Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Billings

interesting read on global warming skeptics

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

Good article.  Unfortunately, the skeptics won't read it or care because for most it's a political argument, not a scientific one. 

When the title tells you 'skeptics are wrong,' you know the slant of the article before you even open  the link.  Why bother? 

At least this author tells you where he stands right up front.  I respect his honesty. 

 

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, renoskier said:

Good article.  Unfortunately, the skeptics won't read it or care because for most it's a political argument, not a scientific one. 

A short article about why skeptics are skeptics.  Personally didn't find anything in this article that I hadn't seen a thousand times before.  I prefer the scientific articles written by those in the science community.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

One of those things, that if you say enough times, becomes truth??? :)

I'm smart enough to understand that there is good science on both sides of this argument.  Neither side owns 100% of the truth.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, renoskier said:

Good article.  Unfortunately, the skeptics won't read it or care because for most it's a political argument, not a scientific one. 

You are right. It's all political opinion and the author chooses to cherry pick his data as well. The 97 percent number is based on a meta-analysis of nearly 12,000 climate change articles where there are 51 studies that conclude that there is significant human causation. The same data on the meta-analysis also supports the conclusion that 99 percent of studies show no human influence on climate change. Pick your your position and supporting data even if it's the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebelbacker said:

Actually multiple separate studies have shown the 97% number to be pretty close for climate scientists. 

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Point being the actual argument in the article that almost all publish papers are moving in support of man influenced climate change and none of the papers that disagree come to any kind of agreement or consensus and often contradict each other on what is happening.  That  is the point of the article and not the % number anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Billings said:

Actually multiple separate studies have shown the 97% number to be pretty close for climate scientists. 

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Point being the actual argument in the article that almost all publish papers are moving in support of man influenced climate change and none of the papers that disagree come to any kind of agreement or consensus and often contradict each other on what is happening.  That  is the point of the article and not the % number anyway

I know you will believe what you want but that statement that the studies not in support of AGW contradict each other is as disingenuous as there is. The vast majority of those studies aren't designed to prove anything. They are observational studies that are meant to establish factors that influenced the climate. Saying that those studies are supportive of AGW is not appropriate since the same data base has very few that conclude that the evidence shows significant man made influence. That would be the same as AGW skeptics saying that the same data proves that there is no man made influence on climate change. The studies aren't designed for those conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Billings said:

Actually multiple separate studies have shown the 97% number to be pretty close for climate scientists. 

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Point being the actual argument in the article that almost all publish papers are moving in support of man influenced climate change and none of the papers that disagree come to any kind of agreement or consensus and often contradict each other on what is happening.  That  is the point of the article and not the % number anyway

 

Did you read the footnote in that article the quoted the 97% figure? It is from Cook. That is the same article we are talking about in this thread. That has been debunked as a fraud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore if anyone really wants to learn about the religion of climate change read information about Michael E. Mann and his debunked hockey stick theory of climate change. This is the theory that the IPCC was based on that is not accurate. He changed data to make it work and that has been proven. NO other climate scientist has made his model work with the accurate data.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

Did you read the footnote in that article the quoted the 97% figure? It is from Cook. That is the same article we are talking about in this thread. That has been debunked as a fraud. 

Sure but other studies also back up the 97% number among those who study the science of climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Billings said:

Sure but other studies also back up the 97% number among those who study the science of climate.

What other studies? 

The 97% figure was a creation of the Cook study that is false. If you have links of other studies not based on Cook's study that shows 97% agreement i'd like to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pokebball said:

One of those things, that if you say enough times, becomes truth??? :)

I'm smart enough to understand that there is good science on both sides of this argument. Neither side owns 100% of the truth.

That's the problem I have with it too.  Especially when we hear talk of regulation, taxes and control.  

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebelbacker said:

What other studies? 

The 97% figure was a creation of the Cook study that is false. If you have links of other studies not based on Cook's study that shows 97% agreement i'd like to see it.

There have been many surveys that consistently show that among climate scientists actively doing research and publishing peer reviewed articles, is at or above 97%. The National Academy of Sciences found that the number is between 97-98%. They also found that the higher the level of expertise, the more likely they were to endorse the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

Of course that doesn't include weathermen, geologists or dentists.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackmormon said:

There have been many surveys that consistently show that among climate scientists actively doing research and publishing peer reviewed articles, is at or above 97%. The National Academy of Sciences found that the number is between 97-98%. They also found that the higher the level of expertise, the more likely they were to endorse the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

Of course that doesn't include weathermen, geologists or dentists.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

 

Here is a response to the article you linked. 

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/pnas-climate-change-expert-credibility-farce

 

When people that all think the same way peer review each other's papers and their theories aren't subject to testing it's amazing they all agree.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

Here is a response to the article you linked. 

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/pnas-climate-change-expert-credibility-farce

 

When people that all think the same way peer review each other's papers and their theories aren't subject to testing it's amazing they all agree.  

 

 

 

So you are trying to "debunk" the National Academy of freaking Sciences, by using a website of a couple of teabaggers, with no scientific background whatsoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

Did you read the footnote in that article the quoted the 97% figure? It is from Cook. That is the same article we are talking about in this thread. That has been debunked as a fraud. 

The footnote? There a 14 different footnotes at the bottom of an NASA article that outlines the findings of ten different organizations. 

Because there are conservative, non scientist, climate change deniers trying to debunk Cooks study. Does not mean it has been debunked.

You are trying to ignore the findings of respected scientific organizations, by citing a bunch of know nothings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...