• 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!

The Consensus of Scientists

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This 7-minute video sums up the issues very nicely. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. How do we know that? This video covers several studies showing the high levels of agreement about anthropogenic global warming among scientists, and concludes by debunking the infamous "Global Warming Petition Project."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE&feature=youtu.be
 
Crushing the Consensus

Posted on 07 Aug 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 24 Comments

A new article in Environmental Communication:
“Beyond Counting Climate Consensus” by Warren Pearce, Reiner Grundmann, Mike Hulme, Sujatha Raman, Eleanor Hadley Kershaw & Judith Tsouvalis,
is discussed in the Guardian, of all places.
It is notable (among other reasons) for citing our own Ben Pile and our number one below the line fan AndthentheresPhysics, as well as Tol, Corner and other familiar names. Authors include sensible sociologist Reiner Grundmann and thoughtful retired climate scientist Mike Hulme. Here’s a short summary of the Abstract (I think I’ve got the gist):
The emphasis on scientific consensus as a persuasive technique in the climate wars risks spoiling the efforts of sensible social scientists such as ourselves to influence the debate. Sooner or later the public will discover that the consensus argument was invented and promoted by a tiny bunch of mad activists (Oreskes, Lewandowsky, Cook etc.) who lied and cheated their way into the peer reviewed literature and imposed an absurd meme on gullible politicians. Someone’s got to call this bunch of mendacious charlatans to account, or it’s all up with the sociology of science. We’ve picked the filth up and flung it as far as we can. Now we’re washing our hands of it.
​
Lead author Warren Pearce repeats the above argument (more or less) in the Guardian article cited above, going as far as to mention the Guardian’s own comedy team of Abraham and Nuccitelli – “the Gallant 97%”, as they call themselves. According to Pearce, there’s already been a sharp rebuke from the Rockefeller-financed Cook clones at Climate Nexus at their subscribers-only newsletter. To get a flavour of Climate Nexus, see this article, in which 97%ers Doran & Zimmerman are thrown to the wolves in the interest of saving the rest of the team.
This could get interesting.
 
Media_Truth said:
This 7-minute video sums up the issues very nicely. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. How do we know that? This video covers several studies showing the high levels of agreement about anthropogenic global warming among scientists, and concludes by debunking the infamous "Global Warming Petition Project."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

The climate-science deniers would most likely never drive across a bridge if 97% of structural engineers told them it would collapse if they did so. Most climate-science deniers would not take a medication if 97% of physicians stated it would kill them. Yet, when it comes to 97% of climate scientists stating that the planet is dangerously heating up due to humans? Then all of a sudden they go into denial mode, claim that they are not gullible for believing the 3% that work for Big Oil, and even go so far as to lie on their internet sites about the most basic facts regarding the science. It's a bizarre cult that the science-deniers belong to.
 
Wisdom said:
The climate-science deniers would most likely never drive across a bridge if 97% of structural engineers told them it would collapse if they did so. Most climate-science deniers would not take a medication if 97% of physicians stated it would kill them. Yet, when it comes to 97% of climate scientists stating that the planet is dangerously heating up due to humans? Then all of a sudden they go into denial mode, claim that they are not gullible for believing the 3% that work for Big Oil, and even go so far as to lie on their internet sites about the most basic facts regarding the science. It's a bizarre cult that the science-deniers belong to.
Click to expand...
Your analogy is a poor one at best in regards to the consensus.
Let's look at the two main questions from one of the consensus surveys.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf
1. When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global
temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
Click to expand...
To apply those types of questions to your bridge analogy would be something like,
Do you think traffic has increased on the bridge since it was first opened?
and,
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the load capability of the bridge?
Notice that nether question asked, if the loading on the bridge was near capacity,
of if the bridge could handle any more loading, ect.
if 97% of structural engineers said yes to both questions, why would you not drive on the bridge?
The question were not really about the safety of the bridge.
 
Wisdom said:
The climate-science deniers would most likely never drive across a bridge if 97% of structural engineers told them it would collapse if they did so. Most climate-science deniers would not take a medication if 97% of physicians stated it would kill them. Yet, when it comes to 97% of climate scientists stating that the planet is dangerously heating up due to humans? Then all of a sudden they go into denial mode, claim that they are not gullible for believing the 3% that work for Big Oil, and even go so far as to lie on their internet sites about the most basic facts regarding the science. It's a bizarre cult that the science-deniers belong to.
Click to expand...

