Climate change is real says 97% of scientists

...an assertion you have both failed to substantiate and I have specifically refuted. But perhaps repeating the assertion will make it come true.

 

You are the one asserting the validity of these studies, therefore the onus falls on you to demonstrate that their methods are accepted practice within the mathematical and scientific communities. Please cite the literature which establishes the validity of their sampling methodology. A comparative analysis between this paper-sifting methodology and the more traditional polling methodology would be ideal for the purposes of your argument.

 

Dodge. So to conclude, you have no substantive support for this claim:

None.


Once you admit that, we can move forward with further discussion. Else, you're stuck being unable to respond to my refutations of your argument here:


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-22.html#post1062639827


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-23.html#post1062640002

 

Climate change is real - and it has been real for billions of years.

It's high time the left wing extremists get on board with reality and learn that our planet - actually, our whole solar system - is in a constant state of change due to forces far beyond our control.

 

I think we all agree on that issue, just that some of realize that the technology is not there yet. keyword being yet

 

I agree, there is ample documentation of many climate changes just in the last 10,000 years but I also cannot help but think that mankind is having significant influence on our current changes with heat produced by the UHI's altering upper atmosphere circulation

 

There is nothing to dodge, as you have provided no reason for me to accept the statistical methodologies employed in either of these studies.

You are asserting the validity of these studies, ergo the onus falls on you to establish the legitimacy of their sampling methodologies.

You haven't refuted a single thing I've said. You are just being non-responsive and dismissive. If you will not defend their sampling methodology, then just say so.

 

97% of authors believe in space monsters!!!

How did I arrive at this conclusion? Well, I went through a database of science-fiction novels and selected those novels which displayed expertise on the subject of space monsters. A quantitative analysis reveals that 97/100 expert authors believe in the existence of space monsters. If you're wondering why I didn't just poll all authors using a randomized sampling methodology, then just keep wondering, because I don't have to explain myself to you!

 

Psychological projection, apparently. You have not attempted to respond to these posts that refute your claims regarding each study.


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-22.html#post1062639827


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-23.html#post1062640002

Yet you continue to claim, without a substantive argument:

So I'll keep posting them, and if history is an indicator, likely you'll keep dodging them rather than attempting to learn anything.

 

AHEM.....

But I suppose NASA does not count.......
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

I suppose global warming deniers think scientists are writing fiction, and don't believe what they are writing is true.

Nonetheless, you keep ignoring the fact of what the study is actually claiming, which really should be clear by now.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

gmb92 has elected not to defend the sampling methodology employed in the PNAS study he cited. Smart choice, it's garbage.

 

For irrational people, ideological dogma overrides empirical data.

The lunatic notion that 97% of the world's scientists have long been engaged in a sinister conspiracy that necessitates the counterfeiting of years of climatological studies for inexplicable purposes is readily rejected by folks with normal brain function, but such a bizarre fantasy seems very real to them.



.

 

Don't lie.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-22.html#post1062639827

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-23.html#post1062640002

You have not responded substantively to either post, and thus cannot defend your assertion.

Not surprising. Your argument is bunk.

But this is continuously illustrative of why some remain in denial over the science. They don't have an ability or desire to learn anything or admit they're wrong.

 

Way to go! How to discredit one's own argument in a couple of easy steps

All you have to do is build an apple out of straw and compare it to an orange

 

As of this writing, science has not noted aliens, monsters, or any life outside our system.

We call this a fact.

At his point in human understanding we have just begun to figure out complexity.....it does no one a bit of good to confuse human growth with falsehood.

RELIGION is a falsehood...until someone PROVES otherwise rationally.



I await this rational proof.....and it seems I always will.







tecoyah waits the misdirect/strawman/dodge the will quickly follow and solidify the point.

 

Climate change is mostly influenced by natural causes, but to think humans do not impact the enviornment seems a little naive.

 

Who made that claim?

 

Just to clarify, it is now a scientific fact (much like 2+2=4) that man made global warming is real.

 

Well, for one... the poster.

The US isn't the only one, but ever notice how there's a handufull of nations with legal structures enabling dumb people to have fun being dumb?

The disturbing part is... if you don't let them have fun with it, they get angry and violent. There ought to be a license to procreate, given how studies have shown that most capacity for IQ is inherited.

The fact is, all northern nations are totally aware that global warming is happening - because they can see it - and are currently in negotiation over how to carve up the drilling rights for arctic undersea oil after the ice-cap melts.

 

Mostly, this is looking like a debate over accountability... the petroleum and animal-husbandry industries that caused it don't want to be sued... and frankly they shouldn't be.

They were just operating within the context of having to fullfill the demands of a poorly regulated economy. If you'd had good government, it would have done the studies that would have noted how unfettered pumping of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere could wrinkle the climate. The only branch of government Americans have for doing prediction is DoD, and they are the strongest advocates of climate change, because frankly they don't want to have to defend against the mess it's going to create... not because they're cowards, but because they don't see the budget required to do so.

And the only entities in favor of seeing it continue are advocates of armagedon... those fundamentalists thinking it's a necessary stage of chaos in order for their savior to come back home to make life happy again.

 

Global warming has been exposed as being almost entirely about politics and economics, and not about science at all.

 

Show your proof.

 

We know one of the greatest period of global warming was 600 years ago. If it is man-made, what caused it then?

The revealed emails about fudging data killed the global warming hoax for at least two generations. Yawn.

 

i'm very skeptical of the '97%' of ALL scientists, anyway. ..maybe 97% of all scientists that they had on their mailing list for their pseudo science fantasies..

Sure, the climate is changing.. always has, always will. Yes, man has responsibility, & SHOULD be responsible as a part of this earth. But too much of the 'global warming' hysteria is agenda driven by politics, not science. That makes it a dishonest narrative, appealing to people's natural sense of economy & responsibility to guilt them into backing some fear driven socialist agenda.