• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data

I'm sure they'll take you and your small band of deniers opinions into account.

In fact, I'm betting they already have.

Maybe, but I think that's unlikely. It is typical that a Nobel prize winner isn't selected for two or more decades, when what they claim is verified as accurate:

Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)

Though this paper is centered around chemistry and physics, it takes even longer to verify peace.
 
Maybe, but I think that's unlikely. It is typical that a Nobel prize winner isn't selected for two or more decades, when what they claim is verified as accurate:

Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)

Though this paper is centered around chemistry and physics, it takes even longer to verify peace.

The IPCC was first convened in about 1990. Nobel in 2007. Even deniers can see that's almost two decades.
 
The IPCC was first convened in about 1990. Nobel in 2007. Even deniers can see that's almost two decades.
But they keep changing their facts. they haven't settled on the so-called facts. Just generalities, that are likely false.
 
But they keep changing their facts. they haven't settled on the so-called facts. Just generalities, that are likely false.

Yeah. Amazing as how knowledge advances, facts seem to add up.

And if I recall, the 'generalities' over the last 20 years seem be be moving in the favor that global warming is more and more certain, and the human contribution driving it is up to a 95% level.


It may surprise you to know they most of us who do science for a living tend to expect that.
 
Yeah. Amazing as how knowledge advances, facts seem to add up.

And if I recall, the 'generalities' over the last 20 years seem be be moving in the favor that global warming is more and more certain, and the human contribution driving it is up to a 95% level.


It may surprise you to know they most of us who do science for a living tend to expect that.

LOL...

95%...

LOL...

How many "ifs" are involved in that number?

How many "ifs" are in the supported studies?

How many times does "if' appear in the IPCC reports?
 
LOL...

95%...

LOL...

How many "ifs" are involved in that number?

How many "ifs" are in the supported studies?

How many times does "if' appear in the IPCC reports?

You werent aware that they attribute the current warming to man at a 95% confidence level?

I'm not surprised. When you live in your own little world, scientific advances tend to catch up to you.

Science is full of 'ifs'. I can give you this medicine, and its proven to work. But thats 'if' you take it. Thats 'if' you have a similar bioavailablity as shown in the studies. Thats 'if' you dont happen to be taking an interacting drug that will increase its metabolism, even 'if' we dont really know what the full metabolic profile is or all the potential interactions with other unknown drugs and transporters. And it will work 'if' your disease is exactly like the patients studied, although no one knows 'if' it is. And it will work 'if' you can tolerate it, and 'if' you dont have some odd genetic phenotype that affects the disease or metabolism and distribution.

But you dont scoff at the drug that will potentially save your life as 'just a bunch of 'ifs', do you?
 
You werent aware that they attribute the current warming to man at a 95% confidence level?

No, like always, you are wrong about what I believe and why I say what I say.

Will you please show us the validity of the 95%, other than the scientists claiming it is 95% please?

Don't you see... There is a conflict of interest. It is their own self imposed number. They have no or proper statistics fact supporting it.
 
You werent aware that they attribute the current warming to man at a 95% confidence level?

How much of the current warming? Are you claiming that there is a 95% confidence that all the warming since 1850 is due to human action?
 
How much of the current warming? Are you claiming that there is a 95% confidence that all the warming since 1850 is due to human action?

When you get around to reading the simple basics of the IPCC executive summary, let us all know.

Never seen anyone chime in so much on a topic he is abjectly clueless on.
 
When you get around to reading the simple basics of the IPCC executive summary, let us all know.

Never seen anyone chime in so much on a topic he is abjectly clueless on.

One of these days you'll slip, and agree.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
How much of the current warming? Are you claiming that there is a 95% confidence that all the warming since 1850 is due to human action?

When you get around to reading the simple basics of the IPCC executive summary, let us all know.

Never seen anyone chime in so much on a topic he is abjectly clueless on.

Off we go again. How many times will 3G not answer this question? I'll bet on 18. [2]
 
Off we go again. How many times will 3G not answer this question? I'll bet on 18. [2]

At least he knows better than to answer a question he doesn't understand.

Have to give him a point for that!
 
Oh, please.

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
How much of the current warming? Are you claiming that there is a 95% confidence that all the warming since 1850 is due to human action?[3]
 
Back
Top Bottom