0.5% of climate scientists, not 97%

Less than 1% of climate scientists believe man is the primary cause of global warming.

YouTube

Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

You presented a YouTube video as evidence. QED.

It's all a conspiracy. Explains Metal Brain's built-in tin foil hat.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Less than 1% of climate scientists believe man is the primary cause of global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGt3OzTXBs

Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

Here is a REAL study, not another youtube joke:

a poll of 31,000 climatologists:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Less than 1% of climate scientists believe man is the primary cause of global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGt3OzTXBs

Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

The Earth is flat, not round.

YouTube

Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

(there are many logical flaws in this video; proof, if any where needed, that something merely said on a youtube video is not real evidence )

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a REAL study, not another youtube joke:

a poll of 31,000 climatologists:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Aside from the fact that skeptical science is a horrible source of information plagued with false assertions it doesn't assert anything accurate.
That link claims 97% of climate scientists agree that man is the cause. Should we accept that literally? Do you (or anybody else for that matter) believe global warming is 100% man made? Are you ruling out natural causes completely? If not you have to agree that your link is misleading at best.

Originally posted by humy
The Earth is flat, not round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbRl5qYy2Kc

Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

(there are many logical flaws in this video; proof, if any where needed, that something merely said on a youtube video is not real evidence )

By all means, point out any logical flaws you would like. I made an assertion, but I can point to other sources of information if you would like. Since you don't accept my assertion show your source of information that contradicts mine if you can.

Originally posted by humy
The Earth is flat, not round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbRl5qYy2Kc

Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

(there are many logical flaws in this video; proof, if any where needed, that something merely said on a youtube video is not real evidence )

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

Anything else? . . .

Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.

For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
You presented a YouTube video as evidence. QED.

Show me the evidence that man is the primary cause of global warming. After all, if it is true you should have no problem doing that. When you fail you might want to rethink your position.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Show me the evidence that man is the primary cause of global warming. After all, if it is true you should have no problem doing that. When you fail you might want to rethink your position.

See the following link, and references therein:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Show me the evidence that man is the primary cause of global warming. After all, if it is true you should have no problem doing that. When you fail you might want to rethink your position.

You are well aware of the evidence already. This has been discussed over and over. Why should I simply repeat what you already know just for you to ignore it once again?
Far more interesting would be for you to tell us why it is so important to you that man is not the cause. What difference would it make?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Far more interesting would be for you to tell us why it is so important to you that man is not the cause.

That's what I would really like to know. But he never tells us. He must pretty desperately want it to be false to, despite the evidence, convince of himself of the absurdity that it is false. But why? What is he so afraid of? It isn't as if it would be the end of the world or as if humanity couldn't do anything about it if it is true.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
See the following link, and references therein:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

What references? You mean the other wikipedia links? You are fully aware that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. You can do better than that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are well aware of the evidence already. This has been discussed over and over. Why should I simply repeat what you already know just for you to ignore it once again?
Far more interesting would be for you to tell us why it is so important to you that man is not the cause. What difference would it make?

"You are well aware of the evidence already. This has been discussed over and over."

No, I have seen no evidence of that at all and you have never presented any. It has been discussed over and over with no evidence to contradict my claim. Why do you and others on here keep repeating assertions without a reliable source of information?

"Far more interesting would be for you to tell us why it is so important to you that man is not the cause. What difference would it make?"

Exxonmobile is pushing a carbon tax because it will eliminate competition from coal and increase it's profits while taxing consumers heavily and use that money for who knows what. People are already burdened with enough taxes and more will impoverish people. I would even go so far as to say it would cause needless deaths.

Originally posted by humy
That's what I would really like to know. But he never tells us. He must pretty desperately want it to be false to, despite the evidence, convince of himself of the absurdity that it is false. But why? What is he so afraid of? It isn't as if it would be the end of the world or as if humanity couldn't do anything about it if it is true.

"That's what I would really like to know. But he never tells us."

I have told you many times. Why do you lie so much?