The same goes for people who haven't published papers that believe in climate change just because 97% of scientists do.
Huh? The rational thing for laymen to do is to accept what the overwhelming majority of scientific research tells them is the case. It's neither foolish, nor egotistical. It's sensible and it's modest.
It always amazes me when people who claim to understand science think that the absence of evidence means evidence of absence.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
For full disclosure, I am an engineer and I personally do not believe in god, but since there exists no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent creator, it's really not a "contradictory belief" for a scientist to have faith in a creator.
There is no evidence (in that sense) to prove or disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit around Mars. But no scientist believes there is one. There is no evidence (in that sense) to prove or disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden. But no scientist believes there are.
Scientists are not simpletons that are prepared to believe myths simply because the myth is framed in a way that says within the myth, nothing can prove this myth wrong. Scientists know how the myths originated.
Scientists that still believe the God myth their parents gave them are no more rational than scientists that still believe the Father Christmas and Tooth Fairy myths that their parents gave them. They have no business being scientists. Science is for rational people.
Good for you. The chart is blowing out of the water those idiots that are saying "global warming has stopped in the last X years". Those that are NOT looking at the long term.
Actually, it said 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause agreed that humans are the main contributing factor, which I believe is what GPLHost-Thomas was addressing.
No it wasn't. There was no element of that in what he said.
Limiting yourself to just those papers that have taken a position on the cause of global warming can be seen as like limiting yourself to just people who have taken a position on the existence of (a) God.
No it cannot. Papers are documentation of a specific piece of scientific work. They are not comparable with a count of the number of people who arbitrarily believe in something. It's chalk and cheese.
Funnily enough, when I said "the vast majority of services are zero cost", one of the exclusions is dental care, of which most is done in the private sector. So even your stereotype is in line with my point.
And there lies your denialism in shreds. It's not about the science. Conservatism is the politics of fear, and you fear what the consequences of the science being correct are, in economics and politics.
More important is whether Hansen is right. He's in a better position to predict what would happen if all the worlds fossil fuels were burned than any slashdot poster is.
Different poster here. I'm in Britain, so not much Hollywood influence here. I've asked several Buddhists over the years whether they believe a god or gods. Not a single one has given me a straight response which I could interpret as yes or no. But on balance left me with the impression "no" in each case.
Right, they're really comparable:rolleyes: I'm constantly amazed at how anti-science some technical people can be. And the amazing thing is, it isn't across-the-board. It's just on certain issues.
It always amazes me when a scientist in one of the hard science fields admits to believing in a personal god. It's amazing the way the human brain can cope with holding contradictory beliefs.
I'm sure many deniers do believe in science in general. But that's switched off when items that are contradictory to their political alignment come up. They'll come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories, or imagine that they've found something on a blog that all the scientific studies managed to miss.
Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming.
They are intelligent people, and realise that with the amount of research done on the topic, if 97% of it shows evidence of AGW, than AGW is overwhelmingly likely.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean they don't put deniers in the media. They like some counter views, it makes for a fun way of telling a story. They actually put them in far too much, giving the false impression there is still a scientific controversy, when there isn't.
Yeah! It's like saying that 97% of priest believe in god anyway.
This just reveals your wooly thinking. TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real. Scientific method, not belief.
The only believers in this are the deniers. People who's belief outweighs even the most overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.
actually, this article is creepy. being posted via a pseudonym for a known shitty slashdot editor, they only use that nym when they're posting "google is questionable" or heavily favoring microsoft type troll articles.
No one loves the messenger who brings bad news. -- Sophocles.
Pseudonyms - that's a very interesting thing to criticise. I take it you weren't christened "poetmatt". The Matthew seems quite likely, but hardly narrows your identity down much. For sure my name is not Basil Brush. Slashdot culture is one of pseudonames. Maybe 1 in a hundred use their real name.
But that's not why it's interesting. It's interesting because the great corporate Peeping Tom, Google agrees with you. They originally demanded that you must use your real name online, so that they could spy on you even more. It wasn't until it was clear that Google Plus wasn't a success that they backtracked on that.
