• 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!

It's a cult. I knew I was right!

Lord of Planar said:
And significant to a scientist is probably most interpreted at the 5% level.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Like I have said many times, if you ask me the question "Has mankind had a significant effect on climate" (essentially the question on which the "97%" argument is built) I would also say "Yes" to that, as would the majority of skeptics. But that Q&A doesn't actually say what the propagandists sell to the masses.
 
jmotivator said:
Exactly. Like I have said many times, if you ask me the question "Has mankind had a significant effect on climate" (essentially the question on which the "97%" argument is built) I would also say "Yes" to that, as would the majority of skeptics. But that Q&A doesn't actually say what the propagandists sell to the masses.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly said the same thing, that my answer would be "yes."
 
Phys251 said:
Right back at you. Please let me kow. ;)
Click to expand...

So when these studies actually use words indicating the 97% indicates AGW has a significant effect, or in another that have seven categories and use the top three which indicate any AGW effect as the 97%, when only the first of the three would indicate "most," how do you reconcile these lies by the pundits?

How do you have the nerve to repeat these lies as facts?

Do you not have a shred of integrity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom