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.
It seems to be the new city-data denier thing to pretend that every legitimate response to your assertions is a 'deflection'.
It also means that we're stuck at the same shallow level of discussion where you merely assert things that are completely untrue and refuse to accept any evidence that suggests they are not.
I bet you didn't even understand my analogy.
...and yet everything he said was true, the earth heats and cools periodically, and it's not been proven that man has caused current warming.
It IS an argument... but I guess it's a little too subtle for you.
Spartacus was rambling about belief and faith and I was pointing out that there is no alternative. Unless you're at the forefront of climatology or have the resources to fund your own research, you're pretty much stuck depending on the same scientists that everyone else is depending on. Either that, or you can choose to follow hacks like Anthony Watts.
...and yet everything he said was true, the earth heats and cools periodically, and it's not been proven that man has caused current warming.
Yes, the earth heats and cools periodically, but what you repeatedly, aggressively refuse to accept is that the existence of natural warming does not rule out the existence of anthropogenic warming. Simply stating this over and over is like saying '1+1=2' over and over while other people are trying to talk about algebra.
And it has been proven that CO2 causes warming, and it has also been proven that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. So....
97% of scientists agree the planet's climate warms and cools, and since we were in a little ice-age as early as around the year 1900, and we warmed out of it, yes we have had global warming.
What that 97% do not agree on is that human-induced CO2 has been warming the planet, or that it will do so in any meaningful way in the future.
In other words, 97% agree the planet's climate warms, and believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but 97% do not fall for the man-made global warming crisis garbage.
Where is the backup showing that 97% of either "all scientists," or even just "all climate scientists" believe in this AGW alarmism hypothesis? Could you show me that please? You say that it exists, and yet nobody is apparently capable of producing it, including you. And I have asked for it here and elsewhere, many times.
The reason you cannot produce it is because it does not exist. This number is a baseless fabrication.
Prove me wrong if you can.
If you could, you would. But you can't, so you won't.
Where is the backup showing that 97% of either "all scientists," or even just "all climate scientists" believe in this AGW alarmism hypothesis? Could you show me that please? You say that it exists, and yet nobody is apparently capable of producing it, including you. And I have asked for it here and elsewhere, many times.
The reason you cannot produce it is because it does not exist. This number is a baseless fabrication.
Prove me wrong if you can.
If you could, you would. But you can't, so you won't.
Here is a quote from the paper: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
So now the question is: What evidence can you give that there is no consensus among climatologists? (Notice the issue is about climatologists, not scientists in general.) To the best of my knowledge, the "97%" number always applies to climatologists - not to scientists in general. I don't know the percentage for scientists in general, but I suspect that it falls in the ballpark of a strong majority.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-16-2015 at 10:21 AM..
The earth heats and cools periodically. Not proven man has caused current warming.
I'm not sure it even matters anymore. The climate delusionists are so entrenched in their positions no manner of proof is going to change their minds. They have total "faith" in climate change and once they're all in there's no shaking that mindset.
And now the pope is jumping on the climate change bandwagon, which is fascinating. The left will be all over themselves patting the pope on the back, but do you think they're going to flock to church? On the other hand, I've had it with this church and this pope and let my monsignor know. It looks like the left found the perfect way to bring down the Catholic Church.
It looks like the left found the perfect way to bring down the Catholic Church.
Yes, it's diabolical plot to undermine Catholicism by forcing the pope to accept science.
The fact that you're leaving the church because it isn't in line with your political beliefs is telling and very much in line with what Christianity has become.
Here is a quote from the paper: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
So now the question is: What evidence can you give that there is no consensus among climatologists? (Notice the issue is about climatologists, not scientists in general.) To the best of my knowledge, the "97%" number always applies to climatologists - not to scientists in general. I don't know the percentage for scientists in general, but I suspect that it falls in the ballpark of a strong majority.
If only you put that in context and actually understood what they mean by "self-rated" or "abstracts expressing an opinion".
Also, I get all of my opinions exclusively from right wing media, local religious organizations and denialist blogs.
I love this game.
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.
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.
