You are in a library with ALL peer-reviewed and published studies concerning or relating to the question of whether human actions are causing climate change. You have before you every study that's been done on this topic and published or republished in any peer-reviewed journal.

You are reliably told that 95 percent of these studies conclude that human action proximately causes climate change. Five percent of these studies do not come to this conclusion, and in fact, come to the opposite conclusion.

You can read these studies all day for one day, from 10 am until the library closes at 9 pm, but if you read and worked through each of them, it would take you more than one month to read and absorb them all, to the best of your ability. You don't have all this time. You only have this one day. You need the correct answer by the end of the day. Let's say your livelihood depends on it.

What would you do-how would you proceed. You have to answer in the affirmative or the negative, no shades of gray. It either does or it doesn't.

How do you address this question, and what answer (Yes or no) do you make?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969743)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969854)

but let me stop you at “reliable”

if you’re talking about the Oreskes paper with the meta conclusions about “95% of the literature”, there is plenty of easily accessible commentary about how phony and dishonest this “conclusion” was, including commentary by the very scientific authors she misrepresented — I think Tol (who is an ass, but an intelligent and credentialed ass) is one of those

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969870)

the criticism of the Oreskes thing isn’t a criticism of meta analysis generally; it is criticism of this particular paper, essentially saying that the analysis and findings are bullshit fraudlies that she concocted for partisan purposes

it is not a “reliable” paper

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969936)

But it doesn't matter. Twins has a meeting with the antivaxxers and is too busy to answer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969951)

at the risk of frying my brain talking to someone as dumb as you ...

no one would deny that "95% of peer reviewed studies reaching x, ~y conclusion" is a relevant piece of information in comparing x versus y claim (assuming it's a sound 95% not something shitlib public intellectuals gerrymander to appeal to those who read the NYT opinion column. but it's not a substitute for actually evaluating the reasoning and methodology in the x versus y studies, as "95% certain" claims have proved to be completely wrong numerous times in the history of science.

also LJL at this shitlib appeal to authority "95% of thientisth can't be wrong!" as if shitlib scientists didn't have their own shitlib agenda to maximize fraud NIH $$. back in the day you'd eagerly be burning "contrarian quacks" at the stake b/c 95% of scientists insisted the sun revolved around the earth to curry favor with pope Hillary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969895)

But given that Twins isn't man enough to answer, feel free to give it a try, if you have any balls, that is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34969913)

Please respond to this paragraph, indicating whether you are or disagree, and why. As always, clarity of thought and expression count.

"Dumbness has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3835836&forum_id=2#34974032)