Originally posted by @wildgrass If you're trying to win an argument, try to be consistent with exactly what you're talking about. It sounds like you're changing your own definition of what a primary cause of global warming is. We spent pages coming to an agreement on that, and now you're changing it?
We agreed to focus our discussion on what proportion of the scientific community agrees with the IPCC consensus that >50% of climate change is anthropogenic. I had argued earlier that the 50% thing isn't really relevant, because if it were 35% then it would still be important and actionable.
But we agreed to focus, and in your mind anthropogenic had to be more than 50%. The presented evidence indicates that somewhere around 65% of the scientific community agrees with this. You said that this contains error, but I don't know where your evidence is for that. When asked, you've posted irrelevant literature. Now you're posting Al Gore articles and claiming that you're among Al Gore's statistics but it's not the same thing (obviously).
Originally posted by @wildgrass We agreed to focus our discussion on what proportion of the scientific community agrees with the IPCC consensus that >50% of climate change is anthropogenic. I had argued earlier that the 50% thing isn't really relevant, because if it were 35% then it would still be important and actionable.
But we agreed to focus, and in your mind anthropogenic had to ...[text shortened]... les and claiming that you're among Al Gore's statistics but it's not the same thing (obviously).
"The presented evidence indicates that somewhere around 65% of the scientific community agrees with this. "
If my memory serves me correctly that 65% was from a study using climate models which I have proven to be unreliable. I have no idea why they needed climate models and neither do you, but you seem to have a lot of faith in studies that use climate models even though all of the data is there (so you claimed). I asked you why climate models were needed for a study that has all the data and predictably you could not answer the question. That is not surprising since it makes no sense at all. Only if there was missing data would climate models be necessary. I suspect you lied about that in a vain attempt to bluff your way out of answering good questions to save face and nothing more.
Furthermore, there was a clear margin of error they admitted to. It was a very wide margin of error making your claim of 65% dubious at best. The only agreement we had was to disagree as far as I can remember.
Summary: You are making more false claims in a feeble attempt to convince others of a victory that simply does not exist. Another bluff!
Originally posted by @wildgrass We agreed to focus our discussion on what proportion of the scientific community agrees with the IPCC consensus that >50% of climate change is anthropogenic. I had argued earlier that the 50% thing isn't really relevant, because if it were 35% then it would still be important and actionable.
But we agreed to focus, and in your mind anthropogenic had to ...[text shortened]... les and claiming that you're among Al Gore's statistics but it's not the same thing (obviously).
I never posted an Al Gore article. I posted an article that contains quotes from Al Gore. Big difference.
Of course you want to downplay an anthropogenic cause less than 50%. That is what people who lack evidence to support their position do. As I pointed out in my thread about solutions we can take action right now that would be supported by any political party, but they really do seem to be waiting for a big tax that is completely unnecessary.
Why is your side not serious about action that even I support? I suppose you will claim conservatives are against conserving electricity.
Originally posted by @metal-brain I never posted an Al Gore article. I posted an article that contains quotes from Al Gore. Big difference
Someone asserted that it was not realistic to discount all polling data that does not include 100% of scientists. Instead of replying like a data driven scientist, you posted an irrelevant article. The first and last paragraphs of this article write about Al Gore (who's a lobbyist), and the in between paragraphs are about the 97% statistic that was falsely perpetuated by a green energy lobbyist. It sounds like you'd rather debate Al Gore instead of your crumbling mythology.
you could possibly reply with: "Well here's a poll that DOES include all scientists... or... Well here's a poll that includes all chickens... or.... Well, I guess you're right it's not realistic... All of those are legitimate responses. But... Here's an irrelevant article about a corporate lobbyist who makes wacky claims without evidence, is not a valid response.
Originally posted by @metal-brain If my memory serves me correctly that 65% was from a study using climate models which I have proven to be unreliable.
No. You presented the evidence and we've discussed them at length. Two separate polls of climate scientists asking the question. Is more than 50% of global warming caused by GHG emissions?
Originally posted by @wildgrass No. You presented the evidence and we've discussed them at length. Two separate polls of climate scientists asking the question. Is more than 50% of global warming caused by GHG emissions?
65% said yes.
That is not how I remember it. I think you are lying. None of the polls showed a greater than 50% AGW except the one that had only less than one third of the climate scientist's response. Pointing to obviously flawed polls is pathetic! Any others were not polls at all.
Show me your source of information. I can expose the deep flaws again. No problem.
Originally posted by @metal-brain That is not how I remember it. I think you are lying. None of the polls showed a greater than 50% AGW except the one that had only less than one third of the climate scientist's response. Pointing to obviously flawed polls is pathetic! Any others were not polls at all.
Show me your source of information. I can expose the deep flaws again. No problem.
There's no need. I know what the flaws are. Kinda crazy that such an important, global, politically-charged and existential issue doesn't have more than a few thousand well-published climatologists all endorsing the IPCC consensus statement. Good thing you found a handful of weird retired guys who disagree. It's totally a myth.
Originally posted by @wildgrass There's no need. I know what the flaws are. Kinda crazy that such an important, global, politically-charged and existential issue doesn't have more than a few thousand well-published climatologists all endorsing the IPCC consensus statement. Good thing you found a handful of weird retired guys who disagree. It's totally a myth.
You are totally wrong. There is no consensus and there never was, just deliberately misleading crap put out by overly zealous alarmists. If there was a consensus it would have been proven with a real poll of climate scientists that doesn't omit most climate scientists from the poll.
Like I said before, a real poll can be done and probably has only to be buried because the alarmists didn't get the results they wanted. People will go though a great deal of deceit just to save face and I think you know that all too well.
02 Dec '17 16:53
Anthropogenic global warming myth
Back to Top