Two articles claiming more or less the opposite?(1% or 97% agree)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Two articles claiming more or less the opposite?(1% or 97% agree)

Two articles claiming more or less the opposite?(1% or 97% agree)27-09-2019 12:24
Moltas ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. I've seen many articles and videos discussing the topic, and both sides have convincing arguments. I'm not sure what side to believe. 1% agree: article 97 % agree: article What I think: At first glance, the first article(1% agree) provides some statistics relevant to the topic. However, I find the undergirding a bit questionable since I find it to assume too much. The Guardian's article is based on an examination of a large number of papers. However, I am unsure of how accurate the result really is since the execution of it seems unprofessional to me.
27-09-2019 15:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Moltas wrote: I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. First, science is not based on anyone's opinion. The whole pretext of surveying people for their opinions on science is stupid. Second, the papers examined are written by political activists and the people conducting the opinion surveys are scientifically illiterate, so the whole activity is amusement fodder for everyone observing these kinds of discussions. Third, why did it ever occur to you that anything is ever resolved by a "tastes great!" vs. "less filling" argument? If the beer sucks, the beer sucks. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
27-09-2019 15:33
Moltas ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	IBdaMann wrote: Moltas wrote: I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. First, science is not based on anyone's opinion. The whole pretext of surveying people for their opinions on science is stupid. Second, the papers examined are written by political activists and the people conducting the opinion surveys are scientifically illiterate, so the whole activity is amusement fodder for everyone observing these kinds of discussions. Third, why did it ever occur to you that anything is ever resolved by a "tastes great!" vs. "less filling" argument? If the beer sucks, the beer sucks. . I simply discussed which article I found more serious/professional... Please participate in the discussion instead of assuming the worst of peoples' intellect.
27-09-2019 16:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Moltas wrote: I simply discussed which article I found more serious/professional... You initiated a silly discussion, presumably because you aren't that smart and you believe that science is somehow subjective, i.e. based on some democratic consensus of subjective opinions. Anyway, neither article is any more professional than the other for pushing this idea. Moltas wrote: Please participate in the discussion instead of assuming the worst of peoples' intellect. Hello, earth to Moltas ... I did participate. That's what a post on the topic is. Oh wait, are you one of those nutjobs who only classifies "participation" as those posts with which you agree with the prevailing opinion? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
27-09-2019 18:02
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Moltas wrote: I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. I've seen many articles and videos discussing the topic, and both sides have convincing arguments. I'm not sure what side to believe. 1% agree: article 97 % agree: article What I think: At first glance, the first article(1% agree) provides some statistics relevant to the topic. However, I find the undergirding a bit questionable since I find it to assume too much. The Guardian's article is based on an examination of a large number of papers. However, I am unsure of how accurate the result really is since the execution of it seems unprofessional to me. I never held much stock in polls, or surveys. They are generally biased from the start, someone paid for them, with an expected outcome. the questions ask, how you ask them, who, where, and when, all have an influence. The 97% consensus, that settled the 'science' of climate-change, was of climatologist, not scientists in general. The just left off the climate part, and just called them scientists. Still accurate, and truthful, but misleading. They never provided the questions asked, and they were requested. I'm not sure if they ever were provide, I moved on. I'm sure global warming works on paper, so if you ask a climatologist, if global warming is possible, they would of course, agree. Ask the same people if the believe it's actually happening... Opinion, is what you believe to be true, faith. The only observable aspects of global warming, is numbers regurgitated by a computer. The numbers provide to the computer, are garbage, just what they could scrape up, no consistency.

27-09-2019 20:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Moltas wrote: I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. I've seen many articles and videos discussing the topic, and both sides have convincing arguments. I'm not sure what side to believe. 1% agree: article 97 % agree: article What I think: At first glance, the first article(1% agree) provides some statistics relevant to the topic. However, I find the undergirding a bit questionable since I find it to assume too much. The Guardian's article is based on an examination of a large number of papers. However, I am unsure of how accurate the result really is since the execution of it seems unprofessional to me. Science isn't a poll or an opinion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Before you can have any theory about 'climate science', you must define it first. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2019 05:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Climate Science is the study of how to separate non-believers from their life savings, by convincing them that man-made CO2 will kill their grandchildren, if they don't pay up quickly. Isn't extortion a criminal offence?
