Were you smoking a little too much crack during your lunch break?
Your allegation was that I said the IPCC was involved in the cooking of the books for the sea surface temperatures. I never said any such thing.
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
Your allegation was that I said the IPCC was involved in the cooking of the books for the sea surface temperatures. I never said any such thing.
See my question above about your lunch break.
The point is that your 66% applies to climate researchers, not the full range of scientists.
Most importantly, a clear majority is not the same thing as a "97% consensus."
The stats are what they are.
Speaking of stats, I'm not the rejectionist who refuses to accept that the data -- from all sources -- show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.
Yes you brought this up before that you would rather trust the opinion of random scientists (as long as they say what you like) over people actually in the field. It's like saying you'd be okay with a podiatrist doing brain surgery over a neurosurgeon. After all, they are both doctors. :crazy:
Personally I'll tend to trust the experts.
But fact is, 66% vs 10% is pretty overwhelming numbers. For every 1 who doubts the impact of AGW, there are almost 7 who disagree.
I bought a book from a legitimate scientist with knowledge of the subject. What do you read to learn about the subject - propaganda from skepticalscience, desmogblog and adjusted data from NASA/NOAA. That's willfull ignorance.
How can you say that?
If it hadn't been for those websites, he never would have been to calculate a 0.18 degrees Celsius temperature increase from 2010 to 2014. Now, if we could only find temperatures in the real world that are anything like his fairy-tale numbers.
So are you conceding that there is an almost 7:1 ratio of scientists who consider AGW dominant vs those who think 'natural causes' are dominant?
When did science become a popularity contest? And if it has become a popularity contest why is 66% the magic number? Anyways, 66% of the population believes in god, so me talking about science is now a moot point as 66% is now conclusive proof that god >>>>> science.
So lets all pray and ask god about the climate.
So lets all pray and ask god about the climate.
Sorry but that is an infantile comparison. The conclusions of two thirds of scientists who actually look at the evidence is very compelling, especially compared to 10%. If 7 doctors tell you something is bad and one tells you it's good, are you going to go with the one?
Sometimes I think that only God knows.
I thought you would have a connection with him bishop?
Very good argument or a better analogy. (I can see how clever people in this debate like to put a different spin on things to make their point).
What if I told you that 99% of bishops and cardinals believe god to be real, does that matter? I mean those dingbats study the bible all day long.
Anyways, Climate science is not a real science so your contention that "two thirds of scientists who actually look at the evidence" is a non sequitur.
Also 9 out of 10 doctors used to encourage smoking.
Please stop your pitiful appeal to authority.
Gentlemen
One has to look at the consensuses, not based on how many scientist under particular organisation's umbrella, such as NOAA opinion.
Do we really think that scientists associated with an organisation are going to publically disagree,...???
Logically you would have to look at an individual organisation as ONE,...NOT as 100's or thousands.
Three religions,...can have an opinion on whether a GOD exits, numbering in the billions,... wow,...such a big number,...but does NOT automatically mean the three religions must be correct.
That's just 3 opinions on the subject of a GOD.
IPCC, NOAA and NASA,...is really 3 of the same opinion.
Weight that against 100's of scientist who may disagree,...whole different picture.
FAST
One has to look at the consensuses, not based on how many scientist under particular organisation's umbrella, such as NOAA opinion.
Do we really think that scientists associated with an organisation are going to publically disagree,...???
Logically you would have to look at an individual organisation as ONE,...NOT as 100's or thousands.
Three religions,...can have an opinion on whether a GOD exits, numbering in the billions,... wow,...such a big number,...but does NOT automatically mean the three religions must be correct.
That's just 3 opinions on the subject of a GOD.
IPCC, NOAA and NASA,...is really 3 of the same opinion.
Weight that against 100's of scientist who may disagree,...whole different picture.
FAST
Isn't it the science behind "climate science"?
Using religion as an analogy doesn't count.
And what doctors or scientist thought or knew many years ago, doesn't negate what they know now, even though there is much more to learn.
Climate science is science in the same vein as creation science is science.
What has climate science learned so far? A good hypothesis has explanatory powers, what explanatory powers does AWG have? Does it explain why we entered an ice age? Does it explain the medieval warming period?
In science a theory explains the past and also makes predictions about new events, real science uses is 6 sigma as a standard not f*cking 66% of wannabe scientists believe this sh*t to be true.
The parallels between religion and climate science is striking. Both use a carrot and stick approach to convince the heart and not the mind. If you believe in god then you are promised these grand rewards, if you do not believe in god then you are damned to some horrible afterlife. If you believe in AWG then there is some fantasy land where all the ills of the world is solved by carbon taxes and solar/wind power, if you do not believe in AWG then you are damned to some catastrophic events; famines, plagues, being cooked alive, etc...
Religion is not precise and there is no need for self reflection to reconcile obvious divergences. In climate science everything is imprecise, it is always the next AR9999999 model that is correct, nobody feels the need to explain why AR1 to AR 999999998 was such a complete cluster fuck. 5 years from now when AR6 comes out, basket and frank will still be here praising the new AR model as the truth, while conveniently forgetting how much confidence they had in AR4 or AR5 which turned out to be garbage. That is a religion to me, not science.
How many BS claims had climate scientists made that turned out to have zero merit? According to those stupid predictions by now; we would not know what snow looks like, polar bears would be extinct, that mutherfucking island country named poaloa (however you spell it) should be totally under water, etc.... That sh*t is meant to scare you into believing just like how religion uses fear to control the population.
How many BS claims has religion made about the future? Jesus is coming back any day now and the dead will walk the earth as zombies, the 4 horsemen are comming to rape your arse any day now, etc....
LOL.
It's "very compelling" to you because you've never actually looked at the survey.
Probe a little deeper. In the Netherlands survey, 46 per cent of respondents -- nearly half -- said they believed the warming trend in the past decade had stayed the same or increased from the preceding decades (page 10), even though the warming rate had significantly slowed down.
Even worse, fewer than 30 per cent agreed with the statement that global warming over the past 15 to 20 years had been less than projected. More than 70 per cent of respondents got it wrong (page 38).
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
To be fair, the survey was done in spring 2012, before the IPCC had released its final AR5 report confirming that 111 of 114 models had been wrong. Still, the results show your experts "who actually look at the evidence" hadn't looked at it all that closely (eg., the Met Office had reported in 2009 that temperatures were stagnant).
Since it's clear that respondents were unfamiliar with the evidence, group think would be the only plausible explanation for the 66 per cent support for AGW.
Last edited:
Here's an interesting editorial from Tuesday's Washington Times.
Apparently, climatologist Patrick Michaels thinks the NOAA's sea surface temperatures have been inflated for political purposes.
Well, now. Another member of the "scientific community" thinks the NOAA may have been cooking the books.
Apparently, climatologist Patrick Michaels thinks the NOAA's sea surface temperatures have been inflated for political purposes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/25/editorial-shady-climate-change-data-roil-debate/
Well, now. Another member of the "scientific community" thinks the NOAA may have been cooking the books.
Or is it because like other conspiracy theorists, your response to facts is to change the topic.
Fact is, scientists see AGW as the dominant factor for climate change by a 6.6:1 ratio.
Are you seriously trying to compare the faith based views of religion to the evidence based conclusions of science?
(though I doubt you claims)...And then evidence emerged and like happens in science, improved conclusions were arrived at.
