I thought you guys were "winning"...?

[reasonevangelist]

I won't deny the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on this planet who point to humans as the cause for climate change simply because of a Wall Street Journal article.

Do you personally know 100% of all scientists, so that you can make a valid claim that "98% of them say ACC is real and imperative?"

I don't think so. It could indeed be a much lower number in agreement. How do i know the "scientific studies" are actually scientific and unadulterated? If i'm not a scientist, how do i know whose claims to trust?

I don't think "then make everyone a scientist" is a feasible solution. Some aren't interested, others are not equipped. And, if everyone were indeed a scientist, how would that impact the profits of those groups who thrive on an ignorant populace intentionally reaching an errant consensus?

I'm not denying that "we," or rather, "they," are causing significant detriment to the earth and its inhabitants... but the political side of things seems geared toward distributing the burden to those least able to reduce said detriment. The highest burdens should be carried by the highest polluters, and we should demand they alter their business/industrial practices to stop causing undue and excess harm. Those engineering the systems, should reconfigure their own systems, at their own cost, instead of trying to blame the people using those systems, after the better alternatives have been either outlawed or black-holed, and made unavailable, in order for those in control to reduce/eliminate competition to their businesses.

 

[abandonconflict]

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

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

An article with two citations demonstrating an overwhelming majority of scientists agree we're behind it.

 

[reasonevangelist]

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

An article with two citations demonstrating an overwhelming majority of scientists agree we're behind it.

You didn't bother to read what i linked, did you.

 

[abandonconflict]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

ABSTRACT
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 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. 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. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

[abandonconflict]

You didn't bother to read what i linked, did you.

I read enough to know that it wasn't scientific.

 

[reasonevangelist]

I read enough to know that it wasn't scientific.

So you omitted a significant portion of my dispute with your rhetoric, while calling yourself scientific.

Very well.

 

[abandonconflict]

So you omitted a significant portion of my dispute with your rhetoric, while calling yourself scientific.

Very well.

No rhetoric, I linked a peer reviewed abstract and an article with two such citations. I also never "called myself scientific". No, you're the one with the dearth of citations to back your rhetoric.

 

[reasonevangelist]

No rhetoric, I linked a peer reviewed abstract and an article with two such citations. I also never "called myself scientific". No, you're the one with the dearth of citations to back your rhetoric.

You've been trying to frame an argument and assign me a position that is not mine, this entire time.

I'm not playing that game anymore.

 

[abandonconflict]

You've been trying to frame an argument and assign me a position that is not mine, this entire time.

I'm not playing that game anymore.

You stated your position quite clearly in your first post of this thread and failed utterly to defend it.

 

[ginwilly]

As soon as you stop denying the fact that many opportunistic and privileged people are indeed "conspiring" and using their resources to influence and manufacture benefit for only themselves or their small group, at the expense of the majority of the populace, it will become self-evident. Citation NOT needed. It's repeated throughout history, for anyone who paid attention.

There is room in the debate for both truths. The science is solid, the scientists are self-serving. We seem to turn it into an either/or leading to dishonesty from both sides.

 

[abandonconflict]

There is room in the debate for both truths. The science is solid, the scientists are self-serving. We seem to turn it into an either/or leading to dishonesty from both sides.

*citation required

 

[ginwilly]

*citation required

For which part?

 

[reasonevangelist]

There is room in the debate for both truths. The science is solid, the scientists are self-serving. We seem to turn it into an either/or leading to dishonesty from both sides.

^this.
Everything gets turned into a binary situation, when there is almost always some overlap. Someone instigates a false paradigm, and it becomes a quagmire.

 

[abandonconflict]

For which part?

"the scientists are self serving"

 

[abandonconflict]

^this.
Everything gets turned into a binary situation, when there is almost always some overlap. Someone instigates a false paradigm, and it becomes a quagmire.

An overwhelming majority of peer reviewed findings against a tiny minority funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon is not a quagmire.

 

[ginwilly]

"the scientists are self serving"

What would it take to convince you? Conversations about how to maximize funding? Study titles that were changed to include climate change so funding for pet project would be approved? How do we hide the decline? Admitting this doesn't change the science btw.

Or are you under the impression that scientists don't display the same human nature the rest of share? You honestly need a citation that people are self-serving? unreal

 

[MuyLocoNC]

*citation required

Actually no citation is required, at all. The burden to convince the public lies firmly on the shoulders of the proponents of this THEORY. Furthermore, they don't get to tell the public they're trying to convince, that they've received enough convincing and it's time to fall into lockstep. The debate isn't over until WE say it's over.

Unfortunately for the Eco-Loons, they require the consent of the public to implement the changes that they so desperately crave. Don't like it, tough shit. Keep chipping away, maybe in 20-30 years you'll be able to convince everyone that dire consequences are only a century away.

 

[abandonconflict]

What would it take to convince you? Conversations about how to maximize funding? Study titles that were changed to include climate change so funding for pet project would be approved? How do we hide the decline? Admitting this doesn't change the science btw.

Or are you under the impression that scientists don't display the same human nature the rest of share? You honestly need a citation that people are self-serving? unreal

Yeah, let's see some citations, I'm ready to explicate them and arrive at the truth. It's true, I doubt you, but let's see what you can link at least before I shoot it down. The peer review is not self serving. Science is not self serving. Scientists may be self serving, but the peer review will exclude what is not objective.

 

[abandonconflict]

THEORY

Gravity is a theory too, why don't you go test that one by jumping from a bridge, Muypoco?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Gravity is a theory too, why don't you go test that one by jumping from a bridge?

Don't get testy just because no one will jump through your hoops and play your little game. We'll just keep telling you how you're full of shit and how you can take your doom and gloom Eco-Loon agenda and fist it straight up your ass. Maybe if you type the word "science" a few more times, your opponents will concede.