Remember me
▼ Content

There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming



Page 2 of 2<12
27-02-2016 18:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
A qualified geologist that thinks the earth is flat would be absurd, obviously.

A qualified scientist who believes in violations of physics, e.g. an atmospheric gas creating energy in violation of the 1st LoT or a planet that increases in temperature but somehow decreases in radiance, etc would be reason enough for his/her university to rescind his/her degree and disavow all association.


.


You should contact these institutions and have something done about it then. If they actually believe what you say they believe. Shall we start with Steven Hawking?
28-02-2016 09:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Sorry DRKTS, but your facts are wrong. In the video you reference Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook et al 2013's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.


You're only deluding yourself by staying in the little bubble of junk-science conspiracy blogs and un-sceptically swallowing and regurgitating whatever incorrect claims they make because it's what you want to hear.

I bet you didn't even know about the second part of Cook et al's study where scientists were asked to give their own ratings on their own papers.

Go to Google Scholar and try looking up papers yourself. Go hang out at an AGU conference with thousands of scientists and actually talk to some.



Edited on 28-02-2016 09:37
28-02-2016 12:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

All you are doing is faithfully and mindlessly regurgitating evidence-free nonsense you read on junk-science conspiracy blogs. You clearly haven't even read the paper yourself. You clearly have never done even a cursory literature search of the science Journals yourself. I suspect you don't even know how to.

You blindly and faithfully accepted whatever your latest non-scientist (retired accountant this time) 'high priest' Paul Homewood told you about the Cook et al paper on his conspiracy blog as 'fact', and didn't bother to fact-check his claims because his claims supported your irrational anti-science conspiracy beliefs.

So perhaps you might like to look at yourself before accusing other people of being "religious fundamentalists"




Edited on 28-02-2016 12:54
29-02-2016 00:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
spot wrote:You should contact these institutions and have something done about it then. If they actually believe what you say they believe. Shall we start with Steven Hawking?

Your standard tactic; namedrop.

Cite for me where Stephen Hawking either says he believes CO2 creates energy or that CO2 causes a body's temperature to increase while causing its radiance to decrease.

That should be easy enough, right? He agrees with you, right? You speak for him, right?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-02-2016 01:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change... There's a realization that we are changing our climate for the worse. That would have catastrophic effects. Although the threat is not as dire as that of nuclear weapons right now, in the long term we are looking at a serious threat."

Stephen Hawking's Quote from Press conference for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (1 January 2007)


Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics? He should be aware of the laws of physics shouldn't he? Could it be you are mistaken when you say it violates the laws of physics?
29-02-2016 03:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
spot wrote: Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics?

You need to show me where I said nuclear weapons are not dangerous.

You need to show me where I said nuclear winter would not be a bad thing. Did you notice he

You need to show me where I said that nuclear weapons somehow violate the laws of physics. I don't think I did.

Do you have a link to the transcript of his speech/words?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-02-2016 09:11
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics?

You need to show me where I said nuclear weapons are not dangerous.

You need to show me where I said nuclear winter would not be a bad thing. Did you notice he

You need to show me where I said that nuclear weapons somehow violate the laws of physics. I don't think I did.

Do you have a link to the transcript of his speech/words?


.
that's a direct quote of his statement he's clearly mentioning climate change It was in the news at the time, Google is your friend, I'm surprised you didn't do 10 seconds of fact checking before putting your foot in it again.
29-02-2016 11:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics?

You need to show me where I said nuclear weapons are not dangerous.

You need to show me where I said nuclear winter would not be a bad thing. Did you notice he

You need to show me where I said that nuclear weapons somehow violate the laws of physics. I don't think I did.

Do you have a link to the transcript of his speech/words?


.
that's a direct quote of his statement he's clearly mentioning climate change It was in the news at the time, Google is your friend, I'm surprised you didn't do 10 seconds of fact checking before putting your foot in it again.

I suggest YOU do some fact checking, especially his current opinions.


The Parrot Killer
29-02-2016 14:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I have done some fact cheaking, If he has had a rethink on this issue its off the record. In case I'm mistaken can you provide a quote or a link to back up your assertion?

Anyway it doesn't sound realistic to me. Are we to beleive that in 2007 he made this statement and about his concerns knowing that the greenhouse effect violated the laws of physics then changed his mind and no media reported on this?
29-02-2016 14:36
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
I have done some fact cheaking, If he has had a rethink on this issue its off the record. In case I'm mistaken can you provide a quote or a link to back up your assertion?

Anyway it doesn't sound realistic to me. Are we to beleive that in 2007 he made this statement and about his concerns knowing that the greenhouse effect violated the laws of physics then changed his mind and no media reported on this?


Maybe Hawking had a severe brain injury that left him in an imbecilic state and now he agrees with Into the Dark's beliefs?



Edited on 29-02-2016 14:38
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 20:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact