I wonder if any of the more scientifically minded people on here could help me, please.

[britbox]

Consensus of what though Chris? We're talking science and science shouldn't be that vague.

What's the definition of a climate change expert?

What's the definition of scientist?

Is a significant contributing factor the same as the main contributing factor? i.e. If man is 25% responsible for climate change (which I would argue is significant) would that fit in the 97%? A lot of scientists have looked at the 50% argument as being valid...

If we're saying 97%, then there needs to be a list of the 100%. Does one exist? Who determines who qualifies for the list?

We have documented climate change on Mars... is that caused by humans on Earth?

 

[Horsa]

You think that "97% consensus in climate science" comes from Oreskes 2004, that you mentioned above. But this is not true. Indeed Oreskes asked the imprecise question about A attribution to Global Warming and found out that all 928 papers endorsed AGW, so Oreskes' number would be 100% and not 97%. I agree her methodology was somewhat flawed, so I would suggest to simply disregard her rather than forming our opinion on her imprecise methodology. Because, there exists other attribution studies, their methodology more precise, and they found the expert consensus number between 91% and 97%. Some of said studies are:
Cook 2013 which found 97.1% consensus from abstract review process, but more importantly, they invited authors to rate their own papers,. the consensus turned out to be 97.2%, confirming the level of consensus found from reading the abstracts.
Doran 2009 a survey of 3146 earth scientists with the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 82% overall responded yes. They also segregated their subjects into "non-climatologists" who didn't publish research (77% in that subgroup answered yes) and "climatologists" who actively publish research on climate change (97.5% in that subgroup answered yes).
Anderegg 2010 surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They found 97% to 98% of these experts support consensus. But further, they looked at number of publications and h-index in both groups. And they found that within the large group of "converted", the number of publications (as well as h-index) is twice higher than in the group 2-3% "skeptic" group.
So, firstly 97% consensus number comes from the studies I cited above and not from Oreskes 2004 as you mistakenly believed,
Secondly, last two studies confirm that the higher expertise level opinion we seek, the higher consensus level we get, with marginal "skeptics" showing less expertise than their "converted" colleagues. A data trend that'as hard to argue with. Maybe yourself, who do not believe in said consensus, think about 82% overall scientists in Doran 2009 who responded yes. But this is not an "expert consensus" because it necessarily includes earth scientists who have no knowledge about climate (e.g. petroleum geologists).
Finally, the conclusion that humans have caused "most of the global surface warming over the past half century" (i.e. A contribution is more than Natural contribution to GW), was stated in the 2013 IPCC report with 95% confidence. IPCC is very conservative organisation and will not issue such statement if there is no evidence for it. We can compare that IPCC 95% number to 97% expert consensus number from the above studies and say they are in agreement.
In summary, as much as I would like to agree with you BB (because I like you & because if there were no consensus among experts we would have a better chance of finding a "getaway" from increasing AGW crisis) I just cannot do that as available data tells otherwise.

In that case I think that you should have stated around 97% because you made it sound as though the figure given was exactly 97% but according to the surveys you have now cited it isn't exactly 97% & averages would have had to be taken, therefore instead of a precise answer, an approximate answer would have been more relevant.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Consensus of what thougreah Chris? We're talking science and science shouldn't be that vague.

What's the definition of a climate change expert?

What's the definition of scientist?

Is a significant contributing factor the same as the main contributing factor? i.e. If man is 25% responsible for climate change (which I would argue is significant) would that fit in the 97%? A lot of scientists have looked at the 50% argument as being valid...

If we're saying 97%, then there needs to be a list of the 100%. Does one exist? Who determines who qualifies for the list?

We have documented climate change on Mars... is that caused by humans on Earth?

