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.
Also, here are some links to Gallup Poll results for the world with regard to beliefs about climate change.
Interestingly, "in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Middle East/North Africa regions, where populations are more likely to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change, the perceived threat is nonetheless relatively low and far more subdued than in the Americas or Europe."
Approximately 0% of the scientific studies disputed the theory of man made global warming.
I assume you mean the study here. Actually the problem with that was already pointed out. Actual scientist stated that the ratings were inaccurate. If you view the study the self-rating as they state it was almost 2%. But it is all meaningless since it is entirely subjective and has been shown to actually be inaccurate in it's own subjective ratings.
I assume you mean the study here. Actually the problem with that was already pointed out. Actual scientist stated that the ratings were inaccurate. If you view the study the self-rating as they state it was almost 2%. But it is all meaningless since it is entirely subjective and has been shown to actually be inaccurate in it's own subjective ratings.
Ok, I'll give you 2%. Why is it that only 2% oppose the theory, yet in the general population it's much higher. I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of Limbaugh fans oppose the theory.
What is the difference between Limbaugh fans and the scientific community?
Ok, I'll give you 2%. Why is it that only 2% oppose the theory, yet in the general population it's much higher. I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of Limbaugh fans oppose the theory.
What is the difference between Limbaugh fans and the scientific community?
Why are you trying to keep this horse alive? You posted a bogus thread claiming that a bogus study supported your bogus position. At this point, anyone who reads past page one realizes that the entire premise of this thread is flawed. Admit that you were misled by the article and let the thread die an honorable death. Failing that, just let the thread die...
Ok, I'll give you 2%. Why is it that only 2% oppose the theory, yet in the general population it's much higher. I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of Limbaugh fans oppose the theory.
What is the difference between Limbaugh fans and the scientific community?
Because honestly, science is not debate process where you pick your side and then attempt to defend it. It is a process of exploration to which the results shape your understanding, not the other way around.
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".
Here's the thing.... summed up this paragraph could read "mans persuades men with idea".....
Sigh... you always try and get into a drawn semantic diatribe. You are simply over blowing a universal truth about man. Man has done it with all types of ideas from political to religious to philosophical to scientific. I'm sure missing some there to.
Quote:
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?
Again... silly argument. You pick and choose which things you believe in and what authority you bow to, you are no different.
Quote:
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?
Why would you assume they all believed their kings and queens were supernatural beings and instead just mostly wanted to keep their lives....
Here's the thing.... summed up this paragraph could read "mans persuades men with idea".....
Sigh... you always try and get into a drawn semantic diatribe. You are simply over blowing a universal truth about man. Man has done it with all types of ideas from political to religious to philosophical to scientific. I'm sure missing some there to.
Again... silly argument. You pick and choose which things you believe in and what authority you bow to, you are no different.
Why would you assume they all believed their kings and queens were supernatural beings and instead just mostly wanted to keep their lives....
Such an absolutist.
You are using that to push a given agenda.
Science doesn't operate on consensus. Authority does not validate a given assumption and yet your entire position is contingent on it which is obvious from the continued desire by such advocates to convince people that "97% of scientists" agree. Even if it were true (which it has been shown it is not consistently), it wouldn't make any given position on the issue valid.
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.
