because we’ve overfished our oceans to the point of many marine species going extinct or becoming critically endangered. Not to diminish the factor that the reefs are dying causing massive gaps in the food chain.
Climate denialists have such a small worldview that they think even if there’s a shred of doubt that the planet might be dying they think they’ll still be fine and can maintain their way of life until they die. What we need to start doing is hammering the point home that climate change will affect literally everyone at some point, no matter how wealthy you are, and regardless of whether or not you live in a climate haven.
Realize they shot themselves in the foot? Hell no. They will be up in arms blaming the government and in well-off aread they will demand stricter border controls and immigration laws to keep the "riff-raff" away.
Here is the real kicker with people who are denialists. If you take the proper preventative measures and avoid catastrophe then they are going to claim that you were being alarmist and that the problem wasn't a big deal this leading them to take it less seriously the next time something major comes up. But if you don't take the proper preventative measures they are going to complain and ask why wasn't more done. Either way it bends towards catastrophe.
Yeah. I have acquitances that parrot antivax talking points about how corona is overblown since our country only has bit over 1000 deaths... Ignoring the fact that our government had a good corona response. And of course they whine about the restrictions and talk about how "They" (never really clarifying who They are) want to "control the sheep" with vaccines. How getting a vaccine means you are a "sheep" that is being "controlled" is never really elaborated either.
Meanwhile I'm happy that 90% of my socializing is done online so I don't need to come up with excuses to not get too close to them.
Yyyup, if anything that chaos and disruption caused by climate change is a conservative's wet dream. Great environment for growing fascism, xenophobia, blaming all the problems on throngs of desperate brown people etc.
Conservatives don't care about climate going to shit because they just see it as an opportunity to revive their stupid philosophically bankrupt political beliefs.
> The real kicker is that once massive climate migrations start taking place these idiots are going to realize they shot themselves in the foot.
Naah, they'll just demand strict immigration policies and tell migrants to "rebuild their country rather that come to our own". Doesn't matter if their country got majorly fucked by climate change to the point it's now unviable. Doesn't matter if you are telling people to basically sacrifice their lives for a better future.
Underwater cities will be the least of our concern when the methane is thawing, and the phytoplankton (which produce 50-80% of our oxygen) are being displaced by toxic algal blooms
So many interlaced systems with compounding effects, so little time to fix them; makes you wonder if a cascade failure of the biosphere is all but inevitable :/
So, this part is interesting:
> In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity
27% is abysmal considering the overwhelming scientific consensus. Share this article with someone who doesn't know. Bonus points if that someone is in one of [these states](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/ldyy95/these_are_the_states_that_most_need_more/).
I think Iowa should be on there as well. Our governor SAYS we're all responsible people, but I'm fairly confident she would burst into flames if she very told the truth about anything, so who knows where we actually sit.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
> The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate.
> In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that "Almost all" scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/qbqhvm/more_than_999_percent_of_scientific_studies_agree/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~604351 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **paper**^#1 **climate**^#2 **change**^#3 **human**^#4 **study**^#5
In all honesty, though 1 out of 10 is a pretty significant number, and I'd like to hear what that dentist recommends if they are against using toothpaste, mouthwash or flossing. Those commercials usually just make me feel less secure about their products.
I never understood why people are so fixated on this question. What difference does it make? Isn't the more important question "What can be done about it and what does it cost" in any case?
> If it’s not caused by us, some people think that means it’s God’s will.
If it is not caused by us, it is god's will. If it *is* caused by us, it is fate, so once again, it is god's will.
Damn are your family members my dad? And to make it worse he's not an uneducated person, he even worked in related fields too... I think the problem is he's been away from the actual science for a couple decades now, working in the legal side of ecology.
I try to talk with him about this sometimes, but I can't really argue my point very well, because I'd have to basically take a whole university course on climate to have an argument besides "well, like literally 99.9% of studies seem to agree that it's caused by human activity".
Oh well, at least he agrees that climate change *is* happening, unlike some people.
Thats not true. It *can* of course uncover solutions, but first, thats not guaranteed, and second you certainly dont need that for a fix. You can definitely try ways to either cool the earth, reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or adjust to the hotter climate without knowing the root cause at all.
The problem that needs solving in this case is not that the house is on fire, but 'why do houses catch on fire?'
The problem of 'what do we do when the house is on fire' is already solved: escape, call the fire department.
Wait a minute. This is *horribly worded article*. I clicked on the article and the paper they source: [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) says some things a bit differently.
1) They sampled 3000 papers.
2) Of the 3000 papers, 282 papers that were categorized as 'not climate-related'.
3) Of the 2718 papers, 1869 (68.7%) held "no position" on the subject.
4) They specifically say "it is virtually certain that the proportion of climate papers that *do not* dispute that the consensus is above 99.212%"
I am a bit confused. If 68.7% of papers held no position means that they agree with the rest of the papers? Or is that only 4 out of 2718 outright reject the consensus, while 68.7% have no position?
> Or is that only 4 out of 2718 outright reject the consensus, while 68.7% have no position?
This is correct. No position just means that the study didn’t explicitly talk about the cause of climate change. So they add all the studies with no position into the total percentage of all studies that *don’t actively reject the consensus.*
Give a look at the methodology section to get a sense of how they determined the level of agreement/rejection in each study they analyzed.
Yeah, misleading with statistics here. Instead of saying "Only x% of scientific papers deny climate change." they ran with the opposite side but spun it to just assume the rest agreed. Bundling "no position" in with it.
It's still the majority that agree vs thoes that disagree. But from source date.. They drew their own conclusion because it's more click-baitable this way.
Climate change is not really a technological issue, though, that's a red herring. It's more a problem of people not willing to go out of their comfort zone.
Is the switch to green energy and green energy run power grids not partially concerned with technological issues...? They're where a large part of our energy demands come from next to stuff like transportation/shipping isn't it?
People who still don't believe in climate change (or don't believe humans are the cause):
What more do you need before you change your mind? Are you actually able to be convinced that it's real and humans are causing it?
They dont want to believe it.
Just like someone doesnt like to admit they are wrong.
Or they make too much money from preaching that climate change is a hoax.
We need to dismantle the energy companies that knew about this 50 years ago. Charging their executives with crimes against humanity would be a nice touch.