You raise good points, except the last (climate change on Mars, which is an off topic distraction). It's difficult to say precisely who is an "expert", but it's easy to see from the consensus trends in the studies I quoted, that the better expertise you have the better chance you are not a "skeptic", with the consensus among top experts going to 97%. And all "skeptics" without any exceptions are rather poor guys. who often have been shown to have published flawed studies. I know numerous examples of "skeptic" mistakes (but the mistaken papers still stand published) although no space or time to bring them here.
My bottom line is that the available data trends point into the expert consensus in the high 90s %. Yes, you can have imprecise definition of "expert" but if you average many studies that define the things reasonably (their definition of "expert" being number of publications and h-index) your confidence grows that an "objective consensus" must really be that high. Simple statistical inference.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

In that case I think that you should have stated around 97% because you made it sound as though the figure given was exactly 97% but according to the surveys you have now cited it isn't exactly 97% & averages would have had to be taken, therefore instead of a precise answer, an approximate answer would have been more relevant.

97% is indeed the average number from the studies I quoted. The objective number can be a bit different and indeed depends how we precisely define the "expert consensus", but I don't see any point in such "precise definition" here. I didn't say that (too much typing anyway) but I personally don't care if it's objectively 97% or say 95%. It's the same really. The point is the consensus correlates with the knowledge of the subject. From some 40-70% among general population (depending on political views that create bias) through some 80% among general scientists, up to 97% (+/- couple percent, but I think above 95%) among climate scientists.

 

[Horsa]

97% is indeed the average number from the studies I quoted. The objective number can be a bit different and indeed depends how we precisely define the "expert consensus", but I don't see any point in such "precise definition" here. I didn't say that (too much typing anyway) but I personally don't care if it's objectively 97% or say 95%. It's the same really. The point is the consensus correlates with the knowledge of the subject. From some 40-70% among general population (depending on political views that create bias) through some 80% among general scientists, up to 97% (+/- couple percent, but I think above 95%) among climate scientists.

I disagree. When I went to school, I learnt that if you are giving average figures or approximate figures you have to state that fact. If you don't state the fact you are giving approximate or average figures then the figures you use are expected to be precise. To make it quicker instead of writing on average we used to use the abbreviation approx. I don't think 95% & 97% are the same at all. They're 2 percentage points out.

There are 3 reasons why I'm being pedantic about this.

1. In the 1st 2 work-places I was in, I got taught how to do & did bought, sold, sales & purchase ledgers, daily & weekly sales records, weekly figures sheets, petty cash, cashing up & banking. All figures had to be 100% accurate except for the A.S.P.'s (average sales prices) which had to be rounded to 2 d.p. The reasons for this were that if we didn't give the bank the right amount of money we'd be asked for the extra & an auditor came round once a year to check up on things. If things were wrong we'd get told off by the auditor. It was horrendous the day before the auditor came & we had to check through all the last years receipts & paperwork to put everything in chronological order & check everything. I also had to fill in merchandise analysis forms.

2. I worked in a canteen where the till was very old. The only purpose the till had was to contain the money & the only member of staff I had couldn't do Maths so I had to do the cash-handling, cashing up & paper-work & banking part of the job while she made drinks & toast, mopped, swept, washed up, did shopping & cleaned ash-trays. As the office only sent us 1 price list a day I had to work out everyone's bill in my head & then do a tally on the front of the price list of how many of what item I sold as they didn't supply a calculator. They were generous when I did cashing up paper-work as I was allowed to use the back of the price list to work things out on so I could use pen & paper. I made drinks & toast too, did shopping & washed up. Again it was very important for me to be accurate so we didn't make losses.

3. When I was working in the library I had to keep a tally of how many people came in, how many people borrowed & brought back books, C.D.'s & D.V.D.'s as every day I had to fill in a statistical analysis sheet.

If you're asking what difference does 2 percentage points make, I've got a situation where I asked what difference 1 percentage point made. The week after we'd done our Maths exam 1 year we got our results back. My Maths teacher handed out our marked exams & then told us to hand our papers to the person next to us while he wrote the answers on the black-board as he wanted us to double-check his marking. I'd got 95%. The person next to me double-checked & found out he'd marked 1 of my answers wrong which should have been right & told him. He apologised & said he'd alter my mark. I said I'd stand by his original marking & asked him what difference 1 mark made. He still altered my mark. (How embarrassing! I was embarrassed enough to get 95% & then he asked why I wasn't pleased as punch. I was also worrying because they always expected you to get the same or higher marks next time so I didn't know how I was going to keep up or improve on that.) For extra information there were 100 questions. Back to the point if 1 percentage point mattered there your 2 percentage points definitely matter.

