Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hot in Herre


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 25 June 2014 - 07:45 PM

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



#82 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:08 PM

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



#83 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:30 PM

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.


Edited by mav1234, 25 June 2014 - 09:31 PM.


#84 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,501
  • Reputation: 3,467
SUPPORTER

Posted 25 June 2014 - 10:26 PM

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.



#85 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 26 June 2014 - 12:19 AM

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.”


#86 ed bell

ed bell

    Ruthless

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 3,002
  • Reputation: 758
SUPPORTER

Posted 30 June 2014 - 07:25 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users