What's wrong with this picture? Proof Please.

cthor29 wrote:
People need to ask questions.
Proof is important. Not speculation or theories. How many times have you heard the words "Scientists now believe.." or "Studies now show.." where scientists or academics have changed their minds. Their findings are never certain.
Why are people being removed from positions after speaking out against Climate Change? What is the real motive?
The Head Of Meteorologists was removed from his job after saying that he doubted global warming predictions were right because they depended on clouds and you cannot predict clouds.
A Journalist was removed from a TV show because they questioned the validity of the findings of global warming.
A Weather Presenter who was a qualified Meteorologist was replaced on a news program after she said the weather was normal and not a sign of climate change.
A man being interviewed on TV was cut off and removed during the break because he was able to tell of a hotter and longer period of "heat wave" weather in the late 50's derailing their point that a recent spell of hot weather was the hottest ever.( I tried to find records of that period but a five year block in the late 50's is missing.???)
In order to prove their point records only start in 1961 for the Global Warming study.(An unusual time to start. It should have been from the beginning of records.)
People are constantly interrupted and drowned out whenever they begin to put an alternative perspective to the global warming/climate change debate.
DEBATE, that's a joke in itself. The Climate change people do not allow debate.
They used to call it 'Global Warming' and claimed it would never rain again, but when the drought broke they could not sell that easily anymore so they called it 'Climate Change' because it was easier to convince people as the climate is always changing naturally and normally.
The weather is not a machine and no two days are exactly the same so it is easier to fool the general population, who are removed from nature, into believing anything they are told.
Every time there is a sign that things are normal and people are starting to doubt, suddenly there is a barrage of people warning us how desperate things are and that we need to act quickly or we will all perish.
Every time there is a Natural disaster, suddenly it is global warming without a scrap of proof. (Natural disasters have been happening yearly since time began, Seems to be just another scare tactic to make people believe)
It is OK to doubt and get a balanced perspective before we do something we will regret.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I think the truth about 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is starting to sink in, and most people who have been promoting it, will start backing away, quietly at first, but more will stat talking against. It's slowly becoming unpopular, because people are starting to feel the squeeze on their bank accounts, and naturally, it gets very real, very personal. With money, people want to know how, why, and where their personal dollars are going, '..at an alarming rate'. France raised there carbon-related tax, a great deal, to set an example to the world, what needs to be done, to fight CO2. The people didn't like that too much, protested, rioted, and I suspect a possible revolt in the works. I haven't found a news story about the government backing down on the tax hike, or much about the protests, past few days. President Bush's funeral is the main story, sad, but think the media is hiding France behind it for now. Talking about it, is trendy, but having to pay for it is a different thing entirely. It's not fun or attractive, if a good portion of your paycheck is going to be taken. Most of the filthy rich folks, didn't get rich, by spending their own money, and guard is theirs, viciously.

What it really comes down to, is the scientist do most of their work on paper, on on the computer screen. There is very little 'real' data, least not enough real prove anything. They have to rely on proxy data, and virtual data, to feed models on the computer. Their projections are only a few degrees, over a century. The precision of the data going into the models, is no where near that resolution, margin of error is way more than double the predicted increase. They know a lot of the proxy data is very weak for the argument, but they need to hide under a lot of technical papers, which is pseudo-credibility. They need reliable, an accurate data, for a period longer than the span of the prediction, and fail. They have nothing to compare with, because the planet isn't repetitious, changes constantly, every day is different. We haven't always been here burning stuff, nor have we been making measurements all that long, considering the estimated age of civilization, or how long ago, was the last major ice age. I believe we are still recovering, and have been warming for thousands of years. It's not a constant, linear recovery, there are spikes and dips, even a mini ice age (like right now).

People will resist, when it comes to their income, and their savings. The proposal will be costly, and not just the cash. People are going to lose jobs, or have to find work closer to home. Instead of personal transportation, the will be forced to use mass transit, maybe ride a bicycle to get to the nearest station. We will pay a lot more for electricity, and need to cut way back on usage, but that's okay, most will be working more hours, just to keep food on the table...

HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years,

HarveyH55 wrote:
but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.

What started Trillion Dollar deficits was the need to avoid another Great Depression.

James___ wrote:
Bush was more interested in Bin Laden, invading Iraq than what was happening in our country.

James___ wrote:
Trump will keep the Trillion Dollar deficits going.

James___ wrote:
It's what's growing our economy

James___ wrote:
and not investments which are creating new jobs.

James___ wrote:
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.

James___ wrote:
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin

James___ wrote:
and over farming which created the Dust Bowl.

James___ wrote:
That had nothing to do with war.

James___ wrote:
Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down

James___ wrote:
@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.

James___ wrote:
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave.

James___ wrote:
This is increasing US debt.

James___ wrote:
When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.

James___ wrote:
here are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.

I am not Russian or Ukrainian. No one is particularly creating dissension in this forum at the moment, not even Wake.

James___ wrote:
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin

Nope. Is was the unstable atmosphere created by FDR, the theft of gold, and the debts racked up by WW1 that caused the downturn. The 'Great' in the Great Depression was because of FDR policies and the waste of wealth on WW2.

Margin trading is still available today.

James___ wrote:
and over farming which created the Dust Bowl.

Not the cause of the Dust Bowl. That was caused by one of the periodic droughts that hit the southeast United States. It doesn't happen now because we imported ground cover plants (Kudzu among them). Farms manage water better now too, meaning the droughts when they DO come can be somewhat mitigated.

James___ wrote:
That had nothing to do with war.

It had everything to do with war.

James___ wrote:
Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down

It is YOU trying to change history, James. Revisionism is a fallacy.

James___ wrote:
@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.

Margin trading still occurs today. Nothing has changed, yet the stock market is not collapsing at the moment.

James___ wrote:
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave.

I agree it's a factor, but it is not the primary cause.

James___ wrote:
This is increasing US debt.

No, spending too much money by the federal government and borrowing to pay for it is what causes increasing debt.

James___ wrote:
When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.

Bonds are paid every year when they mature. Multi-year bonds are just part of that.

James___ wrote:
here are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.

Yes. Many people think the next crash will be worse than 2008. It is quite possible, if loss of confidence in the dollar is significant in that crash.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.

I am not Russian or Ukrainian. No one is particularly creating dissension in this forum at the moment, not even Wake.

James___ wrote:
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin

Nope. Is was the unstable atmosphere created by FDR, the theft of gold, and the debts racked up by WW1 that caused the downturn. The 'Great' in the Great Depression was because of FDR policies and the waste of wealth on WW2.

Margin trading is still available today.

James___ wrote:
and over farming which created the Dust Bowl.

Not the cause of the Dust Bowl. That was caused by one of the periodic droughts that hit the southeast United States. It doesn't happen now because we imported ground cover plants (Kudzu among them). Farms manage water better now too, meaning the droughts when they DO come can be somewhat mitigated.

James___ wrote:
That had nothing to do with war.

It had everything to do with war.

James___ wrote:
Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down

It is YOU trying to change history, James. Revisionism is a fallacy.

James___ wrote:
@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.

Margin trading still occurs today. Nothing has changed, yet the stock market is not collapsing at the moment.

James___ wrote:
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave.

I agree it's a factor, but it is not the primary cause.

James___ wrote:
This is increasing US debt.

No, spending too much money by the federal government and borrowing to pay for it is what causes increasing debt.

James___ wrote:
When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.

Bonds are paid every year when they mature. Multi-year bonds are just part of that.

James___ wrote:
here are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.

Yes. Many people think the next crash will be worse than 2008. It is quite possible, if loss of confidence in the dollar is significant in that crash.

I like the way you mix fallacy with reality. An easy way to confuse people. Wells are going dry where the Dust Bowl happened. They didn't know about the Ogallala Aquifer or there would've been no Dust Bowl.

James___ wrote:
When I say the US has to start paying down it's debt, I'm talking about the over $21 Trillion National Debt. When the GDP to debt ratio goes over 115%, somewhere around there the dollar will probably start falling.