 

[britbox]

You raise good points, except the last (climate change on Mars, which is an off topic distraction). It's difficult to say precisely who is an "expert", but it's easy to see from the consensus trends in the studies I quoted, that the better expertise you have the better chance you are not a "skeptic", with the consensus among top experts going to 97%. And all "skeptics" without any exceptions are rather poor guys. who often have been shown to have published flawed studies. I know numerous examples of "skeptic" mistakes (but the mistaken papers still stand published) although no space or time to bring them here.
My bottom line is that the available data trends point into the expert consensus in the high 90s %. Yes, you can have imprecise definition of "expert" but if you average many studies that define the things reasonably (their definition of "expert" being number of publications and h-index) your confidence grows that an "objective consensus" must really be that high. Simple statistical inference.

The 97% stat is based on a totally "unscientific" approach.

What constitutes the 100% cannot really be qualified... i.e. Who's research is valid. Who is a climate change expert, who is a scientist... what the threshold is regarding man-made climate change and natural causes....

Science is a journey of Discovery. Skepticism should be welcomed (and challenged)... not scientists being forced to sign declarations of supporting a fact. It flies in the face of discovery.

No, climate change on Mars isn't a red herring. There is climate change on all planets in the solar system. Always has been, all will...

Like I said earlier, green energy is good. I'm quite happy to roll with the 97% if it encourages change... I'm looking at outcomes, even if I think the evidence is misleading and frankly garbage.

 

[mrzz]

You think that "97% consensus in climate science" comes from Oreskes 2004, that you mentioned above. But this is not true. Indeed Oreskes asked the imprecise question about A attribution to Global Warming and found out that all 928 papers endorsed AGW, so Oreskes' number would be 100% and not 97%. I agree her methodology was somewhat flawed, so I would suggest to simply disregard her rather than forming our opinion on her imprecise methodology. Because, there exists other attribution studies, their methodology more precise, and they found the expert consensus number between 91% and 97%. Some of said studies are:
Cook 2013 which found 97.1% consensus from abstract review process, but more importantly, they invited authors to rate their own papers,. the consensus turned out to be 97.2%, confirming the level of consensus found from reading the abstracts.
Doran 2009 a survey of 3146 earth scientists with the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 82% overall responded yes. They also segregated their subjects into "non-climatologists" who didn't publish research (77% in that subgroup answered yes) and "climatologists" who actively publish research on climate change (97.5% in that subgroup answered yes).
Anderegg 2010 surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They found 97% to 98% of these experts support consensus. But further, they looked at number of publications and h-index in both groups. And they found that within the large group of "converted", the number of publications (as well as h-index) is twice higher than in the group 2-3% "skeptic" group.
So, firstly 97% consensus number comes from the studies I cited above and not from Oreskes 2004 as you mistakenly believed,
Secondly, last two studies confirm that the higher expertise level opinion we seek, the higher consensus level we get, with marginal "skeptics" showing less expertise than their "converted" colleagues. A data trend that'as hard to argue with. Maybe yourself, who do not believe in said consensus, think about 82% overall scientists in Doran 2009 who responded yes. But this is not an "expert consensus" because it necessarily includes earth scientists who have no knowledge about climate (e.g. petroleum geologists).
Finally, the conclusion that humans have caused "most of the global surface warming over the past half century" (i.e. A contribution is more than Natural contribution to GW), was stated in the 2013 IPCC report with 95% confidence. IPCC is very conservative organisation and will not issue such statement if there is no evidence for it. We can compare that IPCC 95% number to 97% expert consensus number from the above studies and say they are in agreement.
In summary, as much as I would like to agree with you BB (because I like you & because if there were no consensus among experts we would have a better chance of finding a "getaway" from increasing AGW crisis) I just cannot do that as available data tells otherwise.

Many many thanks for this, Chris. You cannot expect much more from a post, it is better than anything I ever read out there on the subject. Yet another post I will need to check back later on.

