What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A poll re the value of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

Do you believe the consensus on AGW increases the odds that the theory itself is correct

  • Yes - it is strong evidence that AGW is correct

  • No - it has no bearing on whether or not AGW is correct

  • Something inbetween - it is an argument, but not a particularly strong one


Results are only viewable after voting.

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,660
Reaction score
2,581
Points
290
Location
N/A
That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290
Science is not done by Consensus, you're thinking of Best in Show
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
26,485
Reaction score
12,429
Points
1,090
Location
The Real World

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290

It's just like Consensus, no experiments, it's just how we feel about "manmade global climate warming change"

Crick, what are you calling it today?
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,660
Reaction score
2,581
Points
290
Location
N/A
Tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies support the validity of anthropogenic global warming. That's not a matter of "how we feel" Frank. Your decision (and similar decisions by almost ALL your denier buddies) to simply reject those scientific studies out of hand because you DO NOT LIKE their results or the conclusions they draw - that is a matter of acting on your "feelings".

I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290
Tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies support the validity of anthropogenic global warming. That's not a matter of "how we feel" Frank. Your decision (and similar decisions by almost ALL your denier buddies) to simply reject those scientific studies out of hand because you DO NOT LIKE their results or the conclusions they draw - that is a matter of acting on your "feelings".

I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?

351de447f826358a2631d0f59880d377.jpg


Out top story tonight, the number of repeatable experiments showing how 100PPM of CO2 raises temperature on planet Earth is still zero
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290
Tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies support the validity of anthropogenic global warming. That's not a matter of "how we feel" Frank. Your decision (and similar decisions by almost ALL your denier buddies) to simply reject those scientific studies out of hand because you DO NOT LIKE their results or the conclusions they draw - that is a matter of acting on your "feelings".

I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?

I was combining the various names you've been calling this "Settled science" for the past 5 years

It's settled, you just haven't settled on if it's warming or changing
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,660
Reaction score
2,581
Points
290
Location
N/A
I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?

Because, you have certainly implied that you're quoting me and, as you and I both know, you were not. So, who WERE you quoting Frank? If it was simply an exercise of poetic license (ie, you weren't quoting anyone - you just made it up), that's fine with me. I just want to know that you're not claiming that was me. As you probably know, falsely quoting other posters here is bad ju-ju.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290
I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?

Because, you have certainly implied that you're quoting me and, as you and I both know, you were not. So, who WERE you quoting Frank? If it was simply an exercise of poetic license (ie, you weren't quoting anyone - you just made it up), that's fine with me. I just want to know that you're not claiming that was me. As you probably know, falsely quoting other posters here is bad ju-ju.

Crick see the post right above this one where i explain the quoted term.

Oh and for someone who supposedly has all this massive evidence and support you seem extremely insecure
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,660
Reaction score
2,581
Points
290
Location
N/A
If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
130,843
Reaction score
49,619
Points
2,290
If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?

Consensus is not a term of science. That and the total arrogance behind "Settled science" should cause any objective person to question the motives of those insisting that their theory was special enough to forego the scientific method
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,660
Reaction score
2,581
Points
290
Location
N/A
If you'd written it properly the first time, you wouldn't have had to say it at all.

Now then, do you by any chance have a comment on the topic of this thread/poll?

Consensus is not a term of science. That and the total arrogance behind "Settled science" should cause any objective person to question the motives of those insisting that their theory was special enough to forego the scientific method

There is no such thing as a "term of science". That comment is meaningless.

There is no arrogance behind describing AGW as settled science. It is settled science because there is no longer any significant debate taking place.

AGW has most CERTAINLY not foregone the testing of the scientific method. Those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers are a clear demonstration of that fact.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,672
Reaction score
1,953
Points
280
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. Anyone who disagrees will get this link in reply.

A very strong consensus recently existed stating that stress caused stomach ulcers...hell, I could go on all day listing off the things the consensus once believed and were actually wrong on...in fact, if you go back through history, in any developing field of science (and climate science is certainly developing) the consensus has almost always been wrong...going with the consensus where a relatively young science is concerned is an idiot's bet.

By the way moron...aren't you aware yet that polls regarding climate science never work out for you guys....the actual consensus is that climate science and warmers represent the biggest hoax in history....you lie, you cheat, you alter data,...in short, you behave like liberals.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,660
Reaction score
2,581
Points
290
Location
N/A
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. Anyone who disagrees will get this link in reply.

A very strong consensus recently existed stating that stress caused stomach ulcers...hell, I could go on all day listing off the things the consensus once believed and were actually wrong on...in fact, if you go back through history, in any developing field of science (and climate science is certainly developing) the consensus has almost always been wrong...going with the consensus where a relatively young science is concerned is an idiot's bet.

That's certainly true. And in all cases, it was the continued application of the scientific method that advanced our knowledge. But that some theories have been refuted and replaced has no bearing on this theory. The warming is real and GHGs are the only viable candidate for its primary cause. When you have a theory that explains the observations better than AGW, you be sure to let us know.

By the way moron...aren't you aware yet that polls regarding climate science never work out for you guys....the actual consensus is that climate science and warmers represent the biggest hoax in history....you lie, you cheat, you alter data,...in short, you behave like liberals.

You obviously haven't read that Wikipedia link. It says nothing of the sort. It says that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC's central conclusion that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years and particularly the last 50. There is NO evidence of a hoax. There is NO evidence of climate scientists lying. There is NO evidence of anyone cheating or altering data without complete justification. In short, like just about any arch-conservative talking about AGW, you lie about everything without the slightest qualm.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
28,148
Reaction score
16,138
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies support the validity of anthropogenic global warming. That's not a matter of "how we feel" Frank. Your decision (and similar decisions by almost ALL your denier buddies) to simply reject those scientific studies out of hand because you DO NOT LIKE their results or the conclusions they draw - that is a matter of acting on your "feelings".

I'm curious, Frank. When you typed ""manmade global climate warming change"", who were you quoting?

351de447f826358a2631d0f59880d377.jpg


Out top story tonight, the number of repeatable experiments showing how 100PPM of CO2 raises temperature on planet Earth is still zero

Here, let me help with that answer...

images
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
28,148
Reaction score
16,138
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Lets review the concensus..

1944 papers reviewed...

All but 77 thrown out becasue they did not "meet expectations"

Of those 77 papers retained, only three were not totally blaming man...

The result was a 97% consensus.(as fabricated by John Cook of Skeptical Science).

But when we add in all of the other papers who did not agree on man made warming we get less than 1/2 of one percent or 0.5 %

Legates Et Al shredded the Bull Shit...

Funny how appeals to authority always tout this kind of crap.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top