WRONG Consensus is not part of the scientific method but scientists use it all the time. If a great number of individual scientists arrive at a similar opinion this is generally a sufficient reason to have confidence in those views. Consensus amongst scientists is important to the scientific community because independent replication of results is important to the scientific method. Nothing should be taken at face value, or as more than a possibility, until there is a weight of research from diverse scientific groups to support it.
WRONG It's a poll. The 97% figure claimed is the result of a survey, not some measure of scientific method.
Attack the messenger when the truth isn't on your side. He says he believes CO2 causes warming, but that the hockey stick is bullshit. Is he not a scientist? Does he not fit in with your consensus claim?
First you tried to say most scientists thought the world was cooling the 70s. Next you argue that consensus is meaningless. Now we're onto the claim that consensus around AGW is inaccurate. Fine, we'll keep moving the goal posts If you don't like the techniques used for a scientific survey, how would you "measure the scientific method" of climate research literature.
Did scientists think the world was cooling in the 70s? Yes. I spoofed the use of consensus in relation to science. It is a political term. I'm not moving the goal posts. I would measure dissent from lots of guys with PhDs and doing work in the field as a sign the science is not settled. The dissent is where the real action is - without it, the earth would be flat and the sun would revolve around the earth, space would be made of crystal spheres, etc. EDIT: the 1970s ice age alarmism mirrors what we see today. People producing graphs to show what they want, pointing at severe weather incidents as proof they're right, etc.
So you spoofed the term? It seemed like you were trying to show the majority of scientists believed in a new ice age. Your argument wasn't clear at all. Focusing on the dissenters in science also has faults? In the 70s that would have been the "ice agers" as I'll call them? In biology it would be the "intelligent design" proponents" Hell, there are even still flat earth proponents. The problem with your suggestion is which dissenters are important? The one's with the most published research? The one's with the least published research? The one's with the most recent published papers? And your argument that surveys aren't a measure of the scientific method also applies here. Not to say dissent isn't important but for every minority view that became a majority view there are a lot more examples of crackpot theories that are still crackpot theories today.
This whole thing is political in nature. There are 2,000 scientists of which 97% wrote papers saying there's global warming. 10,000 scientists can come out against it, but are (pick one or more): 1) ridiculed 2) funded by some nefarious evil entity 3) denied publication through peer review 4) denied grant funding 5) credibility on the issue impeached 6) etc. I think a statistician is fully capable of looking at the statistical methods used by scientists in their published papers and find fault that brings the processes into question. http://www.petitionproject.org Pick one or more of the above to explain it away. EDIT: to be clear, 30,000+ is not one genius with the true answer who is dissenting. It's an actual lot of people with scientific training enough to judge the science and debate.
Wrong answer. Even today, I question the methodology behind calculating the "average temperature." No way in hell that calculations would be even remotely credible before Al Gore invented the internet, much less in the early 1900s.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're arguing. Is the periodic table political? Did a band of liberal thugs force evolution into biology? Is the theory of relativity just a product of effective coercion? Have we all been duped into believing plate tectonics?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ipcc-...source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral Please stop with this "consensus" idea. It is horseshit perpetrated by politicians and power brokers and the scientists that "work" for them or have been politicized - those who would steal our liberty. Understand junk science when you see it.
Find me a list of 30,000 scientists who say the periodic table is wrong. Let me know when you find it.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're spitting it into the atmosphere. I don't have the time. So tell me, is this a problem? If not now, will it be in the future?
It's 4/100th of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. 4% of the atmosphere.
You should probably stop before you dig any deeper. There are so many continuous monitoring stations around the globe and any number of remote sensing platforms on satellites that it's beyond trivial to acquire, collate and average this kind of data and it's done every day.
CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, and guess what, it is actually productive in that plants use it as their food source. All is this is a scam to control the means of powering the planet, and the way the Alarmists defend their religion against actual empirical date isn't much different than a believer in a God keeping their faith, even with a lack of evidence.
Yes, the monitoring stations. Like these, which don't seem to have any bias to them... http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=660 http://www.surfacestations.org/ Hey, let's put a weather station in a parking lot 10' from an AC exhaust fan, and surround it with asphalt!
Current average temperatures are accurate, I am sure. What about average temperature estimates for 20 years ago? 40 years ago? 100 years ago? How accurate are those and how can you possibly integrate and correlate with the extremely accurate satellite based tech we have today? I think that is the issue being raised here.
A petition of unverified "scientists" is a very weak argument. Here's a list of thousands of scientists who don't believe in evolution
Unverified? Where'd you get that? I agree that Evolution isn't settled science as well. However, I don't see any bette alternative explanation.
