The 97% is 97% of published scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... literature
--Andy
Moderator: Community Team
The 97% is 97% of published scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... literature
That's not the 97% figure that people have recently been quoting, that's from several years ago. The new 97% figure is based on a review of 12,000 climate science peer-reviewed papers. Read it for yourself if you like.
Does he really think that climate scientists think the Sun is not the engine that provides the heat for the Earth?The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth
This sentence scares me. "Yeah, we don't know what the sun is going to do really." I'm not saying you should know or anything, but the sun is a scary thing. As C. Montgomery Burns once said, "Since the beginning of time, man has longed to destroy the sun. I've done the next best thing!"Metsfanmax wrote:I can tell you that many of us are concerned about the difficulty of projecting the climate into the future with certainty because of our lack of information on what the Sun will be doing in a century
Ph.D. climate scientists can A) be wrong, B) be motivated by continuing their funding, and C) be supportive of socialist transfers of wealth. Just because they have a Ph.D. next to their name doesn't mean their every statement is fact.Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty. Out of curiosity. Do you think that you are A) more smart, B) less smart, or C) equally smart compared to Ph.D. climate scientists?
Night Strike wrote:Ph.D. climate scientists can A) be wrong, B) be motivated by continuing their funding, and C) be supportive of socialist transfers of wealth. Just because they have a Ph.D. next to their name doesn't mean their every statement is fact.Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty. Out of curiosity. Do you think that you are A) more smart, B) less smart, or C) equally smart compared to Ph.D. climate scientists?


That's quite the detour you've taken there.Phatscotty wrote:Ph.D. climate scientists can... C) be supportive of socialist transfers of wealth
Thank you, Phatscotty, for answering the question.Night Strike wrote:Ph.D. climate scientists can A) be wrong, B) be motivated by continuing their funding, and C) be supportive of socialist transfers of wealth. Just because they have a Ph.D. next to their name doesn't mean their every statement is fact.Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty. Out of curiosity. Do you think that you are A) more smart, B) less smart, or C) equally smart compared to Ph.D. climate scientists?
We really need to educate students better on the subject of probability and uncertainty. I just don't see any way for the general public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of climate forecasting until that happens.Lootifer wrote: Also being a statistical forecaster/analyst myself I can tell you that the one constant in any kind of forecast/projection is you will undoubtedly be incorrect. This too is not just limited to liberals/leftists/whatever.
I wonder how much adults retain from childhood educations. For example, I took two years of calculus in my education career. If you gave me a calculus problem now, I could not solve it because I haven't used calculus since college. Let me put it another way:Metsfanmax wrote:We really need to educate students better on the subject of probability and uncertainty. I just don't see any way for the general public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of climate forecasting until that happens.Lootifer wrote: Also being a statistical forecaster/analyst myself I can tell you that the one constant in any kind of forecast/projection is you will undoubtedly be incorrect. This too is not just limited to liberals/leftists/whatever.
2dimes wrote:I'm pretty sure it's even worse than you think Greek..
We really need to educate students better on putting litter in a proper trash receptacle. Including seperating plastics, food waste, chemicals and metal. I just don't see any way for the public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of recycling until that happens.
Never mind not driving as much or alternate fuels. How about starting with anyone who eats a snack refrains from just throwing the container/wrapping out the window?
Really? That's a property rights issue. Throw your trash on the floor of a McDonald's and magically the managers care enough to have it cleaned. Mass EDU program averted.2dimes wrote:I'm pretty sure it's even worse than you think Greek..
We really need to educate students better on putting litter in a proper trash receptacle. Including seperating plastics, food waste, chemicals and metal. I just don't see any way for the public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of recycling until that happens.
Never mind not driving as much or alternate fuels. How about starting with anyone who eats a snack refrains from just throwing the container/wrapping out the window?
Probability and uncertainty, unlike calculus, pervade our daily experiences. Every time you read a news article on an issue like the environment, or energy, or health, you are being exposed to thinking based on risk and uncertainty. But since people aren't probably educated in the first place to understand that part of the thinking, it sails right over them. If they learn to see that in their every day life, then it becomes reinforced every day. That's the value of the high school education -- I don't expect people to remember how to calculate a permutation at 30 years old. I do expect people to understand the difference between point-based reasoning (i.e. we make a measurement and that's the answer) and set-based reasoning (i.e. we make many measurements and the answer is somewhere in the middle).thegreekdog wrote:I wonder how much adults retain from childhood educations. For example, I took two years of calculus in my education career. If you gave me a calculus problem now, I could not solve it because I haven't used calculus since college. Let me put it another way:Metsfanmax wrote:We really need to educate students better on the subject of probability and uncertainty. I just don't see any way for the general public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of climate forecasting until that happens.Lootifer wrote: Also being a statistical forecaster/analyst myself I can tell you that the one constant in any kind of forecast/projection is you will undoubtedly be incorrect. This too is not just limited to liberals/leftists/whatever.
