- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Have you ever wondered where that "97% of all scientists" assertion came from?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:32 pm to bmy
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:32 pm to bmy
quote:Yeah, but many of those same people seem to think that problems with climate science research (a complicated area of study) means that the same problems are applicable to evolutionary science.
They're controversial on this board.
In other words, people clearly have little understanding of science.
quote:Taking a contrarian position without any rhyme or reason is strange, BUT I think both sides are guilty of making it a Good vs. Evil scenario when the things studied are rarely so easily categorized into our subjective morality.
Didn't you know that burning fossil fuels is actually good for the environment?
0
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:32 pm to GumboPot
quote:I'd say the biggest issue for skeptics is that they're not actually skeptics. For example, an actual skeptic wouldn't blindly post a claim made in a political op-ed without checking to see if it was factually correct. They especially wouldn't then refuse to acknowledge just how much they showed their arse while frantically pivoting to a more generic argument.
The biggest issue for "skeptics" is the underlying political agenda.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:34 pm to Iosh
quote:
So you're just gonna post through it huh?
You made your point. I read the abstract.
Seriously, how many people go into climatology with a neutral position on AGW?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:34 pm to GumboPot
quote:Which has been hijacked by politics on both sides of the issue unfortunately.
The biggest issue for "skeptics" is the underlying political agenda.
In other words, skepticism now seems to be a complete contrarian stance, when more reasonable skeptical stances would question the extent of the claims and predictions.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:35 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The biggest issue for "skeptics" is the underlying political agenda.
A big obstacle for "skeptics" is that the earth indeed has been getting warmer every year, this summer predicted to be the hottest ever recorded. The debate is human intervention, meanwhile the most upvoted comments in these debates on this board is crap like "Climate change is complete and utter bullshite"
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:37 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Seriously, how many people go into climatology with a neutral position on AGW?
Probably a good bit. Just like everyday people are trying to prove evolution wrong. If they could find one fossil or organism out of order just one time, they'd be rich as shite.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:37 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Which has been hijacked by politics on both sides of the issue unfortunately.
I agree it's unfortunate.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:39 pm to GumboPot
quote:Probably very few nowadays. There would've been more in the 60s and 70s when the science between CO2 vs aerosols vs natural forcings was more uncertain.
Seriously, how many people go into climatology with a neutral position on AGW?
I don't find this particularly troubling any more than I would people going into genetics or paleontology with a non-neutral position on evolution. An established theory will generally make its way down the curricula ladder.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:40 pm to GumboPot
quote:What would be neutral though?
Seriously, how many people go into climatology with a neutral position on AGW?
I think a neutral stance would fall into the 97%, with that low bar, but with questions regarding the extent of causality, forecasts, and dire predictions.
Yet, many would call that biased because one technically believes in global warming.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:41 pm to Iosh
quote:I'll more forcefully support your position on AGW if you support mine on issues dear to me.
Iosh
¿Qué piensas?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:41 pm to GumboPot
There are issues with the 97% claim but the OP is just a flat out lie
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:43 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
What would be neutral though?
Yeah, I don't know how to measure it.
Maybe if modeling the climate was as simple as modeling steel beams there would be no controversy.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:44 pm to Navytiger74
quote:Where might I find the peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the efficacy of waterboarding?
I'll more forcefully support your position on AGW if you support mine on issues dear to me.
¿Qué piensas?
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:44 pm to GumboPot
quote:It would be nice, but also boring. Otherwise, I would have to do something productive the last 15 minutes.
Maybe if modeling the climate was as simple as modeling steel beams there would be no controversy.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:45 pm to Iosh
quote:cia.gov
Where might I find the peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the efficacy of waterboarding?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:45 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
There are issues with the 97% claim but the OP is just a flat out lie
And it currently has more upvotes than downvotes. Incredible.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:46 pm to texag7
quote:
The real question is when will liberal climate alarmists stop using fossil fuels and stop flying on planes?
They don't want to take the first step because they don't think the right will follow suit. But they want the right to follow suit though china won't, and their carbon footprint dwarfs ours.
"Let's just make a deal, pay money for your carbon footprint and we'll call it even?" Then the ones paid will contribute to campaigns that insure the $ keeps coming.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:46 pm to cahoots
quote:
A post about global warming bias that can be easily debunked with 3 seconds of google searching is being upvoted on this board.
quote:
Member since Jan 2009
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:47 pm to Iosh
quote:Motherfricker...
Where might I find the peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the efficacy of waterboarding?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 4:47 pm to Iosh
Of all the claims in this thread, I have to call bullshite on your declaration that those three names of skeptical climate scientists were off the top of your head.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News