Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard C
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 |
The 97% story is one of the more blatant lies
It originally came from a college paper , [Doran Zimmerman ], which had just 75 people who said that people had some effect on the climate and that was 97%.
The left wing politicians and media jumped on this story to try to promote the Global Warming fraud .
This led to the Oregon Petition , where over 30,000 signed . [ including some of Americas top scientists and over 10,000 PHDs ] said that it was rubbish .
To try to keep the scam going an Eco Loon ,[ Cook ], claimed to have read 12,000 published scientific papers and that the 97% was right .
But independent analysis of the papers showed that just 40 odd of them said that humans might have some effect on climate .
But the media still kept pushing the 97% rubbish
Here is some reading about how the whole 97% story is a load of lies .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/...hat-consensus/