Watch this video and tell me that Global Warming is a Political Hoax

[1bad65]

I think he's referring to the figure from here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../2/024024/meta

They reviewed the 12,000 peer-reviewed papers available on the topic of global warming, of which over 4,000 discussed the causes of recent global warming. They concluded that >97% of the literature finds that humans are what's causing global warming, and <3% of the literature to find other primary causes.

Try again here as well.

You cited 97% of "scientists", yet you seem to have sourced "papers/literature".

You have to remember your own assertion!!

Catch back up and try again please.

[BrometheusBob.]

Ad hominem fallacy.

Try again, without fallacy this time.

Yeah, if it's alright with you I think I'm going to save my brain time for serious discussions. Reading through the information on a random web page that doesn't seem credible to me is not an efficient use of time.

[BrometheusBob.]

Try again here as well.

You cited 97% of "scientists", yet you seem to have sourced "papers/literature".

You have to remember your own assertion!!

Catch back up and try again please.

I never said anything about 97% of scientists, I was saying maybe that's what kev was actually referring to. Please try countering claims I'm making when quoting my posts.

Anyway that argument isn't super impressive to me. If a large % of the science produced by scientists indicates one thing, it's not any less meaningful an indicator of the general scientific consensus than the % of scientists.

[1bad65]

Of the roughly 500 climate scientists surveyed there:
97% believe average global temperatures to have increased over the last 100 years
74% believed that the current data suggests humans are causing the rise in global temperatures

Wow, Sterling refuted that tripe BEFORE you posted it!!!

2. how on earth could you possibly even prove that?

97% of climate scientists????

so you have an index of all 100% of climate scientists in all of planet earth?

the only way that 97% talking point factoid is actually true is if there is a 100% index of all climate scientists.... and the MYRIAD of specialized fields they practice.

i dare you to come up with the 100% list.

Good job Sterling. Very impressive!

Take Sterling's advice and educate yourself first next time. Mindlessly parroting political talking points is only going to get you exposed for being gruber'ed, as just happened here.

[1bad65]

Yeah, if it's alright with you I think I'm going to save my brain time for serious discussions. Reading through the information on a random web page that doesn't seem credible to me is not an efficient use of time.

It contained sourced data, from NOAA, NASA, etc.

You'd know that if you'd read it.

Congrats, you just outed yourself for not discussing this with an open mind.

I must ask; why do you bother to debate and then not read source citations from the other side?

[BrometheusBob.]

Wow, Sterling refuted that tripe BEFORE you posted it!!!



Good job Sterling. Very impressive!

Take Sterling's advice and educate yourself first next time. Mindlessly parroting political talking points is only going to get you exposed for being gruber'ed, as just happened here.

Unless you have evidence you can present that the sample was cherry picked, I have no reason to disagree with the authors that it is a representative sample. There is a statistically insignificant chance that you'd pick a sample of 500 people randomly and find 97% of them go one way when the actual consensus is the other way, so please present evidence of how the sample was not properly formed.

[1bad65]

I never said anything about 97% of scientists, I was saying maybe that's what kev was actually referring to. Please try countering claims I'm making when quoting my posts.

You tried to prove his assertions for him. You failed.

Maybe next time don't do that.

Anyway that argument isn't super impressive to me. If a large % of the science produced by scientists indicates one thing, it's not any less meaningful an indicator of the general scientific consensus than the % of scientists.

That shows an ignorance of basic Science.

In Science it only takes ONE person to be correct. Science isn't like an election or a popularity contest. Did you not know this????

[BrometheusBob.]

You tried to prove his assertions for him. You failed.

Maybe next time don't do that.



That shows an ignorance of basic Science.

In Science it only takes ONE person to be correct. Science isn't like an election or a popularity contest. Did you not know this????

I understand that the general consensus could be wrong. I'm not arguing that. I was arguing about what the general consensus is.

[1bad65]

Unless you have evidence you can present that the sample was cherry picked,...

Strawman fallacy, as I never asserted you cherry-picked.

You're not keeping up, again.

....so please present evidence of how the sample was not properly formed.

Another strawman.

I said nothing of how the sample was formed, I asked about sample size.

You seem to be having a hard time keeping up here. Do I need to use smaller words or something? Are there basic scientific concepts I need to teach you before we continue? Please, tell what gives here.....

[1bad65]

I understand that the general consensus could be wrong. I'm not arguing that. I was arguing about what the general consensus is.

There is no such term as "consensus" in science.

AGAIN, it only takes one person to be correct. Science recognizes that, hence why it doesn't use popularity contests to settle science (politicians do that).

Have you ever read Michael Crichton's famous quote on consensus in Science?