@britbox , I see your point, and I agree that most people just read these exact figures (97% this, 95% that) and start parroting a lot of bullshit (I was complaining about this very issue a few posts ago). But this is clearly not what @Chris Koziarz is doing here. He tried to reasonably quantify most of his assessments. But, yes, one key element that needs to be put in more precise terms is exactly how much of a factor human contribution is. But this is surely the hardest answer to get, and where we will get more discrepancies if we look for definite figures rather than general categories like "significant".

But I guess that is safe to say (given the information on the quoted post) that most of those who agree with human influence on climate change would agree that it is at least something like "minor, but still significant" (let us say at least 5%, to put a number). So, if you are looking for political implications, for me this is enough, considering that human influence grows over time, and that climate science is completely non-linear, so who knows what those 5% must trigger.

I agree with you that a lot of people supporting or defending climate change either do not know what they are talking about, or simply have political/economical interests. But it is a rather silly thing to blur those things. It is actually something quite odd to think that there is correlation among the political orientation ("progressive"/"conservative") and opinion about climate change. But that is hardly the case here...

 

[Horsa]

Many many thanks for this, Chris. You cannot expect much more from a post, it is better than anything I ever read out there on the subject. Yet another post I will need to check back later on.

@britbox , I see your point, and I agree that most people just read these exact figures (97% this, 95% that) and start parroting a lot of bullshit (I was complaining about this very issue a few posts ago). But this is clearly not what @Chris Koziarz is doing here. He tried to reasonably quantify most of his assessments. But, yes, one key element that needs to be put in more precise terms is exactly how much of a factor human contribution is. But this is surely the hardest answer to get, and where we will get more discrepancies if we look for definite figures rather than general categories like "significant".

But I guess that is safe to say (given the information on the quoted post) that most of those who agree with human influence on climate change would agree that it is at least something like "minor, but still significant" (let us say at least 5%, to put a number). So, if you are looking for political implications, for me this is enough, considering that human influence grows over time, and that climate science is completely non-linear, so who knows what those 5% must trigger.

I agree with you that a lot of people supporting or defending climate change either do not know what they are talking about, or simply have political/economical interests. But it is a rather silly thing to blur those things. It is actually something quite odd to think that there is correlation among the political orientation ("progressive"/"conservative") and opinion about climate change. But that is hardly the case here...

I know you were complaining about me telling you what I read. The thing is I didn't tell you I believed it. You just assumed that. I don't believe everything I read. Sometimes I just tell people I read something because they might find it interesting or it could become a talking point as sometimes people like to say what they think about what other people read sometimes. The truth is Geography wasn't a strong point & I've never been to Mongolia so don't know what the climate is like there to start with. Mongolia could have already been almost desert anyway so the quote I told you I read could have been realistic. Like we both said though, it was written by a historian with an interest in horses who knew about equine science so that could have been something which she was just told or read & believed. The book is about the history of horses. The only reason she mentioned Mongolia is because she went there to study wild horses that live in Mongolia.

I'd just read that "in 2013, Mongolia had been hit by climate change that badly that 90% of the country was likely to be subjected to desertification.". This is what I said. As you can see I stated that I'd just read that.

 

[mrzz]

I know you were complaining about me telling you what I read. The thing is I didn't tell you I believed it. The truth is Geography wasn't a strong point & I've never been to Mongolia so don't know what the climate is like there to start with. Mongolia could have already been almost desert anyway so the quote I told you I read could have been realistic. Like we both said though it was written by a historian with an interest in horses who knew about equine science so that could have been something which she was just told or read & believed. The book is about the history of horses. The only reason she mentioned Mongolia is because she went there to study wild horses that live in Mongolia.

I'd just read that "in 2013, Mongolia had been hit by climate change that badly that 90% of the country was likely to be subjected to desertification.". This is what I said. As you can see I stated that I'd just read that.