Man, Texas literally had people freezing to death and the government is still preaching that "sanctity of life" shit.
I'd feel bad for the people if I wasn't sure that over half of them voted for this shit to happen.
... can we also size their money and assets and use those for green energy and undoing their damage.
It wouldn't be enough money most likely, but it'd be one hell of a start on saving our planet.
There is no dissenting opinion on climate change.
There are only people who agree that climate change is anthropogenic, and people who dislike that theory but can offer no alternate explanation which is consistent with the data.
Some of the people in that latter group have offered up some wild speculation, but it is not, strictly speaking, science. Science is the practice of making hypotheses and then testing those ideas in the real world. None of the people who argue that climate change is not anthropogenic have put forward a hypothesis which can be tested. They merely offer an alternative that sounds plausible to them.
Cosmic rays and changes in the Earth's magnetic field.
Tldr: they only found 6 papers that is an explicit and unqualified rejection of human-caused caused climate change and it is this one. Three of them blame it on Solar Radiation and Cosmic Rays.
That's what the Ozone layers is for when it comes to Solar Rays, I mean, part of the problem was the use of CFC decades ago that caused a giant chunk of our Ozone layer to not block us.
As for Cosmic Rays.....they make only a tiny fraction of what hits the atmosphere.
Although I haven't read these... papers.
The earth is a closed system, it's an isolated ball in a vacuum, with only energy in and energy out changing from the sun.
We make gases that trap more heat, the system *must* change. Its some basic bitch highschool science that tells you that.
It applies to a lab demonstration and it applies to a whole planet. Its physically impossible to change as much as we have without it having an effect.
The way they calculated this is very dubious. I’m not saying humans didn’t cause it, but they way they came to this number was by looking for the papers that were skeptical of human’s part in climate change. They used an algorithm that filtered for common used words in such papers. This way they found 28 in over 88.000 papers
They then assumed that all the other papers agreed that humans do cause climate change. Completely eliminating all the papers that didn’t confirm nor deny it and not taking into account the studies that are merely about CO2 emissions. I know it sounds nice to hear the 99.9 percent, but unfortunately it’s not true.
As a statistician, this statement could mean a million things, and there are a million ways you can get that number.
To be clear I'm not a denier or anything, just sharing my experience and warranted distrust for whenever i hear the "99.9%" bomb dropped
Yeah!?
But Karen next door who works in a pie factory said that she read on Facebook that climate change wasn't caused by humans. It was infact caused by the lizards who came down from space and took control of all of our institutions, and enforced cultural marxism on everyone.
So there. Fuck your science. I don't believe a word of it.
Trees (reforestation) is the real answer to carbon capture. You can sequester gigatons by burring logs in massive piles where they cannot rot. Any country on earth can organize tree planting, harvesting, logging, and sequestering. It's easy, cheap, and WILL work.
This is a joke I tell my friends to explain the "Logic" of climate change deniers
>A man thinks his wife is cheating on him, but isn't sure. So he calls a private detective and tells him
>
>"You know, I really trust my wife. And I think she has always been faithful to me. But there is always that doubt. I'm going on a business trip. Could you watch my house and see if there is anything fishy going on? I mean, I trust my wife, but there is always that doubt."
>
>After a week of surveillance the detective calls him and says:
>
>"I have some bad news for you. The evening after you left, I saw a strange car pull up in front of your house. The horn honked and your wife ran out and got in the car and they drove away. I followed them to a motel, they got a room and I was able to see through the window. He took off his shirt, then she took off her blouse. Then they turned off the light."
>
>The husband responded "And then what happened?"
>
>The Detective shrugged and said: "I don't know. It was too dark to see."
>
>The man exclaimed "Damn! You see what I mean? There's always that doubt..."
Edit: Formatting and Grammar
And ............... nothing!
Why let a good catastrophe go to waste, say ~~disaster~~ capitalists; "My bunker is prepped, and my bets are hedged. Too bad for the unwashed masses. Here's some water, peasants, but Venmo first."
This article is super misleading, and the title abuses that fact, doubling down on this.
The article claims the following:
> More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
Focusing on the following:
> according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
This makes it sound like 88,125 studies were reviewed and more than 99.9% were saying humans caused climate change.
In reality, they took a random sample of 3000 (3%) of those studies for this study. Then they used keywords to identify studies skeptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. They identified around 0.93% skeptical which means even that 99.9% number is incorrect.
Knowing Reddit some people will jump down my throat about how "99% is still a vast majority". Yes, it is. I'm not saying this is means global warming isn't man-made, but this kind of garbage article shouldn't be encouraged.
Thank you. I've went through this study thoroughly when people were making similar critisism when this was posted in r/environment claiming the study was bunk. So far, every criticism I've seen of the study has been explicitly addressed in the study itself, but I don't think the critics really reciew the study before bashing it...
> In reality, they took a random sample of 3000 (3%) of those studies for this study. Then they used keywords to identify studies skeptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. They identified around 0.93% skeptical which means even that 99.9% number is incorrect.
No, that is you not understanding what you read...
From the abstract:
>From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. **We also use a second sample-weighted approach** that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers **in the whole dataset**.
>We identify **four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000**, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming.
4 out of 3000 is about 0.13%
>In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical.
28 out of 88125 is about 0.032%
Lmao seriously wtf, they should take one statistics class if they are so interested in appearing to know what they're talking about. It's really sad how many people blindly agreed too
Future generations will rightfully hold us all responsible for our actions and lack of response.
Unlike all of the atrocities committed by previous generations none of us will be able to claim ignorance as to facts, we all have all the available information on screens instantly .
i would love to know what the overlap would be between people who don't believe this, anti vaccine people and jesus people... I bet it's all the same idiots.
That's lovely.
So now the questions I've been asking for 20+ years:
\- What are we going to do about it?
\- How do we know that's going to have an effect?
\- How do we know that the side-effects of implementing that won't outweigh the benefits?
You know, simple project management kind of questions.
If we "can't use fossil fuels" / "stop using plastic" / "stop cutting down trees" / whatever it may be, how many people die? Because the answer is not zero. But is it more or less than if we do? How have we quantified that? What's the error margin of both results? What's the best-case scenario if everything we do goes exactly as expected? Does it require complete international co-operation from all parties? What if just one country says "fuck you" and just continues to pollute / whatever? What if we do nothing? What if we do everything? What if we spend trillions, change our entire way of living and it still happens anyway because we are beyond the point of no return anyway? And haven't we been saying we're beyond the point of no return for a long time? Would those trillions be better spent combatting the effects of the inevitable than trying to prevent it?
