Is the claim that 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is man made accurate...

youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

The claim is gray. If I remember correctly the report they're citing was a meta-analysis of arge number of reports on climate change. The majority did not make a statement about whether or not climate change was the result of human activity. Of the ones that did make a claim 97% stated that the change was man made. However, most of the reports did find that climate change was happening. Can't recall if it was 97% but it was the vast majority.

For what it's worth it doesn't matter if climate change is manmade or not. We should take steps to mitigate the effects on human society. Check out Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus. They have great analysis on climate issues and present real solutions to help humanity deal with the problem. Most of their solutions revolve around solving more pressing issues first as there's little we can do about climate change without basically reverting to pre industrial society.

This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.

Like the claim that "97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is man made", or "that the world is in any sort of real danger", thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.

But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.

Attached: Screenshot_20190110-0845002.png (1024x576, 200K)

Is Bill Nye a cartoon character?

Attached: Daffy005.png (330x500, 9K)

True fact. Saw this in a Nat Geo mag in the doc's office. Nat Geo is fucking liberal as hell so if they admit it... gotta be true.

There are many qualifiers that put the statistic into question in the first place, and few individuals take the time to put it into proper context and properly teach the people about it, rather than use the claim as a whip to support their beloved causes.

>Who is defined as a "scientist"?
>What defines "climate change", and how is it measured?
>What defines "man made"?

"Scientists" and "intellectuals" may try to breeze over these questions, but qualifying them is the only way to properly understand them in their proper context. Once they are forced to explain things like their error propagation and methodologies used, we get a better idea of HOW the conclusion is being made, and thus can determine for ourselves what decisions to make based on both the conclusion AND their supporting definitions and evidence behind it.

Protip: Learned professions may be allowed to not take critical thinking courses as part of their education because it is assumed that they learn said skills as part of their profession. I have found this to be a fallacy.

I wish Bill Nye was on fire, instead of that poor defenseless globe.

But my state (WA) says it's our fault. They're even making us give up plastic straws. It will address the problem .00000000000000000001 percent.
>doing our part.

That stat spesifically came from a study I k ow about. The stat was taken from scientists who chose to comment. Less than 30% chose to comment meaning the study more accurately found that 29% of scientista agree, one percent disagree, and 70% couldn't answer because they didn't feel qualified to comment or didn't know.

Note how climate change and the agendas to "fight" it are only pushed in first-world western countries, while everyone else ignores it or take the most meek and pointless efforts in placating these same people harassing the west.

Accelerate global warming. If we can't win I want to take the whole planet with us. Leave nothing for the degens.

>Is the claim that 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is man made accurate?

very few scientists know anything about climate science, so the "97% of scientists" claim is scientifically fallacious.

Bill Nye is full of shit. Climate change is a thing but it's more complicated than just "man made"

not man made
Its a natural cycle.

FPBP and an accurate depiction of what's actually happening.

it's basically a logical fallacy, "Appeal to authority and popularity"

or as I like to call them.... the "Dark Arts"

Attached: NevilleLongbottom_WB_F5_NevilleLongbottomAndHarryPotter_Still_080615_Land.jpg (320x240, 17K)

Nothing will happen.

I c wut u did ther

Attached: Palpatine.jpg (229x220, 8K)

give the government your money so they can send it to Israel, smart goy

>Is the claim that 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is man made accurate?
No. One would need to be thoroughly ignorant of all science and how it works in order to reach such a mentally retarded assumption. Science is not a matter of consensus. Like, people "agreeing" about shit does not equal truth. And if there were such a thing as scientific consensus it most certainly would be wholly and unapologetically against that dumb, mouth breathingly fucking retarded commie bullshit about how the scientific community agrees about literal communist propaganda regarding "global warming". Those jewish alarmist have been at their shit for 50+ years and each one of them each and every time has given about a ten year window for humanity to "get with the program". Each and every time it has been shown that those people are literally fucking retarded and their "window" was complete and utter bullshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=hNXmKiEqVx4

It doesn't matter. The study is essentially a giant false appeal to authority. Logical fallacies don't have to be taken serious as arguments.

it's usually best to call them out AS logical fallacies in situ, to degrade the credibility of their proponents.....

Attached: 97_santa.png (1007x855, 1.07M)

Attached: myth_origin.png (816x857, 224K)

Attached: 99_percent.png (1782x799, 101K)

>ice core temperature

Attached: 7B726934-A280-4FBE-B700-07CA24E64FA0.jpg (1200x1090, 84K)

>Scientists" and "intellectuals" may try to breeze over these questions
you’re thinking of Jow Forumsacks

It was so fucking cold today in the northeast and it's the middle of May. It was literally in the 40's.