James___ wrote:
Then austerity measures will probably be I acted. This means raising taxes while decreasing government services/benefits.

James___ wrote:
Of course the US is a capitalist country and may find it can poorly manage itself just as any other country can do.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I think the truth about 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is starting to sink in, and most people who have been promoting it, will start backing away, quietly at first, but more will stat talking against. It's slowly becoming unpopular, because people are starting to feel the squeeze on their bank accounts, and naturally, it gets very real, very personal.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.

What started Trillion Dollar deficits was the need to avoid another Great Depression. Bush was more interested in Bin Laden, invading Iraq than what was happening in our country. Trump will keep the Trillion Dollar deficits going. It's what's growing our economy and not investments which are creating new jobs.

With the attack on 9:11, Bush could've said that if Alla supported their actions then they would've gotten 9:12 right. There's only one book in the Quran that has 9 chapters. The attack of 9/11 was based on 9:12. This means they got it wrong. In a Holy War, the scripture should agree with the act.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-revealed-secret-israeli-mission-northern-syria-russian-diplomats-720600

HarveyH55 wrote:
Throwing money at a problem, doesn't fix the problem, just puts it off, for someone else to deal with later. Welfare and food stamps, for those unable to find their dream job (sitting on the couch, watch TV). How many times did Obama extend unemployment benefits? It wasn't because no jobs were available, the place I worked, was hiring those 2 years. I know some people are a little particular, and warehouse work isn't for everyone. I didn't grow up picky, you were lucky to find any job, doing anything. It's so much better get a paycheck, than job hunting, even when the work sucks. Even though you get a crappy job, nothing preventing you from looking for a better one. The only time I ever had an employer call me up, and asked me if I wanted a job, was when I worked for a temp agency. Their great, got several full-time jobs, I probably wouldn't have found looking on my own. Sort of a try, before you apply, type of deal. Although, I pretty sure the temp agency would rather have kept me on for a while, didn't mind traveling, no shift preference, never turned down an assignment.

I know there are a lot of jobs out there, we have people jumping the border, from other countries, wanting those jobs, well, and maybe to get some of those freebies. We could solve a couple of problem, but cutting back on the freebies, and insisting people get off the couch and take a job, any job. No jobs, no freebies, why jump the fence? They can rob, steal, and murder in their own countries, just as easy.

Leafsdude wrote:
I'll ask the obvious question: if someone working for, let say, National Geographic, claims evolution is false and Creationism is legitimate, would you say them being fired is evidence that evolution is false, or that Creationist arguments are being ignored or that doubt in evolution is being curtailed deliberately in scientific circles?

Wake wrote:I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.

Leafsdude wrote:

Wake wrote:I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.

1) The question is entirely relevant in this thread because the OP made their argument by asserting that people being fired from jobs for questioning climate change means climate change is a hoax, as opposed to them being fired because climate change is the most accurate conclusion possible based on the known data. Considering Occum's Razor, the latter conclusion is more reasonable.

2) People who cite the "97% of scientists" are indeed making an incorrect argument. However, those that cite the "97% of scientific studies" are being entirely scientific, as science does work on the consensus of data and experiments, as it is the primary measure of the scientific concept of repeatability.

3) Define "by force" and provide examples, please.

Wake wrote:What has Occam's Razor have to do with this?

Wake wrote:If you do not know what you're talking about then using science by vote has absolute insanity behind it.

Wake wrote:Not ONE single climate model has shown even a wide agreement with what the climate has actually done.

Wake wrote:Using 97% when that was little more than a construct to begin with makes you no points. That was 97% of the 1,000 papers of the 3,000 papers that Cook discarded as being too far off his point. And HALF of those papers said nothing about there being global warming or that it could even possibly be man-made.

Wake wrote:Cook included them in the "positive" column because he thought that "they implied" AGW was real when most of these authors said that they neither said nor implied any such thing.

Wake wrote:You don't know that Google has fired scientifically trained engineers for opposing AGW? You do not consider that force majeure?

Wake wrote:Facebook has been suspected of the same thing. Yahoo simply erases many comments that show actual proof that there is no AGW.

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Throwing money at a problem, doesn't fix the problem, just puts it off, for someone else to deal with later. Welfare and food stamps, for those unable to find their dream job (sitting on the couch, watch TV). How many times did Obama extend unemployment benefits? It wasn't because no jobs were available, the place I worked, was hiring those 2 years. I know some people are a little particular, and warehouse work isn't for everyone. I didn't grow up picky, you were lucky to find any job, doing anything. It's so much better get a paycheck, than job hunting, even when the work sucks. Even though you get a crappy job, nothing preventing you from looking for a better one. The only time I ever had an employer call me up, and asked me if I wanted a job, was when I worked for a temp agency. Their great, got several full-time jobs, I probably wouldn't have found looking on my own. Sort of a try, before you apply, type of deal. Although, I pretty sure the temp agency would rather have kept me on for a while, didn't mind traveling, no shift preference, never turned down an assignment.

I know there are a lot of jobs out there, we have people jumping the border, from other countries, wanting those jobs, well, and maybe to get some of those freebies. We could solve a couple of problem, but cutting back on the freebies, and insisting people get off the couch and take a job, any job. No jobs, no freebies, why jump the fence? They can rob, steal, and murder in their own countries, just as easy.

Keynes said that you should have a saved money source and in the event of a recession you spend to increase the economy. I've gone all over this with government economists who claim that CREDIT is the same as a saved source of money. It is not. Only real money works. And the way that they increase the money supply is also all screwed up forcing inflation or reducing the value of currency. That the government could get away with this since Woodrow Wilson is pretty disgusting.

Leafsdude wrote:

Wake wrote:I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.

1) The question is entirely relevant in this thread because the OP made their argument by asserting that people being fired from jobs for questioning climate change means climate change is a hoax, as opposed to them being fired because climate change is the most accurate conclusion possible based on the known data. Considering Occum's Razor, the latter conclusion is more reasonable.

Leafsdude wrote:
2) People who cite the "97% of scientists" are indeed making an incorrect argument. However, those that cite the "97% of scientific studies" are being entirely scientific, as science does work on the consensus of data and experiments, as it is the primary measure of the scientific concept of repeatability.

Leafsdude wrote:

Wake wrote:What has Occam's Razor have to do with this?

Occam's Razor states that the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions is usually the right one. Any conclusion that the majority of the scientific data supporting climate change is wrong or faked or a conspiracy require more assumptions than those that state the data is correct.

Leafsdude wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:If you do not know what you're talking about then using science by vote has absolute insanity behind it.

Yes, absolutely. Consensus by analyzing published studies is not science by vote, it's just science.

Leafsdude wrote:

Wake wrote:Not ONE single climate model has shown even a wide agreement with what the climate has actually done.

Not one?

Wake wrote:Using 97% when that was little more than a construct to begin with makes you no points. That was 97% of the 1,000 papers of the 3,000 papers that Cook discarded as being too far off his point. And HALF of those papers said nothing about there being global warming or that it could even possibly be man-made.

Define "too far off his point".

And the numbers were: 11 944 papers with "global climate change" or "global warming" in the abstract, ~4 013 that stated a position on AGW, and ~3 894 that agreed that AGW was happening. So I'm not sure where you're getting your 3 000 and 1 000 from.

And you are aware that Cook 2013 is but one of at least 7 papers that all conclude the scientific data supports AGW to the rate of 90% or more, right?

Leafsdude wrote:

Wake wrote:Cook included them in the "positive" column because he thought that "they implied" AGW was real when most of these authors said that they neither said nor implied any such thing.

Except that he also surveyed the publishing author(s) in his paper and the percentages were for all intents and purposes the same (though it is interesting to point out that there were both papers that they listed as uncertain about AGW and that agreed that AGW was occurring that were rated by authors to be in the other category).

Wake wrote:You don't know that Google has fired scientifically trained engineers for opposing AGW? You do not consider that force majeure?

No, I don't. Why do you?