99.9% of peer-reviewed studies accept that man-made climate change is happening.
The “debate” is over.
This is fact.
This is fact.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
FrozenWasteland · 61-69, M
I have a fairly open mind on the "man-made climate change" thing, but history has shown more than once that there can be a big gap between "peer-reviewed studies" and "fact".
99.9% of the people I hang out with hold the same views as I do on a lot of things. That doesn't make any of then "fact".
99.9% of the people I hang out with hold the same views as I do on a lot of things. That doesn't make any of then "fact".
@FrozenWasteland I'm guessing you accept that smoking can cause cancer, that obesity can increase your chances of heart disease, that too much alcohol can lead to liver disease, and that vaccines provide effective protection.
Am I right?
Am I right?
FrozenWasteland · 61-69, M
Not really sure where you're going with this, @wishforthenight, but for the most part, yes, I'd accept those as something pretty close to "fact".
@FrozenWasteland yes. Of course you do. And quite rightly, because guess what?
99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that smoking can cause cancer.
99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that vaccines provide effective protection.
99% of peer- reviewed studies agree that obesity can increase your chances of heart disease.
And there’s not even a percentage regarding alcohol and liver disease; just “consistent, robust findings” across countless meta-analyses, cohort studies, and systematic reviews that alcohol increases the risk of liver disease.
But you accept all these as fact because you accept that 99%+ of peer-reviewed studies know them to be true.
So…
…why, then, do you refuse to accept the evidence of 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies that say that man made climate change is happening?
99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that smoking can cause cancer.
99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that vaccines provide effective protection.
99% of peer- reviewed studies agree that obesity can increase your chances of heart disease.
And there’s not even a percentage regarding alcohol and liver disease; just “consistent, robust findings” across countless meta-analyses, cohort studies, and systematic reviews that alcohol increases the risk of liver disease.
But you accept all these as fact because you accept that 99%+ of peer-reviewed studies know them to be true.
So…
…why, then, do you refuse to accept the evidence of 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies that say that man made climate change is happening?
FrozenWasteland · 61-69, M
@wishforthenight I'm not going to get into a big discussion here, but I'm not confident that climate studies have the same level of credibility as (say) most of the medical studies you cite. For a few reasons:
One can't really do well-controlled clinical studies, double-blind trials, etc. on climate.
Many climate "studies" are based on a relatively small number of data sets and predictive models, none of which have yielded very accurate predictions, at least to this point.
I suspect, albeit without terribly compelling evidence, that climate studies are more prone to confirmation bias than medical studies, though neither are necessarily immune.
Akin to that, results of climate studies are "sensationalized" far more than in any other scientific field I am aware of. Again, without a lot of evidence other than my understanding, such as it is, of human nature, I suspect this may tend to bias the results.
Finally, more than in any other scientific field (at least in recent times), dissent is actively and constructively discouraged. This may, I suspect, diminish the rigor, and hence the value, of the peer-review process.
In short, I don't believe that all sets of 99.9% peer-reviewed studies are equally reliable.
As I said initially, I have a fairly open mind on the "man-made climate change" subject -- I just don't find the 99.9% agreement argument convincing.
One can't really do well-controlled clinical studies, double-blind trials, etc. on climate.
Many climate "studies" are based on a relatively small number of data sets and predictive models, none of which have yielded very accurate predictions, at least to this point.
I suspect, albeit without terribly compelling evidence, that climate studies are more prone to confirmation bias than medical studies, though neither are necessarily immune.
Akin to that, results of climate studies are "sensationalized" far more than in any other scientific field I am aware of. Again, without a lot of evidence other than my understanding, such as it is, of human nature, I suspect this may tend to bias the results.
Finally, more than in any other scientific field (at least in recent times), dissent is actively and constructively discouraged. This may, I suspect, diminish the rigor, and hence the value, of the peer-review process.
In short, I don't believe that all sets of 99.9% peer-reviewed studies are equally reliable.
As I said initially, I have a fairly open mind on the "man-made climate change" subject -- I just don't find the 99.9% agreement argument convincing.
@FrozenWasteland Well, OK, yes climate science is complicated, and it's tough to wrap your head around some of the models. It’s also true that the media tends to sensationalize things, especially when the stakes are so high. And they are very high. I also think they're actually not being sensational enough because when you look at the total body of evidence from a range of scientific fields, the evidence is rock solid.
Yes, climate models aren’t perfect, and they don’t always predict with 100% accuracy (especially short-term), but the long-term trend of global warming is undeniable. What’s crucial is that these models are based on physical laws (like the greenhouse effect) and are backed by a huge amount of data; everything from paleoclimate records to modern temperature trends.
The fact that 99% of peer-reviewed studies agree on this point isn’t just a coincidence. It’s the result of decades of research and many, many lines of independent evidence.
Climate science obviously can’t be as controlled as clinical trials, but it’s still based on empirical, verifiable data. And even if some predictions have been off, the overall trend has been accurate, and increasingly, the models are improving, and are arguably being shown to be too conservative, worryingly
In the end, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community isn’t about sensationalism or bias, it’s about evidence. Just like everything.
The evidence in favor of man-made climate change is far stronger than it might seem at first glance.
Yes, climate models aren’t perfect, and they don’t always predict with 100% accuracy (especially short-term), but the long-term trend of global warming is undeniable. What’s crucial is that these models are based on physical laws (like the greenhouse effect) and are backed by a huge amount of data; everything from paleoclimate records to modern temperature trends.
The fact that 99% of peer-reviewed studies agree on this point isn’t just a coincidence. It’s the result of decades of research and many, many lines of independent evidence.
Climate science obviously can’t be as controlled as clinical trials, but it’s still based on empirical, verifiable data. And even if some predictions have been off, the overall trend has been accurate, and increasingly, the models are improving, and are arguably being shown to be too conservative, worryingly
In the end, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community isn’t about sensationalism or bias, it’s about evidence. Just like everything.
The evidence in favor of man-made climate change is far stronger than it might seem at first glance.