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.
Climate change and immigration: Two issues where the GOP just buries their head in the sand and pretends they're not real issues.
Yes environmental groups are guilty of exaggerating and even outright lying about climate change. That doesn't mean climate change is some elaborate hoax. The evidence is overwhelming that humankind is having a dramatic impact on the climate. Unfortunate that those overly zealous folks felt the need to be dishonest, they did a lot of damage to their own cause.
Climate change skepticism is a well-financed industry, largely funded by petrochemical companies. They have played very successfully to the low level of scientific literacy in the US, as well as the desire of many Americans to feel like independent thinkers who aren't falling for the "hype."
This has to be the dumbest analogy ever considering what applications scientists had then compared to what they have now.
And it's always funny that right wingers claim the scientists are "following the money" when many of the papers that are indicating that anthropometric global warming is NOT occurring are funded by private sources such as the fossil fuel industry.
Probably the best argument against global warming is the one that indicates that the climate is too fluid to measure over a short time span.
The point of the analogy, or at least the point that I was making when I made a similar statement, is that science is always changing, and so are the conclusions that science comes to. The disparity that exists between what we have now and what was available then will be mirrored by the disparity between what is available in 400 years vs. what we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
Mostly it is simply that science is based upon fact while Republican positions are almost never based on facts and reality. This is why Republicans so rarely agree with empirical fact based scientific findings. You can't argue with stupid and most Republicans (judging by poll results) truly are stupid people. If they weren't stupid then they wouldn't be Republicans.
Careful, your prejudices are showing. One of these days you're going to post a response that doesn't involve insulting people who disagree with you, and the internet will probably break when it happens.
I don't think anyone is disputing the warming trend. The thread title, and therefore the thread, is about the dispute between the idea that global warming is manmade vs. global warming being a natural occurrence.
The point of the analogy, or at least the point that I was making when I made a similar statement, is that science is always changing, and so are the conclusions that science comes to. The disparity that exists between what we have now and what was available then will be mirrored by the disparity between what is available in 400 years vs. what we have now.
Careful, your prejudices are showing. One of these days you're going to post a response that doesn't involve insulting people who disagree with you, and the internet will probably break when it happens.
I don't think anyone is disputing the warming trend. The thread title, and therefore the thread, is about the dispute between the idea that global warming is manmade vs. global warming being a natural occurrence.
No, the thread is about the fact that very few real scientists (<0.7%) dispute that global warming has man-made causes, and why some lay people don't understand this. It's because there are so many ignorant people with little or no understanding of science.
The point of the analogy, or at least the point that I was making when I made a similar statement, is that science is always changing, and so are the conclusions that science comes to. The disparity that exists between what we have now and what was available then will be mirrored by the disparity between what is available in 400 years vs. what we have now.
I disagree...Science evolves and occasionally gets things wrong, but when it does the mistakes are caught by scientists and are refined or corrected...Think of the theories of gravity, evolution, relativity etc, have been with us for a long time, and have not changed.
Quote:
I don't think anyone is disputing the warming trend. The thread title, and therefore the thread, is about the dispute between the idea that global warming is manmade vs. global warming being a natural occurrence.
I've seen people on this forum flat out deny that the climate is changing at all, and the thread is about the scientific consensus concerning man's contribution to the warming climate, not about climate change itself.... Ellemint pretty much settled that dispute....
There is so much ignorance on display in this thread, it's embarrassing.
The actual research study examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.
They found that that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on man-made climate change, 32.6% endorsed it, only 0.7% rejected it and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
So, in other words, the conclusion from this study is that during 20 years of research on global climate change, less than 1% of scientific studies rejected the idea that climate change is the result of man-made causes. Sixty-six percent of the studies took no position on whether or not the causes of climate change are man-made, most likely because that was not what they were studying. And ~ 33 % endorsed the theory that climate change is the result of man-made causes.
As the authors state: "Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW (anthropogenic global warming, i.e. manmade climate change) is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
As to why scientists seem to believe that the causes of climate change are man-made, and some lay people do not, it's because so many non-scientists don't understand science and have no critical thinking skills. And because most people don't give a hoot about future generations, they just care about their own sorry ignorant selves.
I think you're confused. They looked at articles / papers that dealt with GW - specifically the abstracts of those papers. Of all the papers written, less than a third of the authors specifically endorsed AGW in the abstract.
In other words, more than two thirds of the authors are uncertain. Out of those 2/3, a small fraction rejected AGW.
"Science" is not a poll or a popularity contest, "proven" by a show of hands. Indisputeable empiric data constitutes science.
There has not be ONE scientific study that has shown, with a p < .05, that there is "global warming". Further, there is not ONE scientific study, with a p< .05, that shows that "global warming" is man made.
Wake up. You liberals know nothing of the scientific literature or what constitutes a valid study. Every time you open your mouths, you look ridiculous to anyone who knows the difference between actual science and pseudo science.
No, the thread is about the fact that very few real scientists (<0.7%) dispute that global warming has man-made causes, and why some lay people don't understand this. It's because there are so many ignorant people with little or no understanding of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I disagree...Science evolves and occasionally gets things wrong, but when it does the mistakes are caught by scientists and are refined or corrected...Think of the theories of gravity, evolution, relativity etc, have been with us for a long time, and have not changed.
I've seen people on this forum flat out deny that the climate is changing at all, and the thread is about the scientific consensus concerning man's contribution to the warming climate, not about climate change itself.... Ellemint pretty much settled that dispute....
You do both realize that the fallacy behind the OP has already been exposed, don't you? The entire thread is based on information that was gathered by a blogger who has a known reputation for falsifying information....
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.
