About which you made the mistake of referring to as "incestuous" ...
... to which I readily agreed.
It seems then that we agree that the consensus among scientists generally is no more than about 74%.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Global Warming---Oops!!
- Thread starter MachZer0
- Start date
- Status
... to which I readily agreed.
It seems then that we agree that the consensus among scientists generally is no more than about 74%.
1
1Sam15
Guest
About which you made the mistake of referring to as "incestuous" ...
... to which I readily agreed.
It seems then that we agree that the consensus among scientists generally is no more than about 74%.
So you are not INTENTIONALLY FLAMING ME.
You were asked to stop making it sound like I agree with your weird takes on these things. Yet you cannot stop.
Thank you.
Upvote
0
I'm not flaming you at all. Numerous words have been used to describe the fact that people within a tight knit discipline tend to develop "group think". I simply used your description rather than using a different descriptor.
It was your reference which indicated the 74%, IIRC. Perhaps I should have indicated agreement with your reference of 74%.
Upvote
0
1
1Sam15
Guest
Oh...is that the only study you know about? What about the PNAS study using a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT methodology? (HERE)
The beauty of this study is it doesn't rely on "voluntary responses"! It's based on citation analysis (an actual "thing", a real field of study).
I find it sad that debating against "skeptics" I have to find out how abysmally lacking they are in a full knowledge of the data.
Tsk tsk. Do your homework! We have!
Upvote
0
1
1Sam15
Guest
You knew that stating "It seems then that we agree that the consensus among scientists generally is no more than about 74%." you would inflame my anger.
Because when you said "no more than" YOU BASICALLY MAKE IT SOUND LIKE I AGREE WITH THAT WHICH I CLEARLY DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SAID THAT WITH THAT LIMITATION "no more than".
You MUST have known that. SURELY.
You do it all the time to people. I took you to task on this point NUMEROUS TIMES. Yet you continue to do it.
It was your reference which indicated the 74%, IIRC. Perhaps I should have indicated agreement with your reference of 74%.
You are playing a very dishonest game, Nighthawkeye. But keep it up. By all means keep playing your "game".
Upvote
0
Ummh ... no. There was nothing inflammatory in my post.
I've taken you to task numerous times for your posting inaccuracies. You don't get a free pass to post without being taken to task.
That's the way this forum works.
Because I don't agree with you? No.
I'm simply posting honestly.
Upvote
0
OK, then ... if we're ready to get back on topic, there's this letter from a number of distinguished scientists.
Wow....fractal.
No Need to Panic About Global Warming | There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Signatories:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Upvote
0
1
1Sam15
Guest
I'm glad you agree that we will simply have to put up with your dishonest posting style for the time being.
Can't you find an up-to-date SCIENCE journal? Or does the Wall Street Journal double as where you get your technical info?
Appeal to authority. Fail.
But these distinguished scientists can be bothered with PROVING this point, eh? What? No STUDIES?
Well, sorry I'm still going with the data. Whether you think it flawed or not, at least it IS data.
I should think YOUR NEW FAVORITE AUTHORITIES to which you will now appeal non-stop would know the value of DATA.
What am I saying? It's 16 signatories! WOW!!!!!
Well! Of COURSE this is the ultimate appeal to authority. I gave the WSJ more credit than to fall for a debate fallacy such as this.
And what, exactly does a Nobel on TUNNELING IN SUPERCONDUCTORS have to do with all this?
Are you going to post some TECHNICAL INFORMATION anytime soon?
-yawn-
Upvote
0
Right on cue ... the White House has provided a video:
The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes - YouTube
If youve been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one were having in the United States now, disproves global warming, dont believe it, President Barack Obamas science adviser, Dr. John Holdren says in the video posted to the official White House YouTube channel.
A growing body of evidence suggests that the extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues, he adds.
White House: Global Warming Probably Responsible For ‘Polar Vortex,’ Record Low Temperatures Across U.S. | TheBlaze.com
A growing body of evidence suggests that the extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues, he adds.
White House: Global Warming Probably Responsible For ‘Polar Vortex,’ Record Low Temperatures Across U.S. | TheBlaze.com
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Says the guy who doesn't understand the difference between glacial and sea ice. The winds were what caused the packed ice.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Sorry, but no. Some of us aren't even mentioning politics or economics except to point out to deniers - for whom it is all about politics - that neither of those subjects change the scientific facts.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
You're not going to post a link to the bogus Oregon Petition are you?
Upvote
0
1
1Sam15
Guest
So now you're opting for the tu quoque version of "morality"?
interesting. Very...mushy, relativisitic morality wouldn't you say?
Upvote
0
I love this part:
"the extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