28-09-2019 06:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Moltas wrote: I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. I've seen many articles and videos discussing the topic, and both sides have convincing arguments. I'm not sure what side to believe. 1% agree: article 97 % agree: article What I think: At first glance, the first article(1% agree) provides some statistics relevant to the topic. However, I find the undergirding a bit questionable since I find it to assume too much. The Guardian's article is based on an examination of a large number of papers. However, I am unsure of how accurate the result really is since the execution of it seems unprofessional to me. So it's not really 1% or 97%. The first article you're calling 1% says that "1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming." So for example you could have an article devoted to AGW what wouldn't explicitly give a percentage and be outside that 1.6%. Really I find the question to be silly. What you should ask is what percentage dispute, explicitly claim a figured below 10% or something along those lines. For example a lot of people agree Trump should be impeached. Some just recently with the new whistle-blower complaint, some since he took office. Now you could say 49% of Americans approve of an impeachment inquiry, and someone else could counter that of those 49% how many agree he should be removed from office, but the 49% is still accurate. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-09-2019 19:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Climate Science is the study of how to separate non-believers from their life savings, by convincing them that man-made CO2 will kill their grandchildren, if they don't pay up quickly. Isn't extortion a criminal offence? If they become convinced that CO2 will kill their grandchildren, they have joined the Church of Global Warming, so no, it's like tithing. If someone from the Church of Global Warming threatens to kill his grandchildren unless he joins and pays up, THEN it's extortion. The ability to choose whether to believe in the Church of Global warming is the key. Generally only believers in the Church of Global Warming feel they will lose their grandchildren unless YOU pay up. That's just paranoia and an attempt at socialism, not extortion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2019 19:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: Moltas wrote: I've read two articles discussing whether or not 1% or 97% percent of scientists/papers agree that it is the human intervention that has caused the rapid increase in temperature. I've seen many articles and videos discussing the topic, and both sides have convincing arguments. I'm not sure what side to believe. 1% agree: article 97 % agree: article What I think: At first glance, the first article(1% agree) provides some statistics relevant to the topic. However, I find the undergirding a bit questionable since I find it to assume too much. The Guardian's article is based on an examination of a large number of papers. However, I am unsure of how accurate the result really is since the execution of it seems unprofessional to me. So it's not really 1% or 97%. The first article you're calling 1% says that "1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming." So for example you could have an article devoted to AGW what wouldn't explicitly give a percentage and be outside that 1.6%. Really I find the question to be silly. What you should ask is what percentage dispute, explicitly claim a figured below 10% or something along those lines. For example a lot of people agree Trump should be impeached. Some just recently with the new whistle-blower complaint, some since he took office. Now you could say 49% of Americans approve of an impeachment inquiry, and someone else could counter that of those 49% how many agree he should be removed from office, but the 49% is still accurate. News polls don't mean anything. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2019 21:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:If they become convinced that CO2 will kill their grandchildren, they have joined the Church of Global Warming, so no, it's like tithing. I submit that when omnipotent government is your deity, any tribute you pay to fuel its spending is a "sacrifice at the altar," no? I submit that tithing is comprised of payments to church leaders to continue the "mission" and the firebrand preaching. Into the Night wrote:Generally only believers in the Church of Global Warming feel they will lose their grandchildren unless YOU pay up. This is the underlying theme of all Marxism, i.e. YOUR failure to surrender all YOUR personal wealth represents a clear existential threat to all of humanity. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
28-09-2019 22:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:If they become convinced that CO2 will kill their grandchildren, they have joined the Church of Global Warming, so no, it's like tithing. I submit that when omnipotent government is your deity, any tribute you pay to fuel its spending is a "sacrifice at the altar," no? I submit that tithing is comprised of payments to church leaders to continue the "mission" and the firebrand preaching. Into the Night wrote:Generally only believers in the Church of Global Warming feel they will lose their grandchildren unless YOU pay up. This is the underlying theme of all Marxism, i.e. YOUR failure to surrender all YOUR personal wealth represents a clear existential threat to all of humanity. . Other than the use of the term 'firebrand preaching', I agree. Not all churches use 'firebrand preaching'. You are describing what is largely fundamentalism, or attempting to PROVE a religion as True. Other religions MAY preach, but not in any 'firebrand' form. Some religions don't really preach at all, such as some forms of Shinto. Those beliefs are largely simply made up in a person's own mind. Those that place government as God are simply supporting their cause 'voluntarily' (at least they think so! ). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2019 22:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Other than the use of the term 'firebrand preaching', I agree. Not all churches use 'firebrand preaching'. You are describing what is largely fundamentalism, or attempting to PROVE a religion as True. Of course you are correct. I was referring to the inherent firebrand nature of any Marxist preaching. I did not intend to broad-brush any religion other than those of the Marxism family. Thank you for pointing that out and allowing me to clarify. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
29-09-2019 01:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Other than the use of the term 'firebrand preaching', I agree. Not all churches use 'firebrand preaching'. You are describing what is largely fundamentalism, or attempting to PROVE a religion as True. Of course you are correct. I was referring to the inherent firebrand nature of any Marxist preaching. I did not intend to broad-brush any religion other than those of the Marxism family. Thank you for pointing that out and allowing me to clarify. . Since the Church of Karl Marx is by its very nature fundamentalist, your point is well taken. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Two articles claiming more or less the opposite?(1% or 97% agree):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech firms agree to AI safeguards set by the White House	0	21-07-2023 19:45
30,000 SCIENTISTS SIGN PETITION ON GLOBAL WARMING, CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO SETTLED SCIENCE	2	02-11-2022 23:15
The Savior Will Post 2 Godlike Articles About How Become Millionaire And Ascension Topic Very Soon	3	04-01-2021 10:29
Relatable Warming Impact Articles & Studies	20	22-11-2019 16:38
How do we know how much money Chinese government paid CBC and CNN to post climate change articles every d	0	19-04-2019 18:54