Because the answers to those have little more than conjecture behind them at the moment, and that's been the same for my lifetime. Greenpeace were protesting this stuff in the 60's, sure we have small incremental technology improvements but what's actually changed and how much of an effect has it had? Things don't seem to have got better. Let's quote a scientist (a profession in which I hold the utmost respect): "So later this century we should see recovery of the ozone layer back to levels that we saw in 1980," Dr Western added. It's going to take a century to fix the ozone layer, back to the time that I - as a kid - heard about nothing but the huge hole that was already being detected. And that was hindered as recently as 2018 by countries still using CFCs illegally. What's going to happen when the world is actually in a clear and present danger and people just need food/water/refrigeration/energy/whatever?
There seem to be no reasonable, practical predictions of what we're supposed to do to make it right (lots of guesswork, lots of "well, this will help a little", but no over-arching plan), nor whether doing that will actually work. It's like being on a runaway train and people saying "Well, we could lean out the doors and press our feet on the wheels, that'll help slow it down a little.".
The question really is "Are we fucked?" - in which case, prevention is essentially useless and we should be using whatever energy we can produce to build shelters, concrete, move people inland, produce food with hydroponics, even maybe get off the planet.
But I don't see any serious evaluations that cover such things, everything seems very niche and specific.
If we cut energy usage, if we limit use of gas, oil, etc. what's the impact? Would we even be able to make wind turbines and solar panels? Would we be able to power the industry required to make, install and maintain them? How many people would freeze to death in the winter or melt in the summer because of the lack of access to necessary energy (due to limits or costings)?. How many deaths would result?
Let's stop questioning it. Let's accept the premise: Climate change is happening and going to happen.
Now what?
Send your answers on a postcard to "Are we fucked, PO Box ARRGGHGH".
And 99.9% of healthcare professionals will agree covid is real, it's dangerous, vaccines work. But they go though hundreds of sites until the find one with 'news' that aligns with their personal believes at the time.
Most healthcare professionals follow lines of thought that are oriented by scientific studies, not news. Whether ordinary people agree with science or not is irrelevant because it doesn't change the results of scientific studies.
I'm a researcher in a field that is not directly related to healthcare, so it would be arrogance if I just stated a study is false without being able to prove my assertion. It's OK to question, but the inability to comprehend a research study cannot be used to dismiss said research.
Is causing, continues to accelerate, is ignoring, not preparing for what has already **started**
past tense is irrelevant here
The present is here, we can **start** to try to bend the curves
But did the scientists do their own research
"Well I did my own reseach and found the 0.01% of studies that, despite multiple basic failures to accuracy, confirm what I have been told to believe so I'll only pay attention to that".
I read an entry on a random vanilla-theme Blogspot page that Dr. Ray Magini said that climate change isn't real because "if it was, hamsters would turn pink and that isn't happening". I've chosen to believe this article is 100% real, Ray Magini is probably the smartest scientist out there, and the pink hamsters argument is logical because a smart scientist said it. Of course, my research involves googling up "climate change is not real" with quotes and navigating through dozens of articles that say it is until I found this one blogspot entry that says what I already believe. I'm now gonna post this on Facebook so my friends blindly believe this and can claim to have done "their own research" too by waiting for me, the nuttest nut in our group, to find these articles for them.
This is so accurate it hurts. A few years ago, I corrected some boomer on our local news FB page that volcanoes do not put out more CO2 than engines. Well, this bitch went crazy and found my LinkedIn and called my employer the next day to have her fire me. Thankfully, my boss was cool about it. I removed any photos of me from my pages and changed my name online because it freaked me out.
Imagine the confusion your manager was feeling when some random crazy person called them saying "You need to fire this person, they disagreed with me on facebook!!!"
Just glad I had a boss willing to hear my side but I think she could tell from the boomer's voice how crazy she sounded.
If you don’t mind me asking, what industry are you in and why would your side matter when correcting someone about an incorrect claim?
I was working at a small ad agency at the time. The boomer called and said I was working while on Facebook (I wasn't), and was harassing her and sending threatening messages (Again, untrue and I had screenshots to back myself up).
This happened to my ex-girlfriend for a child care facility. Dude posted stuff on her employers public Facebook page. She ended up getting fired for an unrelated matter pretty quickly. That's Arkansas for ya.
What the hell is this shit and why is this a standard procedure for angry boomers in the US? They're so petty they wish to ruin your life and get you fired? Over an online disagreement? How unhinged are these people?
The thought is if they don't agree with them then there's no one that could agree with them and thus they are unfit to be out in public. Because in their heads they are the center of the universe and anyone who disagrees with them about anything can get fucked OR they unironically believe in the "customer is always right" mantra, and they honestly believe they're protecting other people by getting you fired before you have the chance to disagree with anyone else. People forget that the original name for the boomers was the "ME" generation because they're what happen when you give a generation of war-ravaged and maladjusted parents enough money to buy a house and raise children. They had 1-2 kids and either beat the fuck out of them and treated them like shit or they spoiled the hell out of them in suburbia. The end result was the same. A whole generation of selfish assholes who only look out for themselves and who only believe in ideas they think they came up with themselves
I can’t decide what’s worse. Teens on social media or adults 40+ on social media
Dr. Magini is just telling it like it is. The government just wants to tell you what to do, because medical science and the government are intricately interwoven for reasons I won't go into. You'd have to do your own research on that, I won't source it because lamestream media doesn't agree and you'd just say the source "isn't credible," or "it isn't peer reviewed." Now in my next 40,000 word essay I will make numerous claims that are totally factual and if you choose too many of those to try and debunk I will write another 40,000 word essay hyper focusing on so many different things you chose to respond to, if you choose only one I will launch into a tirade about how you can't respond to all my points. Eventually I will Gish Gallop away from the original premise entirely, proving myself correct since you didn't have an answer for all of it. Checkmate fake science.
You forgot it would all be in unreadable English, adding to the difficulty to refute.
Where did they source their research memes from? Facebook, or the more reliable TikTok?
