- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well done. You referenced the same journal article as the OP.
Right. But more accurate context.Well done. You referenced the same journal article as the OP.
It depends on where you draw the line for "significant."
Right. But more accurate context.
If you read the article, you must have noticed that the number they used to claim a 97% consensus with scientists is completely bogus. It's actually a lower quantity of scientists then the number of people who post on this talk board on any given day. When the global warming fanatics use that number to claim a 97% scientific consensus, they are either telling a bald faced lie or they are just completely ignorant and buy into whatever pablum they are fed. In any case, the figures involved in the 97% claim must be based on intellectual honesty before the term "significance" has any meaning.
I'm sure you have seen my several posts that I agree that around 97% of the scientists acknowledge AGW has an effect, but that there is no 97% consensus that AGW is most the warming.
I do not buy the 97% consensus claim in either category.
Well, you can count me in with the 97% that agrees man has an impact of warming.
My point is that regardless of your views or mine, the 97 percent scientific consensus claim is both bogus and intellectually dishonest.
Well, I'm surprised it wasn't 100% of the scientists saying we impact temperature. The 97% is bogus because the pundits lie about what the number actually represents.
We do have a slight effect on the temperature. For instance heat does reflect off of a concrete sidewalk, etc, however we have 0% influence on the climate.
We still have a small influence at least on the micro-climates.
I acknowledge we impact nature. I just dispute what the pundits claim the number represents.
We will disagree there.I am just not convinced that we contribute to climate change at all at this point in time.
[h=1]Global Warming – a Good Thing?[/h] Posted on 10 May 16 by Paul Matthews • 13 Comments
Bjorn Lomborg has an interesting new article in the Telegraph, No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing. This seems to have been prompted by the recent story of “global greening”, thought to be caused mainly by increasing carbon dioxide levels but with warming playing a role …
But wait... I thought you guys said its not warming.
Guess you need to cover all the denier bases just to be sure.
But wait... I thought you guys said its not warming.
Guess you need to cover all the denier bases just to be sure.
Why can't you say the truth about what others say?
Why must you always lie?
Is your position that weak?
Your opposition is not saying the globe is not warming. The disagreement is:
1) How much is real with the constant "corrections?"
2) How much is AGW vs. natural.
3) of the AGW component, how much:
3a) greenhouse gasses
3b) land use
3c) aerosols changing the emissivity, albedo, and transparency of the atmosphere
3d) aerosols changing the emissivity and albedo snow and ice
3e) I'm sure i forgot a few at the spur of the moment...
The only thing the alarmists have that the sheeple will agree to follow, is greenhouse gasses, so the alarmists rarely focus on the other real causes.
Science. Try it sometime.
I do. It is you that uses confirmation bias to chose what science to believe, as stated buy others, without reading and understanding papers.
"As stated by others".... by 'others', of course, you mean 'experts in their fields'. Because as we've shown you over and over and over and over again, the experts are in pretty solid agreement.
There are experts in the same field that disagree.
Yep. About 3%, IIRC!
Do statistics make facts?