Quite possibly the dumbest tweet yet

[interchange]

.5 percent of CLIMATE scientists believe in MAN MADE global warming.

That's like saying 0.5% of doctors believe in heart attacks because 95.5% of medical literature doesn't endorse heart attacks. Of the climate research that actually examines man's contribution to climate change, the findings are overwhelming.

 

[zinfamous]

.5 percent of CLIMATE scientists believe in MAN MADE global warming.

LMAO. It's shit like this that keeps you people fucking stupid. Please don't reproduce.

 

[snoopy7548]

We may not feel the extreme effects of climate change in our lifetimes, but our children and grandchildren certainly will. It all comes down to one question, "do you really want your children to suffer for your pigheadedness?"

And it's not even a question of being selfish; switching to renewable energy production will save you money over conventional methods now. Your utility costs will fall, your air will get cleaner, your home will be more comfortable, your next home may be completely passive and you won't need to rely on the electric grid. But no, coal is MAGA so let's throw away all the benefits that come with fighting man-made climate change and be raging, childish idiots.

 

[zinfamous]

i know how i found it i was going to post that chart i found the white one that wasn't flashy so i googled the title.

"abstract ratings for each level of endorsement global warming"

and low and fucking behold someone made a fancy pie chart.

you posted a parody site that mocks idiots like you, and you thought it was real.

holy shit, man.

 

[Paratus]

you posted a parody site that mocks idiots like you, and you thought it was real.

holy shit, man.

They are climate change “skeptics” who unskeptically swallow any diarrhea that tells them what they want to hear.

 

[Amused]

i want honesty.

alarm-ism isn't helping.

and i do know because

someone else did the same study.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph...-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

Oh FFS. This is not hard to understand.

A consensus is formed by counting the percentage of papers ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT AT HAND AND FORMING A DETERMINATION (opinion)

The paper the OP's graph listed as a source explained this, and the people who made the graph ignored it.

A consensus is not formed by counting papers that do not ADDRESS THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION AND/OR DO NOT FORM A DETERMINATION.

"Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."

This is precisely how a consensus is formed.

Ask yourself if you sound like an anti-vaxxer, flat earther, or conspiracy theorist when making your arguments. Because you need to. Because you sound just like one.

Cherry pick.

Confirm your own bias.

Make glaring logical fallacies.

Posit that thousand or millions of people are in on a vast conspiracy.

You seriously make exactly the same arguments as any flat earther does.