Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
^ Oh good, this game. It was the first link I found, I have no clue who Alex Epstein is. Like I said, there are many more. If you don't believe me about the 97% claim being trash, go look it up yourself. It's trash. I'm not going to continue on with this, I was asked why I dislike SS, and I answered.
|
You were asked because you were bitching about Skep as a bad source.
I know you really do see every light debate as some game to win, but honestly, bitch about sources and expect people to check your sources. If the ones you use aren’t any good either, it’s probably safer just to let people use whatever garbage sources they want and argue the points on merit.
Even just looking at the first page of results re: “97% climate scientist myth”... you’ve got Epstein, Bast, Watts, Spencer... really unbiased sources, right?
Or... maybe not.
97% doesn’t even matter. Anything over 80% is consider strong consensus, and Cook himself wrote years ago that it didn’t matter if it was 90% or 100%.
It could be 97%, or it could be 80%, and they would meaningfully be the same in the scientific community as far as consensus goes.
If you’ve read Cook’s study, you’d know it concluded that 97.1% of scientific papers which TOOK A POSITION on AGW (which was less than 40% of all papers reviewed), agreed with the consensus decision. Maybe the problem with the 97% claim is not that it’s trash, but that you (like a lot of people before you) didn’t actually bother to read what the 97% was referring to?