Your Big Oil claim remains a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your Big Oil claim remains a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry there, pal, but Big Oil has been using the exact same tactics that Big Tobacco used to deny the link between smoking and cancer. Even to the point where science-deniers repeat their same fabricated claims, and illogical arguments. Like the Big Oil propaganda film that came out in the 70s, claiming that more CO2 will make a greener planet. Deniers to this day repeat this unfounded claim. The facts are that too much CO2 is bad for plants, and a heat wave can destroy plants, so the idea that since some CO2 is good for plants, a lot more CO2 must be even better remains pure BS. Yet, from videos by science-deniers at Prager university, and other denial sites, one can still find deniers making this half-baked silly argument.

Just shows that you have been duped. Big Oil has manipulated you, and you've willingly allowed it to happen.
 
longview said:
Your analogy is a poor one at best in regards to the consensus.
Let's look at the two main questions from one of the consensus surveys.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

To apply those types of questions to your bridge analogy would be something like,
Do you think traffic has increased on the bridge since it was first opened?
and,
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the load capability of the bridge?
Notice that nether question asked, if the loading on the bridge was near capacity,
of if the bridge could handle any more loading, ect.
if 97% of structural engineers said yes to both questions, why would you not drive on the bridge?
The question were not really about the safety of the bridge.
Click to expand...

My analogy is spot on. You can keep denying the facts, but it simply makes your position look foolish. How come you think you are smarter than the scientists at the National Academy of Sciences who stated in 2014 that the evidence for human-caused climate change was so great that it is a fact? Why should anyone defer to you on a science issue as opposed to perhaps the most elite body of scientists on the globe? Because you lie about the record of temperatures, and falsely claim the planet was hotter just decades ago? This is a well-documented lie that deniers tell. Brian Cox almost laughed his ass off when he first encounter a denier making up this nonsense.
 
Wisdom said:
Nope. Sorry there, pal, but Big Oil has been using the exact same tactics that Big Tobacco used to deny the link between smoking and cancer. Even to the point where science-deniers repeat their same fabricated claims, and illogical arguments. Like the Big Oil propaganda film that came out in the 70s, claiming that more CO2 will make a greener planet. Deniers to this day repeat this unfounded claim. The facts are that too much CO2 is bad for plants, and a heat wave can destroy plants, so the idea that since some CO2 is good for plants, a lot more CO2 must be even better remains pure BS. Yet, from videos by science-deniers at Prager university, and other denial sites, one can still find deniers making this half-baked silly argument.

Just shows that you have been duped. Big Oil has manipulated you, and you've willingly allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...
From the patterns in History, Big Oil may well save Humanity if CO2 were and actual problem.
(They will do the job anyway, as they are in business to make money, but not because of CO2)
We do not have enough fossil fuels to bring the entire population to first world standards.
The alternative energy sources, lack the high density portable storage capability of fossil fuels.
The oil companies own the capability to store alternative energy as carbon neutral fuels,
that can be distributed through existing infrastructure to an existing demand.
It would take any new technology, decades and Trillions of dollars before they could match
the infrastructure the oil companies already have in place, and has already been paid off.
 
Wisdom said:
My analogy is spot on. You can keep denying the facts, but it simply makes your position look foolish. How come you think you are smarter than the scientists at the National Academy of Sciences who stated in 2014 that the evidence for human-caused climate change was so great that it is a fact? Why should anyone defer to you on a science issue as opposed to perhaps the most elite body of scientists on the globe? Because you lie about the record of temperatures, and falsely claim the planet was hotter just decades ago? This is a well-documented lie that deniers tell. Brian Cox almost laughed his ass off when he first encounter a denier making up this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Gee, Did I say human activity was not warming the planet? please quote that?
 
Wisdom said:
Nope. Sorry there, pal, but Big Oil has been using the exact same tactics that Big Tobacco used to deny the link between smoking and cancer. Even to the point where science-deniers repeat their same fabricated claims, and illogical arguments. Like the Big Oil propaganda film that came out in the 70s, claiming that more CO2 will make a greener planet. Deniers to this day repeat this unfounded claim. The facts are that too much CO2 is bad for plants, and a heat wave can destroy plants, so the idea that since some CO2 is good for plants, a lot more CO2 must be even better remains pure BS. Yet, from videos by science-deniers at Prager university, and other denial sites, one can still find deniers making this half-baked silly argument.