Nice attempt at mind reading, "intellectual".

thanks, I know I’ve got a real knack for it

is discussion of the data allowed:

Y/N

If Yes, it is science.

If No, it is propaganda masquerading as science.

there is no third option.

Some motherfucker had to hack into the IPCC to get the data they used to make their climate change models.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Now you tell me, would you consider this level of avoidance of peer review, Science?

Since no one seems to get it : in this 97% of "scientists" who believe in global warming or climate change or whatever trend it gets, not even 1% are climate specialists, so are effectively talking outside of their knowledge and know fuck all about it and their opinion is as valuable as a negroid mental diarrhea.

the claim is that 97% of CLIMATE scientists believe climate change is real.
this is like claiming that 97% of bigfoot hunters believe bigfoot is real.

no fucking shit

i thought it was more like 80% to 20%
leave it to the media to warp perceptions

no one was avoiding peer review. you don’t know what peer review is and you aren’t even literate enough to read the wiki page you linked.

You would think a fake scientist would at least have common sense and understand the world naturaly changes its climate... it goes hot and cold with drastic swings so cold we had a ice age at one point and there was a time lava and volcanos where commonly active on earth... screaming man made climate change is all just a massive scam and irresponsible to promote when there are still no hard facts to what exactly causes it and if we do then we should know the exact steps to reverse it but you ask that and nobody knows, it's all guess and speculation. The earth in itself is basically a huge purifier and it repairs itself over time, There is alot we dont know about the earth and to think man kind can drastically alter its climate and we humans can make such a drastic change to reverse it is idiotic... this whole Climate change and global warming scam has been pushed around since the early 1900s and so called scientists have been predicting end of the world for ever now and are still wrong today

Lol ((()))

>97% of scientist have an opinion on global warming and how its our fault
Scientists? Are we including doctors who practice medicine too? Who fucking cares what they think. If I want to know what lab coats think about this subject, i'll go to one who is dedicated to the field

Global warming exists, its mostly "man" made but the only thing white and developed countries can do about it is annex india and africa, the biggest polluters, and make them into nothing but a giant field of nuclear power plants.

Whatever, it just seems like it's cold all the time now. I don't remember it being as cold as it's been now during this time of the year and it's almost every day.

>Is the claim that 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is man made accurate?
Yes, yes it is.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Though it isn't really "our fault" so much as the fault of the capitalist class, which accounts for less than 0.5% of the population globally. So the idea that it's India as a whole, or that it's all Americans, or the fault of the regular working class person is false.

> 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is man made

Absolute 100% de-bunked lie:

youtube.com/watch?v=MxRk-9o9QOA

Attached: ScreenArea_20190514.02:18:15.png (907x516, 488K)

So backpedaling has started. No we were not in these fake 97%

Fuck off liars, science is settled. You are all paid shills.

a friend of mine put it wisely: yes climate change is happening, it's not that bad though and we still have time to fix things but for the time being we do not have enough understanding of what exactly causes it or how to fix it.

Also based Jordan Peterson shows how ridiculous the current Left's ideas to counter climate change are:

youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY

>inb4 stormfags diss Peterson just because he won't publicly praise Hitler

Is Bill Nye about to extinguish global warming with a can of CO2?

ahahahhaha
right
>97% of scientists
>publicly funded
>agree that gubmint should keep paying them
IPCC's whole is purpose is to "study" global warming. You think they will sabotage their careers and reputation by telling the truth?

Attached: gender-is-determined-by-your-chromosomes-gender-is-like-sex-19737635.png (500x781, 176K)

>muh consensus

Attached: vufeIn0.png (1200x1263, 401K)

Attached: warming periods 10k years BC.jpg (995x752, 128K)

Attached: change in leaf area CO2 IS PLANT FOOD.jpg (1920x1080, 922K)

Attached: CO2.jpg (1200x733, 66K)

Attached: CO2 and Temperature NO CORRELATION.jpg (960x720, 146K)

Attached: aaaaa.png (2080x1456, 523K)

Attached: First_Climate_Change_Summit.jpg (960x742, 92K)

Attached: Greenhouse gases.jpg (1208x1974, 267K)

Attached: Solar radiation and Volcanic activity.jpg (1600x1150, 333K)