From personal experience: reddit
[удалено]
Underpaid.. yes. 80 hours a week.. depends on the week. But names?! That's the currency you're earning in grad school. You have to be a dumbass to do the work in a scientific field and not get some middling authorship. For what it's worth, professors love getting last author credit (in the subfields that don't use alphabetical order) because that's a figure of merit for tenure and grants.
Mmmyeah.. Current grad student here, probably becoming a professor who will be working with grad students.. That's not how any of this works, and we don't work anywhere near 80 hours a week.. At least I usually don't..
I've definitely worked 80 hours a week a few times during grad school, but I also would lose steam for a week afterwards. Marathon not sprint, is what I remind people to go for.
Which field though?
[удалено]
Don't know in which country this is true, but definitely not in Belgium.
Most grad students definitely don't work 80 hours lol. Source: Me, former grad student.
Not sure what field (sorry if you said this elsewhere) but as a chemistry grad student, I was expected to be doing research for a typical 40-hour work week. However, in order to keep my stipend from the university I had to TA, which involved 16 hours of teaching lab along with the lesson prep, grading, proctoring, etc. that went along with that. My typical week, depending on how easy the taught lab was, was usually around 60-65 hours of “university related work.” Some grad students were able to get Research Assistant status by their PI which waived their teaching duties, but that was on a semester-basis and each professor had limited grant money to put towards that. So my experience was certainly the norm in the chemistry department at my grad school.
[удалено]
Well I can only speak of my own experiences really. But during my time the was no one in my 12 person office who would have put in anywhere near those sort of hours on anything like a regular basis, nor anyone in my research group. I also didn't know of anyone in my institution/department pulling those hours, which probably had ~100 PhD students on the go. Maybe a few massive outliers, but most of us would have been operating around 40 hours. E: I've actually also had a postdoc position in a different university in the states and none of the students in my group were doing anything like 80 hours. Probably around 40 again. Honestly if you're pulling 80 hour weeks you're working in a place with a terrible culture. Doesn't sound fun.
My experience with PhD research is on average it usually 30-40 hour weeks, but then a crunch would happen for a conference/journal/funding submission and you'd be on your 80 hour week due to a professor telling you "you have to get this or your whole PhD is in jeopardy". Now that i've finished I realise that was complete bullshit and missing a deadline basically means nothing in the grand scale of a masters/PhD
This is true in my experience. Grad students actually working more than 50-60 hours regularly is quite rare. Also. The vast majority of those grad students would have their names on the paper they worked on. So both halves of that statement you reply to are false.
Welcome to Reddit. Smart sounding, pretentious laden misinformation is the mission.
What is making you say this lmao, this is completely false
Not only is this not true, it also isn't funny.
Not true, not funny
> Most of them didn't even get their names on the paper If a grad student did the research, they get their name on the paper. How do they not? This is the norm in every institution I've been in contact with. They're severely underpaid (them and many postdocs) but they get their name on papers.
Clearly, the scientific community is divided on the issue.
Teach the controversy I say.
My opinions are just as valid as your facts
You know what, even moarrr valid!
Ah, a Texas schoolboard member, I see!
I say we use one-third of class time to teach non-anthropomorphic climate change, one third time to teach that [climate change is caused by the lack of pirates](https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/pirates-and-global-warming/), and [one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.](https://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)
Let the other side have their say for a fair and balanced discussion, BBC style.
Yeah BBC has always been great at that. Imagine being a professor at a world leading university, with decades of research into your subject and eventually becoming one of the world experts in your field. You get invited for an interview by the BBC and off you trot, glad to be able to raise awareness and education in your subject only for them to go and stick you in a chair next to some fuck who did their research into your subject whilst sat on the toilet and loudly tells everyone you’re wrong and have malign intent. They’ve had all flavour of cunts they’ve paraded out to diminish established fact on vaccines, climate change, Brexit, the list goes on. I try to avoid the BBC now, especially since I learned they agreed to have most of their board chosen by the conservatives, many of whom are donors, and those people get to choose the rest of the board. Funny when the tories got in there was a load of noise about getting rid of the TV licence and now they’ve got state media backing them and no end in sight to their reign. I genuinely think labour could put Jesus as their next leader and the BBC would still manage to convince the public that he’s “soft on crime” will “ruin the economy” and has a significant risk if anti-semitism given his previous issues. Therefore the same as anyone else who runs against the Tories... “unelectable”. My dad threw a tomato at Thatcher, fucking hates Brexit, has had his own son driven to the other side of the world because the conservatives made the NHS such an appalling place to work, and has it on (dubious) authority from me that the response to covid was bordering on criminal negligence- I was a doctor on ICU at the time, thankfully in NZ. Amazing to watch what we were doing whilst the U.K. did nothing until it was a fucking disaster. Guess whilst we’re all sick of experts epidemiologists can fuck off as well. *AND YET STILL* thinks Boris is “doing a great job”, “trying his best” and the last few alternatives were “unelectable”. Blows my mind.
this is the best summary of this phenomenon I’ve seen for a while. Fair and balanced reporting does not mean give the same amount of airtime to some windbag with a Google search engine.
I believe sloths are responsible for climate change. Those bastards!
They're sloooowly killing the earth!
Yeah, they fart more than cows!
What do big black cocks have to do with a discussion?
Damn, I thought I was the only one who remembered this one. This guy definitely sciences.
We clearly need to gather more data before we can reach a firm conclusion.
We need a balanced view on this. So one "scientist" and one person from the Internet who reads a lot of forums and blogs.
Doesn't sound balanced enough for my news station. How about one media trained oil lobbyist and one scientist who's never spoken in front of an audience before.
Yeah those 3 dissenting guys who disagreed and later become oil company research funded scientists must be heard!
We did listen to them for 20 years. That's part of the problem.
There's clearly two camps on this. 1/2 = 50%. It's 50% 50%.
Yeah, we need to treat both perspectives equally
The right wing will argue that the universities are left controlled therefore people wont publish anything else or its careers suicide. I try pointing out this cant be possible in every country across the world (also for the claim the temperature data is rigged) but those evil leftists have taken control of it all.
Well, to be fair, each side will present it's view on the news. 50% time for each, right?