You don't need to justify your post or the book. I only mentioned it again because "exact percentages" got in the conversation. The point Britbox is making (I guess) is that in most cases when you give these exact figures you sound way more precise than you actually can be. We are all reasonably well informed here so we all read such headlines with "a grain of salt" (I'm not sure if there is this expression in English). But since we are trying to go deep in the subject, the fact that these kind of assertion can be misleading got in the conversation. It is only natural that we sometimes repeat what we read. It is just part of our healthy discussion here to put almost everything under possible scrutiny.

 

[Horsa]

I've got a question that I've wondered about since my optician explained why I don't realise 1 eye does so much more work than the other until I have my eye-test. She didn't believe that I managed to see 3-D films properly.

Sometimes my sight even with glasses is quite bad but yet I'm still a very good reader & notice quite a lot of spelling, punctuation, grammatical & typographical errors. How is this even possible?

 

[Horsa]

You don't need to justify your post or the book. I only mentioned it again because "exact percentages" got in the conversation. The point Britbox is making (I guess) is that in most cases when you give these exact figures you sound way more precise than you actually can be. We are all reasonably well informed here so we all read such headlines with "a grain of salt" (I'm not sure if there is this expression in English). But since we are trying to go deep in the subject, the fact that these kind of assertion can be misleading got in the conversation. It is only natural that we sometimes repeat what we read. It is just part of our healthy discussion here to put almost everything under possible scrutiny.

O.K. Thank you very much. I get Britbox's point. No one knows exactly. Notice also that it said "was likely to" & you took it as it had happened. It wasn't a headline so wasn't sensationalised. It was in a book about the history of horses as a run-up to the information that Susanna Forrest had gone to Mongolia to study wild horses. It isn't a fictional book as it's about history & equine-science. Authors do research & printed non-fiction books have to have some truth in them as they're regulated. I guess that because it's a book about horses & history the regulators only check that the historical information & the information about horses is true though & like I said before the true purpose of reading is to weigh things up & consider them so I should have done that. It's very hard for someone with my learning style to do though as I just pick most things up immediately so most things sink in before I even have a chance to think about them & remember almost everything. I know the difference between truth & opinion & fact & fiction though. I understand. We learn from what we read (unless we read fiction of course then we just improve our vocabulary & imagination). I get you. I thought the idea was that people asked questions & the more scientifically-minded people answered them but if everyone would prefer a general science thread instead I've got no problem with that though it would be nice if people could still ask questions & more scientifically-minded people answer them. It sounds fascinating I might even have a few pieces of animal science & other pieces to contribute if people are interested & I'm still welcome to. The name wouldn't suit the thread though so if people would prefer a general science thread instead, I'd be very grateful if @britbox would change the name to general science or something like that, please.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

The 97% stat is based on a totally "unscientific" approach.

What constitutes the 100% cannot really be qualified... i.e. Who's research is valid. Who is a climate change expert, who is a scientist... what the threshold is regarding man-made climate change and natural causes....

Science is a journey of Discovery. Skepticism should be welcomed (and challenged)... not scientists being forced to sign declarations of supporting a fact. It flies in the face of discovery.

No, climate change on Mars isn't a red herring. There is climate change on all planets in the solar system. Always has been, all will...

Like I said earlier, green energy is good. I'm quite happy to roll with the 97% if it encourages change... I'm looking at outcomes, even if I think the evidence is misleading and frankly garbage.

I think it is. Our subject is expert's views of the issue if AGW is really "anthropogenic". We can go around and argue how we define said "A" aspect and how we define who is or is not expert, and opine about how "skeptics" are unjustly denigrated or even "forced to sign declarations" as you say above. It's all closely related to the subject. But climate change on Mars is completely unrelated to the issue of "A" vs "Natural" components of it, because humans do not live there... Of course you may disagree and say that you thought "climate change in general" rather than "A" aspect of AGW, was the subject. But my feeling is that such broadening of the subject when we are arguing about the minute details of "A" in AGW is not constructive but rather distractive.
Besides our disagreement here, I think you're taking the issue a bit too seriously but arguing "scientists being forced to sign declarations of supporting a fact". No one has said that here. I only quoted the data supporting my view that expert consensus is very high (around 97%) and try to stop here. I added that the remaining 3% of "expert skeptics" have been often found wrong. But that does not implies them "being forced to sign declarations". I don't know of any such cases. In fact I said skeptic's papers, even though wrong, still stand in the literature. And they are free to perform their research. That's the reality I know, if you know a different reality, may you give the examples, let's confront our views. Of course the skeptics are often ridiculed when they are wrong, but they are still free to perform their research. And I condone it, because we need to respect skeptics scientists (but not their science, when shown to be mistaken), because skepticism is healthy, I wholly agree with you on that.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I disagree. When I went to school, I learnt that if you are giving average figures or approximate figures you have to state that fact. If you don't state the fact you are giving approximate or average figures then the figures you use are expected to be precise. To make it quicker instead of writing on average we used to use the abbreviation approx. I don't think 95% & 97% are the same at all. They're 2 percentage points out.

