Trumpism, climate and COVID: Social bases of the new science rejection
Although the hazards posed by greenhouse warming and COVID-19 are quite different, diagnosis and mitigation prospects for both depend heavily on science. Unfortunately, the reality of both threats has been subject to politicized science rejection in the US...
Science by consensus is not science. Climate change pushers are science deniers.
97% of Reddit commenters agree.
Folks, humans are to blame because seasons and weather change
"When scientists agree on something it's not science'"
???
Do tell us more.
Everyone : « Rachel Madcow and the media are lying. »
tuchodi: « SOuRcE??! »
Did you need the scientific method explained to you or are you going to act like a petulant child and ignore it?
Secondly, explain how you arrived at the percentage you did. Because it was NOT achieved by all of the "scientists" writing the exact same studies. Until you come to terms with that piece of information, you are being non scientific.
She was going to explain or support her opinion that scientists agreeing is not science.
Below are some examples of scientists agreeing folks. Perhaps shitheel can provide some support for her personal opinion that "Climate change pushers are science deniers."
https://web.archive.org/web/20181022184656/https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
https://www.academie-sciences.fr/archivage_site/activite/rapport/avis0605a_gb.pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
Point and laugh at the vaccinated land whale ⬆️
💉💉💉🪦
🥱
So it's not science when 97 % of scientists agree that humans are causing climate change because... Sorry I'm failing to grasp the logic you didn't provide.
Tell us all how that 97% number was conceived.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
How I make most of my decisions on what to believe - a legitimate study.
Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Downvote disinformation, then laugh at the contagious boomer spreading it. 💉🦠⚰️🪦☠️
Next, show the funding sources for the sub 12K studies.
Cherry picking data is dishonest.
You are dishonest.
You're a fucking clown. It's not cherry picking data, it's literally just all the data we have for the time period
Point and laugh at the vaccinated diabetic landwhale 😂
💉💉💉🪦
Soon to get suddenly’d boomer 💉💉🪦
😂🤣
No dumbass. Your "concensus" is cherry picked data.
Is that the narrative they're selling to you guys now? Peer reviewed scientific studies are cherry picked? They don't even include things that aren't peer reviewed so literally everything has been verified by a panel of experts. I've seen y'all claim absolute truth our of sketchier pre-prints without peer review and this is leaps and bounds above that in terms of validity.
I hope you get AIDS
Sure. It's treatable nowadays.