re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless

The problem is that MANY out there dispute the "97% consensus". Even many scientists who have been tagged as part of the consensus refute the way their research has been applied and have refuted being part of this so called 97% of scientists who believe the science is settled.

Read the skeptic blog "Climate Depot" for a different perspective. They lay out some really ugly deception being put out by the AGW community.

P.S. Even if the war mists are 100% correct, where is there realistic solution to the problem. Simply quitting carbon based fuel sources completely cold turkey is an unrealistic pipe dream. What solutions don't require massive regulation and massive freedom and power being given up to the federal government? If alternative energy was so plentiful and inexpensive, why hasn't private industry come up with it?

I just wanted to throw in this article by Steven Hayward to add to the discussion...takes an tack on the 97% figure.

quote:

---

Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]

....

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Let’s translate: Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus.

---

LINK

I have to say that after reading this entire thread I have never seen someone perform as poorly as you have in a debate. Even if you were correct you have done an extremely poor job of presenting your argument and backing it up with information.

Lol. Explain to me what my argument was again? Because this post makes it pretty clear that you have no idea.

quote:

---

Let’s translate: Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus.

---

You know what another neat way to phrase that would be? Of 11000 climate papers on a variety of topics, 32% of those papers studied climate change. Of the 32% of the papers that studied climate change 97% of the conclusion endorsed global warming.

Put plainly, 97% of scientists seriously studying global warming found that the evidence supports global warming. The fact that another 7000 articles exist which have nothing to do with global warming means about as much as what I had for breakfast this morning.

Bentons Bacon, eggs, toast, and 2% milk if anyone was wondering.

quote:

---

Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change......what could possibly change their mind? 99% of scientists? 100%? I think thats doubtfu

---

97% thinking man has an impact is one thing. but how much of an impact does man have would be another question.

quote:

---

Put plainly, 97% of scientists seriously studying global warming found that the evidence supports global warming

---

It will have little affect on your life or mine.

quote:

---

To say 97% of scientists agree this is a problem, but fail to quantify scientifically how to remedy the problem is disingenuous. It lends quite a bit of credence to the argument that it is more of a political tool than a sincere concern for fixing a problem.

---

I dont agree with this conclusion at all. Noone is denying that the issue of quantifying climate change is enormous. I'd argue that its perfectly possible for scientists to have identified that climate change but not to have the data to quantify a solution. Its science....its not exactly a fast moving train. As I said earlier, if you assume the current science is right, then it provides a general direction we need to be aiming. How fast we move depends on one's opinion of severity. But to question motive because science has identified a problem but hasn't provided a solution yet is kind of asinine.

You and I simply disagree on whether to start walking or not. Everyone always falls back on the geopolitical argument, but if you believe the science that just comes off as a recipe for an arms race to ruin.

quote:

---

you keep using the "b" word.....like one the evangelists.
Scientists dont "believe", not even compsci.

---

Seriously you're going to start playing semantics???

I use believe because Im referring to myself and the people on this board.... Not being an authority, we pretty much all have to pick a side to believe in or rely upon.

FAIL

quote:

---

their data, what they built their models off of, shows their hypothesis to be wrong.

---

Actually, it doesn't prove their hypothesis wrong, it proves that the models are inaccurate or that the input variables are inaccurate. If I code up a model about the social makeup of Poly Talk that finds you to not be a douche. It doesn't mean that you aren't a douche, it means my model is wrong.