There are 3 reasons why I'm being pedantic about this.

1. In the 1st 2 work-places I was in, I got taught how to do & did bought, sold, sales & purchase ledgers, daily & weekly sales records, weekly figures sheets, petty cash, cashing up & banking. All figures had to be 100% accurate except for the A.S.P.'s (average sales prices) which had to be rounded to 2 d.p. The reasons for this were that if we didn't give the bank the right amount of money we'd be asked for the extra & an auditor came round once a year to check up on things. If things were wrong we'd get told off by the auditor. It was horrendous the day before the auditor came & we had to check through all the last years receipts & paperwork to put everything in chronological order & check everything. I also had to fill in merchandise analysis forms.

2. I worked in a canteen where the till was very old. The only purpose the till had was to contain the money & the only member of staff I had couldn't do Maths so I had to do the cash-handling, cashing up & paper-work & banking part of the job while she made drinks & toast, mopped, swept, washed up, did shopping & cleaned ash-trays. As the office only sent us 1 price list a day I had to work out everyone's bill in my head & then do a tally on the front of the price list of how many of what item I sold as they didn't supply a calculator. They were generous when I did cashing up paper-work as I was allowed to use the back of the price list to work things out on so I could use pen & paper. I made drinks & toast too, did shopping & washed up. Again it was very important for me to be accurate so we didn't make losses.

3. When I was working in the library I had to keep a tally of how many people came in, how many people borrowed & brought back books, C.D.'s & D.V.D.'s as every day I had to fill in a statistical analysis sheet.

If you're asking what difference does 2 percentage points make, I've got a situation where I asked what difference 1 percentage point made. The week after we'd done our Maths exam 1 year we got our results back. My Maths teacher handed out our marked exams & then told us to hand our papers to the person next to us while he wrote the answers on the black-board as he wanted us to double-check his marking. I'd got 95%. The person next to me double-checked & found out he'd marked 1 of my answers wrong which should have been right & told him. He apologised & said he'd alter my mark. I said I'd stand by his original marking & asked him what difference 1 mark made. He still altered my mark. (How embarrassing! I was embarrassed enough to get 95% & then he asked why I wasn't pleased as punch. I was also worrying because they always expected you to get the same or higher marks next time so I didn't know how I was going to keep up or improve on that.) For extra information there were 100 questions. Back to the point if 1 percentage point mattered there your 2 percentage points definitely matter.

I support your disagreement
No, I'm not self-contradicting. I understand that in situations you're quoting like cataloging merchandise, or caching the till or balancing accounts in banking, the precision and minute correctness are important. That's because something like customer money is precisely defined in every transaction. So, we can (and must if we value our customers) deal with precise numbers and there should be no room for errors when the job is well done.
But when we are dealing with not so well defined issue of "expertise" in climate science, we cannot be sure, we're even arguing about it. So I have no choice here but admit there is some imprecision in the data I refereed to above. If my previous comment on the "A" expert consensus was taken as "97% exactly", then I was imprecise, apologies. Maybe I should say "I think it is most likely 97% per data I've shown but it could be overestimated, the objective value could be a 2% lower, i.e. 95%, but the difference does not change my opinion about the consensus, because both numbers 95% and 97% lie within the 'extremely likely' segment of statistical significance". Which, in statistical parlance means that the question is "settled" (i.e. we confirmed that experts agree on "A" and can move on to the next subject in our discussion). That's what every statistician would tell you.

