Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ecu88

Hot in Herre

86 posts in this topic

The only thing I am casting doubt upon is the unanimous (98%!) scientific consensus which should  be pretty debunked by now. Done it again in this thread based on Mav's own citings. If you don't want to back away from that then there is no discussion to be had. It's like saying "so we all agree on creationism let's start the discussion from there."

 

Your second sentence is a strawman as that is not my stance nor has it been.

 

Well then maybe I dont understand your argument.  What do you think the 98% scientific consensus is referring to?  It is certainly not a consensus on the level of human contribution nor the climate sensitivity to CO2 as far as I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you've ever unironically linked to steven goddard's blog, you're a goddamn idiot. it is some of the hackiest poo i've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who has a history of engaging pseudo intellectual libertarians

 

might as well cite liberty university to really stick it to those liberal hacks perpetuating the myth of evolution while you're at it

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I am casting doubt upon is the unanimous (98%!) scientific consensus which should  be pretty debunked by now. Done it again in this thread based on Mav's own citings. If you don't want to back away from that then there is no discussion to be had. It's like saying "so we all agree on creationism let's start the discussion from there."

 

Your second sentence is a strawman as that is not my stance nor has it been.

 

You did not debunk anything.  You didn't even read the articles in question, then spouted out complete falsehoods, and refused to address if you had even looked at the literature at all. 

 

AGW has overwhelming support among scientists, and yes, among the experts in the field (publishing climate scientists) that study this stuff or a living there is a 97% consensus that humans are the primary driver of the current climate change, which has been shown in several studies over the last decades.  If you wish to make the argument that 97% of those experts are flawed and bias, you can try to, but it's patently hilarious to suggest that there is no money for research into causes outside of AGW for climate change, so I hope that is not your intent (though it'd be amusing if so). 

 

Just because there is no consensus on exactly how much or the ultimate outcome of climate change, or the exact nature of the human contribution, does not mean there is no consensus in AGW.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not debunk anything.  You didn't even read the articles in question, then spouted out complete falsehoods, and refused to address if you had even looked at the literature at all. 

 

I did. I did. I did not. I did not respond to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGW has overwhelming support among scientists, and yes, among the experts in the field (publishing climate scientists) that study this stuff or a living there is a 97% consensus that humans are the primary driver of the current climate change, which has been shown in several studies over the last decades.

 

yeah yeah, but what about the autists that make up the association of professional engineers? and can someone please poll the american federation of astrologers? i think we need more opinions from people who probably wouldn't even know how to find the literature, much less comprehend it

 

 

 

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best info I can find has the current rate of warming at around 0.6°C/century. I can certainly buy that a portion of that is due to anthropogenic origins, but the "consensus" doesn't really indicate how much outside of natural variability. That seems to be a huge problem with this whole issue: fuzzy definitions. On top of that, most model projections are failing against real world observations over the past thirty years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites