Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-21-2013, 01:32 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,259,565 times
Reputation: 5194

Advertisements

It is simple; scientists are usually on the dole of corporations who sponsor the studies. Manmade climate change is a political agenda to implement carbon taxes which will end competition by making it impossible for anyone to compete with corporations.
The corporations sponsor 97% of so called scientific studies so it is logical that 97% of scientific studies say exactly what the vested interests want them to say.
For example; Monsanto pays enormous amounts to have studies which say its poisons are not harmful and that the genetic modified foods necessary to grow in the ground they poisoned are not harmful. No one ever asks the question why we need to genetically modify plants just so they will grow in poisoned ground.
The entire so called scientific communities are simply a bunch of runway whores who will say whatever they are paid to say.

 
Old 05-21-2013, 01:39 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,076,869 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
It is simple; scientists are usually on the dole of corporations who sponsor the studies. Manmade climate change is a political agenda to implement carbon taxes which will end competition by making it impossible for anyone to compete with corporations.
The corporations sponsor 97% of so called scientific studies so it is logical that 97% of scientific studies say exactly what the vested interests want them to say.
For example; Monsanto pays enormous amounts to have studies which say its poisons are not harmful and that the genetic modified foods necessary to grow in the ground they poisoned are not harmful. No one ever asks the question why we need to genetically modify plants just so they will grow in poisoned ground.
The entire so called scientific communities are simply a bunch of runway whores who will say whatever they are paid to say.
Then stop taking advantages of science in your daily life lest you be a hypocrite, starting with stop using the internet.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 01:47 PM
 
20,392 posts, read 12,291,696 times
Reputation: 10168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Illuminati, Obama, Communist conspiracy, paid off?

Why isn't there as much consensus in the non scientific community, what is with the discrepancy?

Is it that non scientists are smarter than scientists?

97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now?

LOL! Before we get to the reality of this study and the idiots who ran it, lets look at what was looked at.

First, 66% of the studies that were looked at took no position. They were climate studies that didnt take a position.

that means a minority (no more than 36%) could have possibly been in support of Global Warming.

Ergo... no consensus.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 01:56 PM
 
20,392 posts, read 12,291,696 times
Reputation: 10168
So, here is a direct quote from one of the Scientists who wrote a paper that was included in the research, and who Cook et al claimed was part of the 97% of scientists supporting the AGW position:

Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysics:
(Paper: "On Climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radioactive budget")

“Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”


Cook is a liar and Cook et al is not worth the paper he wiped his rear end with... after he wiped his rear end with it.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:17 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,907,739 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
The break down I did earlier, including the supp data shows other issues and questions with this "study". As I said it is filled with subjectivity and ambiguity. It's funny that the whole public vs scientist thing is being brought up though because I see nothing scientific here. Wasn't it also described as a "citizen science" project?
They are having issues in the scientific realms with establishing their hypothesis. It has failed too many times with observational data and there are too many variables to even put in any weight to their position. It has been such from day one. This is why they fight in the fallacious realms of "appeal to authority". If they can convince the public that scientists are right (rather the administrations that purport them to be such) because they are Scientists™, then they don't have to establish their "cause" via science (ie scientific method/validated evident process), they are "right" simply because they are the authority.

This is nothing new, look throughout history with problems concerning "established consensus" and that of the ruling authority as it concerns science. This is a old and tired approach, but it works with sheepish people and we live in an age that is FAR more susceptible to gossip and false appeals to authority. In a blink of an eye, the authority can proclaim themselves valid and all will hear, all will know immediately without any time for question. We are in dangerous times indeed with such power of communication and that is exactly why they are doing this.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:26 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,907,739 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
So, here is a direct quote from one of the Scientists who wrote a paper that was included in the research, and who Cook et al claimed was part of the 97% of scientists supporting the AGW position:

Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysics:
(Paper: "On Climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radioactive budget")

“Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”


Cook is a liar and Cook et al is not worth the paper he wiped his rear end with... after he wiped his rear end with it.

Cook is a cartoonist. Nothing more.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:35 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,907,739 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Then stop taking advantages of science in your daily life lest you be a hypocrite, starting with stop using the internet.
While I disagree with his generalization that all of scientists are such, his attempt to get at the problem is valid. Science has been used as a means to dazzle the lack of intellect to a cause. Appeals to authority have been over used to proclaim validity to a given position, simply because they claim... they are "scientists".

If you can not at least understand this growing problem of using authority to validate a given position, then you are just a lackey who sheepishly worships at the feet of their betters (self proclaimed that is) and that would make you a worthless human being. Are you a worthless human being who bows to authority and disregards logical and evident means? If so, you would share a similarity of the peasants in the worlds history who believed kings and queens were supernatural in their being. Are you such? Are you a peasant?
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:59 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Not so much texantodd, the problem is with their selection. There were 7 categories they used to establish this position. The problem is that the top 3 categories were used to establish a definitive support for strongly influenced human causation when the top 3 according to their criteria were not as such.

The majority of the responses fall within category 3.



The trick in this is the same old hat trick that has been done in the past. That is, they blur the line of significance and relevance. This then takes the meaning of a given paper in such a category down specifically to the paper itself and what they were actually implying. Layers of misdirection here.


Here is a clear write up on what they did. The method is reproducible.

Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading

Basically... it is another case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Find even half a dozen reputable recognized climate scientists who think global warming does not have man-made causes.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 05:31 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,907,739 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Find even half a dozen reputable recognized climate scientists who think global warming does not have man-made causes.
Well, If I would approach an evaluation as such, I would be a blithering moron... or... I would be a devious person attempting to lie about the results. I am not that, so I would not make such a infinitely stupid generalization, because I know the issue is not IF man contributes, but the significance of his contribution and the significance of that element he does contribute.

The fact that you formed your response in the way that you did means you are as ignorant as Cook, or just as devious.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,893 posts, read 25,822,100 times
Reputation: 15443
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Not according to the US forest Service:
The US forrest service has only been in existence for around 100 years, by that time most of the US forrest had dissapeared, what little remained is fairly stable but not really significant. The largest problems are huge land areas in Western Africa and the Amazon in South America, many of these are rain forrests that will not grow back when they cut and burn, the soil below will not recover.

Some work below that the forrest serviced is doing regarding climate change.


:::::::::::::US Forest Service: INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS: PROGRAM TOPICS:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top