 

[Horsa]

I support your disagreement
No, I'm not self-contradicting. I understand that in situations you're quoting like cataloging merchandise, or caching the till or balancing accounts in banking, the precision and minute correctness are important. That's because something like customer money is precisely defined in every transaction. So, we can (and must if we value our customers) deal with precise numbers and there should be no room for errors when the job is well done.
But when we are dealing with not so well defined issue of "expertise" in climate science, we cannot be sure, we're even arguing about it. So I have no choice here but admit there is some imprecision in the data I refereed to above. If my previous comment on the "A" expert consensus was taken as "97% exactly", then I was imprecise, apologies. Maybe I should say "I think it is most likely 97% per data I've shown but it could be overestimated, the objective value could be a 2% lower, i.e. 95%, but the difference does not change my opinion about the consensus, because both numbers 95% and 97% lie within the 'extremely likely' segment of statistical significance". Which, in statistical parlance means that the question is "settled" (i.e. we confirmed that experts agree on "A" and can move on to the next subject in our discussion). That's what every statistician would tell you.

:0)

I get you. Sometimes accuracy is very important. At other times it isn't.

I think the quickest & easiest way to deal with situations like this is just to put approx. before any figures you state which are not 100% accurate.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I've got a question that I've wondered about since my optician explained why I don't realise 1 eye does so much more work than the other until I have my eye-test. She didn't believe that I managed to see 3-D films properly.

Sometimes my sight even with glasses is quite bad but yet I'm still a very good reader & notice quite a lot of spelling, punctuation, grammatical & typographical errors. How is this even possible?

It's as possible in your case as it is in my case. I've developed a macular degeneration in my left eye, I think a result of being bullied and beaten at some point at uni - with eye socket filled with blood. Now I know that my "friend" who did it to me should have gone to jail for it (Polish law stipulates 9 month minimum without parole for beating someone who wears glasses) and I was briefed about it specifically by an emergency optician, but I was too naive and I was talked out of it by the rest of my colleagues. But I digress. As a result of macular degeneration, I cannot read with my left eye anymore but I still do it (and also write) perfectly with the right eye only, as you can verify. The brain has the ability to build the depth map from different flat fragments of the image, so you can "learn" how to perceive the depth with one eye:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/monocular-depth-perception/
But if your impaired eye (like mine) still sees anything, even distort, you still have much easier task at it as opposed to truly one eyed person.

 

[Horsa]

It's as possible in your case as it is in my case. I've developed a macular degeneration in my left eye, I think a result of being bullied and beaten at some point at uni - with eye socket filled with blood. Now I know that my "friend" who did it to me should have gone to jail for it (Polish law stipulates 9 month minimum without parole for beating someone who wears glasses) and I was briefed about it specifically by an emergency optician, but I was too naive and I was talked out of it by the rest of my colleagues. But I digress. As a result of macular degeneration, I cannot read with my left eye anymore but I still do it (and also write) perfectly with the right eye only, as you can verify. The brain has the ability to build the depth map from different flat fragments of the image, so you can "learn" how to perceive the depth with one eye:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/monocular-depth-perception/
But if your impaired eye (like mine) still sees anything, even distort, you still have much easier task at it as opposed to truly one eyed person.

I'm very sorry to hear that. I've just had a lazy eye since I was very young. That makes sense. It's part of the balancing act that the brain does with the eyes then that my optician told me about. It automatically realises that 1 eye is doing most of the work so decides to balance things out so things don't seem weird & it has access to all/most of the information it wants/needs.

My normal eye almost sees the middle line on the testing chart & my lazy eye can only see the 2nd to top line.

Thank you very much for your information. I've really been thinking about it & realised that I can be really hard on myself & don't always appreciate what I've got & what I'm capable of. There are lots of people who would love to be like me or be in my position. There are lots of people who are worse off than me & I whinge, whine & call myself names instead of being grateful for what I have & having fun.