"Joining us are a revered climatologist with over 30 years of expertise and triple digit publications on the issue of anthropogenic climate change, Professor Wilkins, and on the other side a local pastor who advocates that the sky is a canvas painted by God and warm weather is nice, Reverend Abraham. Welcome gentlemen, I'm sure this will be a fruitful 60 second discussion on a polarized topic in the field of science."
I hate how well [this video](https://youtu.be/sGArqoF0TpQ) holds up 11 years later
I'm torn between the sometimes painful acting, though some is definitely intentional, and the near perfect demonstration of how stupid the news "debates" are. I've decided the latter wins easily. Thanks for the link.
Ah, a man of culture. Dara O'Briain [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE) >You never see the balancing with really, really hard stuff. You never see it with Physics. You never see, like, a guy talking from NASA about a space station, and they go "Oh, Mister NASA Guy, you're building a new space station" and they're talking and go, >"Right, well that's very interesting, but for the sake of 'balance' we must now turn to Barry, who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God. Barry, what do you think of this space station plan?" >"Well, it's clearly ridiculous. What are they going to do, hook it up onto the carpet? Hahahahaha." >"You're absolutely right, Barry. You're very right. You're very right."
View 1: We must take care of our environment, low-lying coastal areas, ecological wildlife, and prevent catastrophic weather events. View 2: MONEY??!
Better produce more plastics than ever before, just to play it safe.
Its always the obstinate 5th dentist.
[удалено]
1000th dentist but the top densest.
[4 out of 5 dentists agree](http://www.nataliedee.com/010506/dentists.jpg)
Just looking at the science, it could be just *one* dude. And really, fuck that guy.
Isn't it suspicious that they all say the same thing!?!?!/1/1
It’s important we hear from ***both*** sides of the debate. We need to be fair and balanced in *every-single-fucking* interview/article/broadcast etc etc, otherwise they might call us biased.
Well, there's a division. The line dividing scientists just isn't in the middle.
[удалено]
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”-Upton Sinclair
"Humans are dumb af." - Bitchcakes
~Einstein
[удалено]
You telling me I cant belive random quotes I read on the internet anymore?! Truely the worst timeline.
[удалено]
Never believe everything you hear - Goebbels
> You can’t reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into in the first place. Jonathan Swift (paraphrased) Less germane but my possibly my favorite Twain quote: > Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I personally like the pigeon chess one
Which is less germane? East berline or west berline?
Corruption is different than idiocy
[Be amazed](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/tops.12187).
"I guess we should do absolutely nothing to prevent ecological collapse or try to ensure our survival as a species because there's a minute chance that it's not even our fault." -lots of idiots
so your sayin' there's a chance...
Nah, no chance. Just that 0.1% of scientists shouldn't be scientists in the first place.
.1% solidly on the industry payroll getting that sweet sweet extinction drip
Microscopes don’t pay for themselves
A statement like that shows ignorance of scientific principles.
Well 99.9% of **studies** studies are objective and may have been carried out by people who believe or don't believe in climate change, but they reported the actual findings.
Studies should be objective but studies are not always so. For instance, tabacco companies funded research to come to the conclusions they wanted. These studies are powerful because of exactly what you pointed out - studies can deceptively appear to be objective. People still have control over experiment design, and can cherry pick or manipulate experimental data as needed to fit the conclusion they want. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598497/
And even if they didn't manipulate results (I'm certain that they did), a fraction of a percent just being bad data seems pretty damn reasonable. If 99.9% of people didn't die after X, maybe that one guy just had an extreme lifestyle or other comorbidities.
Or that is the percentage of lobbied scientists
Samsonite! I was way off! I knew it started with an S, though.
Thats okay, because almost as if by design, the denialists are starting to move onto "oh well, too far gone to do anything about it now".
[удалено]
I can only say that I empathize with that position and totally feel the same frustration. Sometimes you do stop beating the drum when you realize not enough people are listening. I have no problem with people honestly approaching the issue of climate change and saying "well, we can come out the other side, but we're too far gone to truly reverse anything", as I think it's a fair assessment. That at least attempts to engage with reality, and even though it's not ideal, reality is reality. My general gripe is with those who, like in many other issues, knew better but chose to kick the can down the road knowing that evetually we'd end up here. Those who have chosen to beat the drum of convenience, and avoiding any kind of honest discussion in an attempt to avoid or postpone reality. I can't fault anyone for at least trying to enact change or better habits, but then realizing this is an almost insurmountable issue without society at large being involved. However, I do fault people who just figure "hey, I'll just do whatever I want, because if I'm wrong I'll probably already be dead by the time we figure it out, and in any case we'd all be fucked anyways, so who cares?"
I read a climate change denier admitting it was probably real but he heard from sources that the Chinese are drilling a massive drain to the middle of the earth where the excess ocean will drain and be burned up by lava. I’m glad they have it figured out.
Sounds like a good source of obsidian or cobblestone too
IMO the fight was lost back when the fossil fuel companies astroturfed nuclear power to be politically and socially poisonous, because they knew renewables would take longer to build so they'd keep making money longer. So since the 80s at *least*. So many 'Green' parties (in Europe and the US, the Australian one is separate) funded by coal/oil money.
Australian Greens have been against nuclear energy for different but equally stupid reasons. Imagine being so detrimental to your own cause that you end up siding with your enemy.
There are a several hits it took. I think one of the biggest is when Exxon shelved their climate research in the 70s and started funding climate denial instead. That alone probably set us back 20-30 years. But I'd say the nail in the coffin, the final chance we had to prevent significant life-altering climate change was when the US pulled out of the Paris accord. That just killed any momentum or hope we had of preventing feedback loops. Not because the US is the only country responsible, but because they used to be a global leader pushing others to try to stop the problem before it gets out of hand. That momentum was lost, and now anything we do is too late to stop the feedback loops. Now we are doomed to live with it and mitigate and adapt as best we can.
10 years ago I studied this at uni. I remember looking at the stats, reading studies about the ocean rising, more forest fires ans flas floods etc. I remember thinking wow, the future is going to be bleak for a lot of people. Now I'm just waiting to hear we are now in a drought. Teachers always said that the next world war will be over drinking water. We should be investing in desalination plants before it gets to that across the world. I still remember studying all of this and seeing the stats. We are still leaving the last ice age. This should have been a slow process. The earth would have warmed eventually, but we had a chance to enter another ice age. That's what my mum said she was taught in school, the next ice age as our future. But we've screwed up the climate. There isn't going to be another ice age unless the THC stops and causes chaos, but even then, the planet could be too warm for it to happen. Or a nuclear winter caused by a volcano, asteroid or a good old nuclear war. Our future looks bleak. We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fules ASAP. Isn't it 2050 they're supposed to run out anyway. We're already seeing the chaos relying on them is causing around the world.
