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.
You do not have to be an expert to report someone else's results. When Obama speaks on the subject, nobody defers to his expertise. Also, since when is he the "leader" of a loosely organized collection of scientists? Since never, that's when. No, he's not a scientist. He's just literate.
You do have to be an expert to make the claim that someone else's carefully researched results are wrong, especially when you make that claim without doing any work yourself.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the climate change deniers aren't the ones conducting scientific research in the area.
Making assumptions and claiming them as truth is poor methodology in your arguments.
Obama makes claims and puts them forward as truth and then puts government pressure on the scientific
community to make them appear to be valid, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
As for Obama being literate, being a constitutional scholar, his actions toward the law show that he is neither.
How can you possibly be any more narrow and closed minded than that. I evaluated the most likely source for the unsubstantiated claim that 97% of either all scientists or all climate scientists support the AGW alarmism hypothesis. If you like, I can post it again.
Please do.
Quote:
You instigated the discussion, and now that you are confronting facts that clearly eradicate any legitimate basis for your continuing to believe or repeat this blatant falsehood, you put your fingers in your ears and refuse to consider the topic any further. I hope you are not a college graduate, because if you are, your university would be ashamed to see such intellectually weak and cowardly behavior.
Perhaps there is some truth to your above statements. And I will truly read and truly respond to your next post if circumstances in my schedule allow it.
It's the ONLY argument that needs to be made. If they are so certain of themselves how come the models are consistently wrong? They CANNOT reproduce the results. That's what needs to happen for the hypothesis to be sound. It's called the scientific method.
I'm glad you cleared that up for us. It's pretty amazing that some random guy who doesn't do this for a living knows more about the scientific models in place than anyone doing the work.
In which journal will you be publishing this?
By the way, your claim is false. Climate models do just fine when compared against large enough data sets. They have been shown to work when confonted with novel data (say, ocean levels or atmospheric warming after a volcanic eruption), and they make accurate predictions when data sets are broken into training and testing sets.
All of this stuff is done using rigorous math.
This "climate models don't work" canard is a popular myth, but it's not based in reality.
If you want to know about dinosaur bones you ask a paleontologist.
If you want to know about the speed of light you ask a physicist.
And if you want to know about the Earths overall climate you ask a climate scientist.
The corporate backed Fox news and Rush radio say "global warming is a hoax." They say this because combating global warming would decrease corporate profits. Dealing in Doubt | Greenpeace
Wrong, 97% of climate scientists do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we are creating more CO2, but they do not believe in the fear monagering and predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming.
Can you comprehend that? Or do you fall for all the doom and gloom propaganda?
I'm glad you cleared that up for us. It's pretty amazing that some random guy who doesn't do this for a living knows more about the scientific models in place than anyone doing the work.
In which journal will you be publishing this?
By the way, your claim is false. Climate models do just fine when compared against large enough data sets. They have been shown to work when confonted with novel data (say, ocean levels or atmospheric warming after a volcanic eruption), and they make accurate predictions when data sets are broken into training and testing sets.
All of this stuff is done using rigorous math.
This "climate models don't work" canard is a popular myth, but it's not based in reality.
Like when the data is changed to support preconceived notions?
Just another climate change denier....
While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.
Read more at Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate Change : snopes.com
I'm glad you cleared that up for us. It's pretty amazing that some random guy who doesn't do this for a living knows more about the scientific models in place than anyone doing the work.
In which journal will you be publishing this?
By the way, your claim is false. Climate models do just fine when compared against large enough data sets. They have been shown to work when confonted with novel data (say, ocean levels or atmospheric warming after a volcanic eruption), and they make accurate predictions when data sets are broken into training and testing sets.
All of this stuff is done using rigorous math.
This "climate models don't work" canard is a popular myth, but it's not based in reality.
Not a single AGW model has been right. They have predicted all kinds of doom and gloom that never happened. The Hypothesis is wrong.
Just another climate change denier....
While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.
Read more at Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate Change : snopes.com
Those are all corporate establishment magazines. I mean, Time? Really?
So all published info that doesn't confirm your bias are corporate shills? Is that how it works....You do realize that some of the largest corporations on earth are paying millions to tell useful idiots that AGW is not happening, right?
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.