It has also made me think of even more questions but I'd better keep them to myself as Mrzz wants easy questions & they're not exactly easy questions so I'd better carry on wondering & try to come up with my own answers.

 

[mrzz]

as Mrzz wants easy question

Hehe, Horsa, don't take me that literally... and even if I was serious about wanting "easy" questions, neither myself or anybody else has control of a thread... actually, the one closer to having "control' is the poster who opened the thread, which in this case it is actually you, so what I want or not is really revelant. I know your being polite, but sometimes on the internet politeness gets in the way of the free flow of ideas. You are a naturally polite person so I do not think you really have to bother with the customs of spoken language in a board thread. Go ahead and shoot!

Having said that, I logged in just to comment that there is a lot of open subjects on this and on other threads that I would love to contribute more, but I have another heavy week of work ahead of me so I am afraid for this week at least I will not be able to contribute much. But I do have some remarks and questions I want to post. By the way I remember that Chris asked you about the difference between Darwin and Lamarck, and being the person who likes animals the most around here you really own him (and us) an answer...

 

[Horsa]

Hehe, Horsa, don't take me that literally... and even if I was serious about wanting "easy" questions, neither myself or anybody else has control of a thread... actually, the one closer to having "control' is the poster who opened the thread, which in this case it is actually you, so what I want or not is really revelant. I know your being polite, but sometimes on the internet politeness gets in the way of the free flow of ideas. You are a naturally polite person so I do not think you really have to bother with the customs of spoken language in a board thread. Go ahead and shoot!

Having said that, I logged in just to comment that there is a lot of open subjects on this and on other threads that I would love to contribute more, but I have another heavy week of work ahead of me so I am afraid for this week at least I will not be able to contribute much. But I do have some remarks and questions I want to post. By the way I remember that Chris asked you about the difference between Darwin and Lamarck, and being the person who likes animals the most around here you really own him (and us) an answer...

Haha! I was trying to consider your feelings. I get you. It's my thread so I'm in charge unless I say something that is bang out of order then the admin team have the right to step in but as I'm considerate of other people's wishes & don't really do/say anything that's out of order I have free rein here. (You & Chris have been kind enough to answer my questions so I've got to consider your wishes. I don't want to do your heads in.) I've held back many thoughts & relevant facts on many threads in order to be polite. O.K. I will.

I already gave a short answer which was lost in all the other answers about global warming. I guess I do know a few things about animal science. However, if you can't find my answer I will retype it. Thank you very much for your answer. Take care! Look after yourself. I hope you get everything done you want & need to do & manage to find time to look after yourself & have fun too.

 

[Horsa]

O.K. My questions.

Chris's answer as to why I don't always realise that 1 of my eyes is doing most of the work until I have an eye-test & why I manage to read & proof-read very well even when 1 of my eyes does most of the work & the other does hardly anything made me realise how much our brains actually do for us without us even realising. It also made me think that maybe spontaneity isn't quite as easy as it seems so my questions are about spontaneity & the amount of endeavour actually involved in spontaneity.

1. Is spontaneity really as simple as it seems or is there more mental activity in it than there seems to be?
2. What is the difference in mental activity levels between spontaneity & deep thought?
3. Why do some people seem smarter spontaneously than others? Some people when they're being spontaneous sound stupid. Others like me are average but make the odd mistake. Another person's spontaneity is some people's deep thinking. Why, for example, do I get accused of giving a thoughtful response or get told I've put a lot of thought into something when I'm just being spontaneous or given a spontaneous response?

 

[Horsa]

I haven't read about Lamarck since I was 12 or used any information about Darwin since I left school 20 years ago but from what I remember they had totally contradictory views. Lamarck believed that all animals came from pre-existing parents & that they transmitted all their characteristics off those parents whereas Darwin believed that environment had something to do with it & animals evolved according to their needs to be able to survive harsh environments & fight off predators. Darwin also thought that traits that made animals vulnerable died out.

O.K. Since you both missed this reply to Chris's answer (which can be found on pg. 2) as it was mixed up in the comments about global warming I've replied to it to bring it to the fore.