/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11094446
>Wow, sick source my dude.
what kind of cuck doesnt like markets and liberty???

also here's another:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

>The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

>The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.

>Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.

>Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.

>There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.

Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex (statistics is big in econ)