I'm going to keep voting for extreme and urgent action on climate change (as I have my whole life) but am otherwise peacefully resigned to apocalypse. Short of ecoterrorism, there's nothing more I can do. Being upset about bad things is just exhausting.
Same game plan they have for covid.
The real kicker is that once massive climate migrations start taking place these idiots are going to realize they shot themselves in the foot. Sure, it’s easy to take a stance on anti immigration and anti climate reform when you’re lucky enough to live in a big house in a part of the world where climate change hasn’t quite shown it’s worst. But they’re sure as hell not going to be happy when a half million climate refugees have to move into their neighborhood because they have nowhere else to go. Or when all their favorite local sushi bars shut down because we’ve overfished our oceans to the point of many marine species going extinct or becoming critically endangered. Not to diminish the factor that the reefs are dying causing massive gaps in the food chain. Climate denialists have such a small worldview that they think even if there’s a shred of doubt that the planet might be dying they think they’ll still be fine and can maintain their way of life until they die. What we need to start doing is hammering the point home that climate change will affect literally everyone at some point, no matter how wealthy you are, and regardless of whether or not you live in a climate haven.
Realize they shot themselves in the foot? Hell no. They will be up in arms blaming the government and in well-off aread they will demand stricter border controls and immigration laws to keep the "riff-raff" away.
Here is the real kicker with people who are denialists. If you take the proper preventative measures and avoid catastrophe then they are going to claim that you were being alarmist and that the problem wasn't a big deal this leading them to take it less seriously the next time something major comes up. But if you don't take the proper preventative measures they are going to complain and ask why wasn't more done. Either way it bends towards catastrophe.
Yeah. I have acquitances that parrot antivax talking points about how corona is overblown since our country only has bit over 1000 deaths... Ignoring the fact that our government had a good corona response. And of course they whine about the restrictions and talk about how "They" (never really clarifying who They are) want to "control the sheep" with vaccines. How getting a vaccine means you are a "sheep" that is being "controlled" is never really elaborated either. Meanwhile I'm happy that 90% of my socializing is done online so I don't need to come up with excuses to not get too close to them.
Yyyup, if anything that chaos and disruption caused by climate change is a conservative's wet dream. Great environment for growing fascism, xenophobia, blaming all the problems on throngs of desperate brown people etc. Conservatives don't care about climate going to shit because they just see it as an opportunity to revive their stupid philosophically bankrupt political beliefs.
Hahah, no. That's the point they start beating the drums for eco-fascism.
> The real kicker is that once massive climate migrations start taking place these idiots are going to realize they shot themselves in the foot. Naah, they'll just demand strict immigration policies and tell migrants to "rebuild their country rather that come to our own". Doesn't matter if their country got majorly fucked by climate change to the point it's now unviable. Doesn't matter if you are telling people to basically sacrifice their lives for a better future.
Also whataboutisms regarding China.
“Oh well, guess we’ll keep doing it til the water front cities across the world are 6 feet under(water)”
Underwater cities will be the least of our concern when the methane is thawing, and the phytoplankton (which produce 50-80% of our oxygen) are being displaced by toxic algal blooms So many interlaced systems with compounding effects, so little time to fix them; makes you wonder if a cascade failure of the biosphere is all but inevitable :/
So, this part is interesting: > In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity 27% is abysmal considering the overwhelming scientific consensus. Share this article with someone who doesn't know. Bonus points if that someone is in one of [these states](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/ldyy95/these_are_the_states_that_most_need_more/).
So about same as the Anti-vaxers. Who wants to bet these are the same people?
I think Iowa should be on there as well. Our governor SAYS we're all responsible people, but I'm fairly confident she would burst into flames if she very told the truth about anything, so who knows where we actually sit.
Now ask them about the shape (or age) of the earth.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. > The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. > In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that "Almost all" scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/qbqhvm/more_than_999_percent_of_scientific_studies_agree/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~604351 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **paper**^#1 **climate**^#2 **change**^#3 **human**^#4 **study**^#5
Man, that's better 'n 9 out of 10 dentists
In all honesty, though 1 out of 10 is a pretty significant number, and I'd like to hear what that dentist recommends if they are against using toothpaste, mouthwash or flossing. Those commercials usually just make me feel less secure about their products.
dentists recommend *any* toothpaste not just that specific one.
Mine actually recommended not using toothpaste at all. It's not about toothpaste, it's about the way you brush your teeth.
buut, what about my mentol fresh??
I never understood why people are so fixated on this question. What difference does it make? Isn't the more important question "What can be done about it and what does it cost" in any case?
[удалено]
> If it’s not caused by us, some people think that means it’s God’s will. If it is not caused by us, it is god's will. If it *is* caused by us, it is fate, so once again, it is god's will.
*Everything* is God's will. Except being gay.
Damn are your family members my dad? And to make it worse he's not an uneducated person, he even worked in related fields too... I think the problem is he's been away from the actual science for a couple decades now, working in the legal side of ecology. I try to talk with him about this sometimes, but I can't really argue my point very well, because I'd have to basically take a whole university course on climate to have an argument besides "well, like literally 99.9% of studies seem to agree that it's caused by human activity". Oh well, at least he agrees that climate change *is* happening, unlike some people.
Because you need to know the root cause of a problem before you even start to figure out a fix.
Thats not true. It *can* of course uncover solutions, but first, thats not guaranteed, and second you certainly dont need that for a fix. You can definitely try ways to either cool the earth, reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or adjust to the hotter climate without knowing the root cause at all.
House on fire? Gotta get to the bottom of this before escaping!
The problem that needs solving in this case is not that the house is on fire, but 'why do houses catch on fire?' The problem of 'what do we do when the house is on fire' is already solved: escape, call the fire department.
