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.
Just because it says on some obscure denial website that it isn't true doesn't make it false.
Be it 97% or 90%, it doesn't matter. The overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced that we humans accelerate climate change very rapidly.
PROVE it or do not make such preposterous claims. I've used a website where a scientist did the research to find the FACTS. Your complete unwillingness to even read the article, much less prove it wrong, PROVES you are willing to assert your position based upon nothing but blind faith.
There was NO "97% of scientists" consensus... and even if there was, the scientific method, the method used to determine any and all science, doesn't give a tinkers patoot if there was a 99% consensus because science does not operate on whether or not there is a consensus. All it takes is a single dissenter to place a valid scientific scrutiny to the theory, and if the theory cannot withstand the criticism using the scientific method, the theory has been invalidated.
Quote:
The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here
10,256 people received the survey. 3,146 people responded yet only 77 of those "scientists" were considered "qualified" to be included in the survey results, and of those, only 75 agreed with the preposterous poll?
I believe the earth is warming and that humans have some impact on it. i suspect it is a lot less than we are led to believe and I believe things such as the Paris Climate Accord will have very little effect on global warming.
I do not believe in evolution as I understand it. I do believe in adaption but Darwin's finches are still finches and various Galapagos Turtles are still turtles.
Just because it says on some obscure denial website that it isn't true doesn't make it false.
Be it 97% or 90%, it doesn't matter. The overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced that we humans accelerate climate change very rapidly.
You know, I really fell in love with math once we started doing proofs. We were first required to prove the things which are knowns, incredibly common things like the distributive property. Why? Because we needed to understand how those who came before us were able to arrive at the result before we could truly accept it as a truth. In this way, math taught me how to question things and utilize logic when accepting what everyone else calls knowns.
So I know why I don't believe the 97% number - because I researched it, looked at the methodology on how this number was created, and determined it was erroneous. It actually wasn't even challenging to do so.
I ask you this. Where did you get the 97% number? You obviously didn't pull it out of thin air so it came from somewhere. You heard it on the news, you read it, you just knew it via conversation; something. I ask you this because if you truly look at where you first heard that number and from what source, it may help you understand what I'm saying. Did you ever question the source or no? Did you automatically assume it was accurate or no? A scientist, a good scientist, should be more than happy to have his/her theories tested, reviewed, and questioned. So, why can't you or I or anyone else do the same?
And? Nice large graphic (which you should really attribute by the way). But so what? My link addressed at least three of those studies and was able to show they were poorly concluded. I guess I could investigate the others but I'm more interested in the answers to the questions I posed in my previous post.
I've noted an abundant lack of data from your corner on just about every topic, this one no exception. I, however, have actually provided data. So are you going to pony up or what? What have you got to refute my arguments then?
If you wanted data you would be in a science forum. A politics forum is not the time or place to go into lengthy explanations that will just be ignored with "tl;dr" from the partisans anyway.
If you wanted data you would be in a science forum. A politics forum is not the time or place to go into lengthy explanations that will just be ignored with "tl;dr" from the partisans anyway.
Likely. But I do like to make people actually think. As to this poster (who magically disappeared), he was goading me by claiming "my kind" doesn't provide data. So I did and I poked back - another oft used method in the politics forum.
And? Nice large graphic (which you should really attribute by the way). But so what? My link addressed at least three of those studies and was able to show they were poorly concluded. I guess I could investigate the others but I'm more interested in the answers to the questions I posed in my previous post.
I find it irrelevant to debate what the percentage is. Maybe 97% is false, and maybe I was wrong claiming that, but what I do know is that the scientific community is not on the fence in a 50-50 situation. Even former denialists have changed their opinion (likely after when Exxon or Shell pulled the plug on them). Global warming is a fact and we accelerate it on a massive scale, and it can be proven.
Personally, I want a clean and healthy environment. But I also do not want to blow up our energy sectors or severely increase our tax burden based on something which has not met the tenets of scientific rigor. I absolutely think we should try to ensure there's less litter in our world, less trash in our landfills, clean waterways and oceans. I want our wildlife to flourish in their environments but I also want to be sensible. What I've seen out of the climate change crowd is this almost rabid belief system and they haven't even bothered to actually determine if what they're being told is accurate or not. To me, that's not sensible behavior.
So OP, I actually do not have an answer on your poll because it's too limiting. However, on the evolution topic, I am firmly in the camp of believing it. This is something I think has the scientific rigor which climate change does not currently enjoy.
No one I stalking about blowing up the energy sector, just some practical changes to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. How have the regulations in place negatively impacted you, I don't see any large scale problem. We heard the same complaints from car manufacturers when we required catalytic converters and gas mileage standards.
Right now there is an oil glut caused by a combination of things, prices are the lowest they have been in decades, so why do we need to reverse the progress we have made.
I find it irrelevant to debate what the percentage is. Maybe 97% is false, and maybe I was wrong claiming that, but what I do know is that the scientific community is not on the fence in a 50-50 situation. Even former denialists have changed their opinion (likely after when Exxon or Shell pulled the plug on them). Global warming is a fact and we accelerate it on a massive scale, and it can be proven.
I wouldn't call our accelerating on a massive scale a fact and it actually cant be proven. That's something climate scientists are struggling with as they cannot actually "prove" it. They can infer it but proof is an extremely high bar.
Here's why I remain skeptical still on this massive claim. The data investigated and modeled only goes back to around the Industrial Revolution. So one would assume we also need to look at pre-Industrial Revolution times to see what the data looked like then (this can be done via ice cores). Call it a control group if you will. The issue is that pre-Industrial Revolution shows similar trends and similar and even higher CO2 levels but no discernible human carbon footprint as this was pre-Industrial Revolution. This has been willfully ignored and it's for me, something I consider scientifically inept to ignore. So, I'll maintain healthy skepticism until there's better data and analysis.
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.