They're computer companies. It's not the allies vs the nazis.
And how is it possible to like what Google do, and also be a proponent of privacy, as most Slashdotters seem to be. There's massive inconsistency here.
Fundamentally it's this: Google uses Linux, so we'll forgive them all their wrong-doing, in case we lose the only successful Linux based consumer OS. And that makes you those Slashdotters no better than the people who excused Microsoft in the 90s because they liked Windows.
Your argument is like arguing that you can break into your bank and take your cash -- after all it belongs to you -- without regards to the agreement you signed when you opened your account limiting your access to that cash.
No, it'd be like if the bank gave me my own money at the ATM, then complained about it. Microsoft are using Google's own API. They're not hacking.
Google has played right into Microsoft's hands. The very day Larry Page says this: âoeEvery story I read about Google is âus vs some other companyâ(TM) or some stupid thing, and I just donâ(TM)t find that very interesting. We should be building great things that donâ(TM)t exist. Being negative isnâ(TM)t how we make progress.â They refuse to allow WP to use the same API Android and iOS use. Hypocrites.
Slashdot Mirror
"It makes you a fool who thinks he's special."
The same goes for people who haven't published papers that believe in climate change just because 97% of scientists do.
Huh? The rational thing for laymen to do is to accept what the overwhelming majority of scientific research tells them is the case. It's neither foolish, nor egotistical. It's sensible and it's modest.
It always amazes me when people who claim to understand science think that the absence of evidence means evidence of absence.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
For full disclosure, I am an engineer and I personally do not believe in god, but since there exists no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent creator, it's really not a "contradictory belief" for a scientist to have faith in a creator.
There is no evidence (in that sense) to prove or disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit around Mars. But no scientist believes there is one. There is no evidence (in that sense) to prove or disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden. But no scientist believes there are.
Scientists are not simpletons that are prepared to believe myths simply because the myth is framed in a way that says within the myth, nothing can prove this myth wrong. Scientists know how the myths originated.
Scientists that still believe the God myth their parents gave them are no more rational than scientists that still believe the Father Christmas and Tooth Fairy myths that their parents gave them. They have no business being scientists. Science is for rational people.
Good for you. The chart is blowing out of the water those idiots that are saying "global warming has stopped in the last X years". Those that are NOT looking at the long term.
I didn't act as if anything. I only posted a chart that blew your bullshit out of the water.
Actually, it said 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause agreed that humans are the main contributing factor, which I believe is what GPLHost-Thomas was addressing.
No it wasn't. There was no element of that in what he said.
Limiting yourself to just those papers that have taken a position on the cause of global warming can be seen as like limiting yourself to just people who have taken a position on the existence of (a) God.
No it cannot. Papers are documentation of a specific piece of scientific work. They are not comparable with a count of the number of people who arbitrarily believe in something. It's chalk and cheese.
But not for the same quality of care.
Oh I agree. In the UK, it's universal care. Everyone gets treated for any problem they present to their free GP.
In America, lots of people are excluded and can't get the healthcare they need.
America's healthcare is much poorer.
Funnily enough, when I said "the vast majority of services are zero cost", one of the exclusions is dental care, of which most is done in the private sector. So even your stereotype is in line with my point.
And there lies your denialism in shreds. It's not about the science. Conservatism is the politics of fear, and you fear what the consequences of the science being correct are, in economics and politics.
Having just made up bogus statistics on the spot, you're not qualified to ask about logic.
More important is whether Hansen is right. He's in a better position to predict what would happen if all the worlds fossil fuels were burned than any slashdot poster is.
The original (implicit) claim is that when 97% of scientists agree on something, it must be right.
a) This isn't a count of scientists nor "beliefs". This is a count of documented scientific studies that concluded AGW is real.
b) It certainly isn't a count of 97% of "people believing" something.
c) It doesn't mean "must be right", it means that there's a very high degree of certainty that it's right.