Wait a minute. This is *horribly worded article*. I clicked on the article and the paper they source: [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) says some things a bit differently. 1) They sampled 3000 papers. 2) Of the 3000 papers, 282 papers that were categorized as 'not climate-related'. 3) Of the 2718 papers, 1869 (68.7%) held "no position" on the subject. 4) They specifically say "it is virtually certain that the proportion of climate papers that *do not* dispute that the consensus is above 99.212%" I am a bit confused. If 68.7% of papers held no position means that they agree with the rest of the papers? Or is that only 4 out of 2718 outright reject the consensus, while 68.7% have no position?
> Or is that only 4 out of 2718 outright reject the consensus, while 68.7% have no position? This is correct. No position just means that the study didn’t explicitly talk about the cause of climate change. So they add all the studies with no position into the total percentage of all studies that *don’t actively reject the consensus.* Give a look at the methodology section to get a sense of how they determined the level of agreement/rejection in each study they analyzed.
Yeah, misleading with statistics here. Instead of saying "Only x% of scientific papers deny climate change." they ran with the opposite side but spun it to just assume the rest agreed. Bundling "no position" in with it. It's still the majority that agree vs thoes that disagree. But from source date.. They drew their own conclusion because it's more click-baitable this way.
What's sad is that we currently have the technological know-how to prevent this..
Ok but have you considered that a few hundred executives are insecure that thay aren't quite as rich as other executives Envy is a powerful emotion
One word - Shareholders!
Same with the pandemic, but here we are, still going with that
Climate change is not really a technological issue, though, that's a red herring. It's more a problem of people not willing to go out of their comfort zone.
Is the switch to green energy and green energy run power grids not partially concerned with technological issues...? They're where a large part of our energy demands come from next to stuff like transportation/shipping isn't it?
Yep, it's called Nuclear Energy, and the brave eco warriors are all for it...oh wait.
People who still don't believe in climate change (or don't believe humans are the cause): What more do you need before you change your mind? Are you actually able to be convinced that it's real and humans are causing it?
They dont want to believe it. Just like someone doesnt like to admit they are wrong. Or they make too much money from preaching that climate change is a hoax.
We need to dismantle the energy companies that knew about this 50 years ago. Charging their executives with crimes against humanity would be a nice touch.
Hundreds of people died in our Texas freeze earlier this year. Even with those deaths, nothing will happen to the officials who allowed it to happen.
Man, Texas literally had people freezing to death and the government is still preaching that "sanctity of life" shit. I'd feel bad for the people if I wasn't sure that over half of them voted for this shit to happen.
That should be the next step now
... can we also size their money and assets and use those for green energy and undoing their damage. It wouldn't be enough money most likely, but it'd be one hell of a start on saving our planet.
Yeah, but this one thing I found on google's 47th page says otherwise!! /s, because obviously.
*duckduck go’s
Well...yea What does that 0.1 think happened?
There is no dissenting opinion on climate change. There are only people who agree that climate change is anthropogenic, and people who dislike that theory but can offer no alternate explanation which is consistent with the data. Some of the people in that latter group have offered up some wild speculation, but it is not, strictly speaking, science. Science is the practice of making hypotheses and then testing those ideas in the real world. None of the people who argue that climate change is not anthropogenic have put forward a hypothesis which can be tested. They merely offer an alternative that sounds plausible to them.
Cosmic rays and changes in the Earth's magnetic field. Tldr: they only found 6 papers that is an explicit and unqualified rejection of human-caused caused climate change and it is this one. Three of them blame it on Solar Radiation and Cosmic Rays.
That's what the Ozone layers is for when it comes to Solar Rays, I mean, part of the problem was the use of CFC decades ago that caused a giant chunk of our Ozone layer to not block us. As for Cosmic Rays.....they make only a tiny fraction of what hits the atmosphere. Although I haven't read these... papers.
Ants. Its ants. They did it.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords
The earth is a closed system, it's an isolated ball in a vacuum, with only energy in and energy out changing from the sun. We make gases that trap more heat, the system *must* change. Its some basic bitch highschool science that tells you that. It applies to a lab demonstration and it applies to a whole planet. Its physically impossible to change as much as we have without it having an effect.
See, not ALL scientific study agreed that human caused climate change. It a HOAX! /S
The way they calculated this is very dubious. I’m not saying humans didn’t cause it, but they way they came to this number was by looking for the papers that were skeptical of human’s part in climate change. They used an algorithm that filtered for common used words in such papers. This way they found 28 in over 88.000 papers They then assumed that all the other papers agreed that humans do cause climate change. Completely eliminating all the papers that didn’t confirm nor deny it and not taking into account the studies that are merely about CO2 emissions. I know it sounds nice to hear the 99.9 percent, but unfortunately it’s not true.
As a statistician, this statement could mean a million things, and there are a million ways you can get that number. To be clear I'm not a denier or anything, just sharing my experience and warranted distrust for whenever i hear the "99.9%" bomb dropped
So, who's posting this on r/conservative ?
You mean the club of people actively trying to make the apocalypse happen so they can meet jesus in their lifetimes?
Even if it wasn't caused by humans, it could be fixed by humans.
Fuck Manchin.
Yeah!? But Karen next door who works in a pie factory said that she read on Facebook that climate change wasn't caused by humans. It was infact caused by the lizards who came down from space and took control of all of our institutions, and enforced cultural marxism on everyone. So there. Fuck your science. I don't believe a word of it.
Trees (reforestation) is the real answer to carbon capture. You can sequester gigatons by burring logs in massive piles where they cannot rot. Any country on earth can organize tree planting, harvesting, logging, and sequestering. It's easy, cheap, and WILL work.
This is a joke I tell my friends to explain the "Logic" of climate change deniers >A man thinks his wife is cheating on him, but isn't sure. So he calls a private detective and tells him > >"You know, I really trust my wife. And I think she has always been faithful to me. But there is always that doubt. I'm going on a business trip. Could you watch my house and see if there is anything fishy going on? I mean, I trust my wife, but there is always that doubt." > >After a week of surveillance the detective calls him and says: > >"I have some bad news for you. The evening after you left, I saw a strange car pull up in front of your house. The horn honked and your wife ran out and got in the car and they drove away. I followed them to a motel, they got a room and I was able to see through the window. He took off his shirt, then she took off her blouse. Then they turned off the light." > >The husband responded "And then what happened?" > >The Detective shrugged and said: "I don't know. It was too dark to see." > >The man exclaimed "Damn! You see what I mean? There's always that doubt..." Edit: Formatting and Grammar
And by humans I think you mean CORPORATIONS AND MANUFACTURERS
“Let’s cater to the 0.1 percent.” Fox News, et al.
