Quote:
Originally Posted by Teretonga
even the famed 97% of all scientists was a fake.
|
I mentioned in my earlier post that was concerns about discussions devolving into "my expert says" back and forth. My experience is that polarizing topics like this have this type of anecdotal stories. The usually have a fragment of truth or have some genesis in reality, but take on a life of their own including "facts" of their own and often without any attribution as to source. So for example the "97%" topic. I frankly had not heard of this until you posted it. I was curious. Because the story you provided in which it was a vote at a conference and the process was manipulated to generated desired outcome (nearly 100% agreement). I thought if true, that sounded quite overt. So I did a tiny bit of reading.
Here is what might be a good article on the topic of the "97%" value.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=11abb5961157
So the "97%" topic is a "thing" in the culture war in which both sides have decided to battle over and is weaponized by both sides. In short the initial 97% value came from doing analysis of published articles and their conclusions and not a conference in which some type of vote was taken and manipulated. And it then became a weapon for those who believe in the human impact on the climate. Is the 97% value accurate? There are multiple studied that generate different values. You have one clock, you know what time it is, you have two clocks you never know what time it is. So the 97% may not "the truth", but the truth might be 98%, 80% or any other number... including 97% (probably less than 97%). Based upon aggregation of multiple similar studies, it sounds like most all are predominately in the above 80% or "strong consensus" (my wording) category. The article goes into more details.
My point is that most arguments like this in which "facts" are tossed out, are probably various
anecdotal talking points depending upon who or where you get your information from. For example that Forbes article might be right, or wrong. I don't know. But at least I am listing a source for a specific data point.
Richard