Therefore:
d) Any number of so called "counter examples" of 97% of people believing something wrong, is irrelevant.
That piece of nonsense refuted in a single image.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
Different poster here. I'm in Britain, so not much Hollywood influence here. I've asked several Buddhists over the years whether they believe a god or gods. Not a single one has given me a straight response which I could interpret as yes or no. But on balance left me with the impression "no" in each case.
Apparently, nobody noticed that global warming stopped about 13 years ago...
Ahem...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
TL;DR version: Deniers tend to be right wingers who deny the science because they see that left wingers accept it.
Oh, I have to chose now? Fair enough... I don't believe in the man made global warming swindle.
Unless you're a scientist who's released a paper on global warming, that doesn't make you a 3 percenter.
It makes you a fool who thinks he's special.
British healthcare is run by the government. The vast majority of services are "zero cost".
Americans spend 2.5 times as much on healthcare as the British.
Right, they're really comparable :rolleyes: I'm constantly amazed at how anti-science some technical people can be. And the amazing thing is, it isn't across-the-board. It's just on certain issues.
It always amazes me when a scientist in one of the hard science fields admits to believing in a personal god. It's amazing the way the human brain can cope with holding contradictory beliefs.
I'm sure many deniers do believe in science in general. But that's switched off when items that are contradictory to their political alignment come up. They'll come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories, or imagine that they've found something on a blog that all the scientific studies managed to miss.
Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming.
They are intelligent people, and realise that with the amount of research done on the topic, if 97% of it shows evidence of AGW, than AGW is overwhelmingly likely.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean they don't put deniers in the media. They like some counter views, it makes for a fun way of telling a story. They actually put them in far too much, giving the false impression there is still a scientific controversy, when there isn't.
Yeah! It's like saying that 97% of priest believe in god anyway.
This just reveals your wooly thinking. TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real. Scientific method, not belief.
The only believers in this are the deniers. People who's belief outweighs even the most overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.
actually, this article is creepy. being posted via a pseudonym for a known shitty slashdot editor, they only use that nym when they're posting "google is questionable" or heavily favoring microsoft type troll articles.
No one loves the messenger who brings bad news. -- Sophocles.
Pseudonyms - that's a very interesting thing to criticise. I take it you weren't christened "poetmatt". The Matthew seems quite likely, but hardly narrows your identity down much. For sure my name is not Basil Brush. Slashdot culture is one of pseudonames. Maybe 1 in a hundred use their real name.
But that's not why it's interesting. It's interesting because the great corporate Peeping Tom, Google agrees with you. They originally demanded that you must use your real name online, so that they could spy on you even more. It wasn't until it was clear that Google Plus wasn't a success that they backtracked on that.
It is enough to make Google look even more creepy.
Not only there, but location tracking is optional globally or per app on iOS in the Settings app. As is interest tracking.
More importantly Apple don't collect all your searches and emails as data to advertise to you with. And that's the main problem with Google.
They're computer companies. It's not the allies vs the nazis.
And how is it possible to like what Google do, and also be a proponent of privacy, as most Slashdotters seem to be. There's massive inconsistency here.
Fundamentally it's this: Google uses Linux, so we'll forgive them all their wrong-doing, in case we lose the only successful Linux based consumer OS. And that makes you those Slashdotters no better than the people who excused Microsoft in the 90s because they liked Windows.
Your argument is like arguing that you can break into your bank and take your cash -- after all it belongs to you -- without regards to the agreement you signed when you opened your account limiting your access to that cash.
No, it'd be like if the bank gave me my own money at the ATM, then complained about it. Microsoft are using Google's own API. They're not hacking.
Google has played right into Microsoft's hands. The very day Larry Page says this: âoeEvery story I read about Google is âus vs some other companyâ(TM) or some stupid thing, and I just donâ(TM)t find that very interesting. We should be building great things that donâ(TM)t exist. Being negative isnâ(TM)t how we make progress.â They refuse to allow WP to use the same API Android and iOS use. Hypocrites.