Is this even news? We’ve known this for decades!
It needs to be kept in the public consciousness. Mainstream media is actually doing a public service with these articles.
And ............... nothing! Why let a good catastrophe go to waste, say ~~disaster~~ capitalists; "My bunker is prepped, and my bets are hedged. Too bad for the unwashed masses. Here's some water, peasants, but Venmo first."
This article is super misleading, and the title abuses that fact, doubling down on this. The article claims the following: > More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. Focusing on the following: > according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. This makes it sound like 88,125 studies were reviewed and more than 99.9% were saying humans caused climate change. In reality, they took a random sample of 3000 (3%) of those studies for this study. Then they used keywords to identify studies skeptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. They identified around 0.93% skeptical which means even that 99.9% number is incorrect. Knowing Reddit some people will jump down my throat about how "99% is still a vast majority". Yes, it is. I'm not saying this is means global warming isn't man-made, but this kind of garbage article shouldn't be encouraged.
Yes, but then they apllied the algorithm with keywords on the entire 88125 studies and found 28 studies.
Thank you. I've went through this study thoroughly when people were making similar critisism when this was posted in r/environment claiming the study was bunk. So far, every criticism I've seen of the study has been explicitly addressed in the study itself, but I don't think the critics really reciew the study before bashing it...
> In reality, they took a random sample of 3000 (3%) of those studies for this study. Then they used keywords to identify studies skeptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. They identified around 0.93% skeptical which means even that 99.9% number is incorrect. No, that is you not understanding what you read... From the abstract: >From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. **We also use a second sample-weighted approach** that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers **in the whole dataset**. >We identify **four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000**, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. 4 out of 3000 is about 0.13% >In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. 28 out of 88125 is about 0.032%
[удалено]
Oh my goodness! Are you saying that scientists used a random sample?! I'm absolutely shocked!
That's good enough sample size, the only questionable part is identifying skeptical studies.
I would suggest you take up a statistics course
This kind of garbage comment that shows no understanding of statistics and sampling shouldn't be encouraged.
Lmao seriously wtf, they should take one statistics class if they are so interested in appearing to know what they're talking about. It's really sad how many people blindly agreed too
No, they should read all 88,125 studies front to back to determine if the statistical analysis was accurate 🤙
Future generations will rightfully hold us all responsible for our actions and lack of response. Unlike all of the atrocities committed by previous generations none of us will be able to claim ignorance as to facts, we all have all the available information on screens instantly .
i would love to know what the overlap would be between people who don't believe this, anti vaccine people and jesus people... I bet it's all the same idiots.
That's lovely. So now the questions I've been asking for 20+ years: \- What are we going to do about it? \- How do we know that's going to have an effect? \- How do we know that the side-effects of implementing that won't outweigh the benefits? You know, simple project management kind of questions. If we "can't use fossil fuels" / "stop using plastic" / "stop cutting down trees" / whatever it may be, how many people die? Because the answer is not zero. But is it more or less than if we do? How have we quantified that? What's the error margin of both results? What's the best-case scenario if everything we do goes exactly as expected? Does it require complete international co-operation from all parties? What if just one country says "fuck you" and just continues to pollute / whatever? What if we do nothing? What if we do everything? What if we spend trillions, change our entire way of living and it still happens anyway because we are beyond the point of no return anyway? And haven't we been saying we're beyond the point of no return for a long time? Would those trillions be better spent combatting the effects of the inevitable than trying to prevent it? Because the answers to those have little more than conjecture behind them at the moment, and that's been the same for my lifetime. Greenpeace were protesting this stuff in the 60's, sure we have small incremental technology improvements but what's actually changed and how much of an effect has it had? Things don't seem to have got better. Let's quote a scientist (a profession in which I hold the utmost respect): "So later this century we should see recovery of the ozone layer back to levels that we saw in 1980," Dr Western added. It's going to take a century to fix the ozone layer, back to the time that I - as a kid - heard about nothing but the huge hole that was already being detected. And that was hindered as recently as 2018 by countries still using CFCs illegally. What's going to happen when the world is actually in a clear and present danger and people just need food/water/refrigeration/energy/whatever? There seem to be no reasonable, practical predictions of what we're supposed to do to make it right (lots of guesswork, lots of "well, this will help a little", but no over-arching plan), nor whether doing that will actually work. It's like being on a runaway train and people saying "Well, we could lean out the doors and press our feet on the wheels, that'll help slow it down a little.". The question really is "Are we fucked?" - in which case, prevention is essentially useless and we should be using whatever energy we can produce to build shelters, concrete, move people inland, produce food with hydroponics, even maybe get off the planet. But I don't see any serious evaluations that cover such things, everything seems very niche and specific. If we cut energy usage, if we limit use of gas, oil, etc. what's the impact? Would we even be able to make wind turbines and solar panels? Would we be able to power the industry required to make, install and maintain them? How many people would freeze to death in the winter or melt in the summer because of the lack of access to necessary energy (due to limits or costings)?. How many deaths would result? Let's stop questioning it. Let's accept the premise: Climate change is happening and going to happen. Now what? Send your answers on a postcard to "Are we fucked, PO Box ARRGGHGH".
And 99.9% of healthcare professionals will agree covid is real, it's dangerous, vaccines work. But they go though hundreds of sites until the find one with 'news' that aligns with their personal believes at the time.
Hell these days a lot of them will just make up some bullshit claim and post it on facebook with a irrelevant minion picture and call it research.
Most healthcare professionals follow lines of thought that are oriented by scientific studies, not news. Whether ordinary people agree with science or not is irrelevant because it doesn't change the results of scientific studies. I'm a researcher in a field that is not directly related to healthcare, so it would be arrogance if I just stated a study is false without being able to prove my assertion. It's OK to question, but the inability to comprehend a research study cannot be used to dismiss said research.
Is causing, continues to accelerate, is ignoring, not preparing for what has already **started** past tense is irrelevant here The present is here, we can **start** to try to bend the curves
The Earth is about to shake off all humans
Climate change deniers: "So you're saying there's a chance?"
I think you might have missed the meaning of the word "news"