Okay, but I'm pretty sure everyone pays taxes (including high school students). So...Metsfanmax wrote:Probability and uncertainty, unlike calculus, pervade our daily experiences. Every time you read a news article on an issue like the environment, or energy, or health, you are being exposed to thinking based on risk and uncertainty. But since people aren't probably educated in the first place to understand that part of the thinking, it sails right over them. If they learn to see that in their every day life, then it becomes reinforced every day. That's the value of the high school education -- I don't expect people to remember how to calculate a permutation at 30 years old. I do expect people to understand the difference between point-based reasoning (i.e. we make a measurement and that's the answer) and set-based reasoning (i.e. we make many measurements and the answer is somewhere in the middle).thegreekdog wrote:I wonder how much adults retain from childhood educations. For example, I took two years of calculus in my education career. If you gave me a calculus problem now, I could not solve it because I haven't used calculus since college. Let me put it another way:Metsfanmax wrote:We really need to educate students better on the subject of probability and uncertainty. I just don't see any way for the general public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of climate forecasting until that happens.Lootifer wrote: Also being a statistical forecaster/analyst myself I can tell you that the one constant in any kind of forecast/projection is you will undoubtedly be incorrect. This too is not just limited to liberals/leftists/whatever.
A high school student with a job will directly pay state income taxes (and possibly federal), unemployment taxes, and sales taxes.2dimes wrote:What is a high school student paying taxes on and how does the litter thrown out a window make it's way inside a McDonald's for partially proper disposal?
TGD, just because you love taxes, doesn't mean you should FORCE YOUR LOVE ON EVERYONE?!?!!!?! I think its high time to stand up to tax bullies, like TGD.thegreekdog wrote:A high school student with a job will directly pay state income taxes (and possibly federal), unemployment taxes, and sales taxes.2dimes wrote:What is a high school student paying taxes on and how does the litter thrown out a window make it's way inside a McDonald's for partially proper disposal?
A high school student with or without a job will indirectly pay all kinds of different corporate and personal and transactional taxes.
Also, thanks 2dimes, I rest my case.

You're being specific regarding a particular skill that should be taught. I'm not. If a high school education does not give one the life skills necessary to figure out how to think about taxes, then it should be fixed -- but that doesn't mean teaching people in-depth about the tax system. It means teaching people more about basic math, economics and finances, and allowing them to put the pieces together on their own. SImilarly, I'm not advocating teaching students in-depth material about climate change; I'm advocating giving them the tools necessary to understand the more sophisticated material they'll encounter in their adult lives. There are plenty of benefits to teaching students more about risk and uncertainty; climate change is one of many.thegreekdog wrote:Okay, but I'm pretty sure everyone pays taxes (including high school students). So...Metsfanmax wrote:Probability and uncertainty, unlike calculus, pervade our daily experiences. Every time you read a news article on an issue like the environment, or energy, or health, you are being exposed to thinking based on risk and uncertainty. But since people aren't probably educated in the first place to understand that part of the thinking, it sails right over them. If they learn to see that in their every day life, then it becomes reinforced every day. That's the value of the high school education -- I don't expect people to remember how to calculate a permutation at 30 years old. I do expect people to understand the difference between point-based reasoning (i.e. we make a measurement and that's the answer) and set-based reasoning (i.e. we make many measurements and the answer is somewhere in the middle).thegreekdog wrote:I wonder how much adults retain from childhood educations. For example, I took two years of calculus in my education career. If you gave me a calculus problem now, I could not solve it because I haven't used calculus since college. Let me put it another way:Metsfanmax wrote:We really need to educate students better on the subject of probability and uncertainty. I just don't see any way for the general public to fully understand the strengths and limitations of climate forecasting until that happens.Lootifer wrote: Also being a statistical forecaster/analyst myself I can tell you that the one constant in any kind of forecast/projection is you will undoubtedly be incorrect. This too is not just limited to liberals/leftists/whatever.
You're also proving my point (and no, I'm not calling you stupid, nor do I think you're stupid by any means).Metsfanmax wrote:You're being specific regarding a particular skill that should be taught. I'm not. If a high school education does not give one the life skills necessary to figure out how to think about taxes, then it should be fixed -- but that doesn't mean teaching people in-depth about the tax system. It means teaching people more about basic math, economics and finances, and allowing them to put the pieces together on their own. SImilarly, I'm not advocating teaching students in-depth material about climate change; I'm advocating giving them the tools necessary to understand the more sophisticated material they'll encounter in their adult lives. There are plenty of benefits to teaching students more about risk and uncertainty; climate change is one of many.