Just shows that you have been duped. Big Oil has manipulated you, and you've willingly allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...

An evasive non-denial. Nothing in your post is relevant to me or the topic.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your Big Oil claim remains a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.
Click to expand...

In 1978, the Exxon researchers warned that a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and would have a major impact on the company’s core business. “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,” one scientist wrote in an internal document.

The warnings would later grow more urgent. In a 1982 document marked “not to be distributed externally,” the company’s environmental affairs office wrote that preventing global warming would require sharp cuts in fossil fuel use. Failure to do so, the document said, could result in “some potentially catastrophic events” that “might not be reversible.”
Click to expand...

The report notes that by the 1990s:

Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.
Click to expand...
Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings | FRONTLINE | PBS
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings | FRONTLINE | PBS
Click to expand...

That entire propaganda campaign has unraveled. Exxon published all research findings and was an active participant in the IPCC.


[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

April 20, 2016 in Climate News.
 
Jack Hays said:
That entire propaganda campaign has unraveled. Exxon published all research findings and was an active participant in the IPCC.


[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

April 20, 2016 in Climate News.
Click to expand...

LOL Are you also denying this?
The report notes that by the 1990s:

Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
So what? Climate science remains uncertain and fossil fuels are a good thing. There's nothing wrong with any of that. And again, all research was published.
Click to expand...

You stated that the support of the oil companies for denialists of AGW was a hoax. Do you retract that now?
 
iguanaman said:
You stated that the support of the oil companies for denialists of AGW was a hoax. Do you retract that now?
Click to expand...

I do not use the word "hoax." I have said climate skeptics are not creatures of the fossil fuel industry and I stand by that.
 
Bad science
[h=1]Claim: Climate Science Does Not Have to be Falsifiable[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall How do you falsify a climate model? Australian National University Climate scientist Sophie Lewis acknowledges that climate models are not falsifiable – yet claims we should trust them anyway. Climate change has changed the way I think about science. Here’s why Sophie Lewis Research fellow, Australian National University August 10,…
 
Media_Truth said:
This 7-minute video sums up the issues very nicely. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. How do we know that? This video covers several studies showing the high levels of agreement about anthropogenic global warming among scientists, and concludes by debunking the infamous "Global Warming Petition Project."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

More lies...
 
Wisdom said:
The climate-science deniers would most likely never drive across a bridge if 97% of structural engineers told them it would collapse if they did so. Most climate-science deniers would not take a medication if 97% of physicians stated it would kill them. Yet, when it comes to 97% of climate scientists stating that the planet is dangerously heating up due to humans? Then all of a sudden they go into denial mode, claim that they are not gullible for believing the 3% that work for Big Oil, and even go so far as to lie on their internet sites about the most basic facts regarding the science. It's a bizarre cult that the science-deniers belong to.
Click to expand...

But 97% of the climate scientists do not say what the pundits claim they say.

It is obvious you have not read what the scientists actually say. Only that the political pundits are telling you.

I have read the various studies and polls regarding consensus. Have you?

I suggest you do.
 
Lord of Planar said:
But 97% of the climate scientists do not say what the pundits claim they say.

It is obvious you have not read what the scientists actually say. Only that the political pundits are telling you.

I have read the various studies and polls regarding consensus. Have you?

I suggest you do.
Click to expand...

You are flat-out wrong on the facts again. In poll after poll, 97% of climate scientists do state what I mentioned. You are simply in denial-land. You aren't even worth commenting to, since you deny the most basic facts of reality. Have fun trying to convince people that you know more science than the National Academy of Sciences, when I seriously doubt you can even identify a first-order linear differential equation.
 
Wisdom said:
You are flat-out wrong on the facts again. In poll after poll, 97% of climate scientists do state what I mentioned. You are simply in denial-land.
Click to expand...
Please link a poll that we can all see. I will show you how you are wrong.

Not what a pundit claims a poll says, but the actual poll...
 
Wisdom said:
You are flat-out wrong on the facts again. In poll after poll, 97% of climate scientists do state what I mentioned. You are simply in denial-land. You aren't even worth commenting to, since you deny the most basic facts of reality. Have fun trying to convince people that you know more science than the National Academy of Sciences, when I seriously doubt you can even identify a first-order linear differential equation.
Click to expand...

This has been mis-attributed ad nauseum. Now, folks just spit it out without giving a thought as to what was really said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom