• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Purdue Says the "Consensus" Is Only 50%

No one I know is contending that humans are the sole and only cause of global warming. We are making it worse, and have the potential to tip the scales to the point it will set off chain reactions that could drastically alter the environment. If you understand anything about the issue, you'd know this.
 
vash1012 said:
You use a study with 19 climatologist which actually doesn't disagree with the 97% study since that study was looking for a positive opinion on climate change, not "humans are the primary cause" which is a much more divisive statement. Your study finds 90% of 19 climatologists working in the agricultural field agree that humans are at least partially responsible. The other study finds 97% of papers on the subject have a positive opinion. They aren't different. I am not in denial. You are in denial and you are looking for any straw to grasp on to. You've chosen the wrong one this time, mate. Not even the most ardent climate change denier can look at the actually facts of the study and conclude any support for their opinion.
Click to expand...

Keep up the denial. As Carl Sagan observed, great claims demand great evidence, and the 97% consensus claim did not survive this study.
 
vash1012 said:
No one I know is contending that humans are the sole and only cause of global warming. We are making it worse, and have the potential to tip the scales to the point it will set off chain reactions that could drastically alter the environment. If you understand anything about the issue, you'd know this.
Click to expand...

Keep backtracking.
 
Jack Hays said:
Keep up the denial. As Carl Sagan observed, great claims demand great evidence, and the 97% consensus claim did not survive this study.
Click to expand...

YOU CALL THIS GREAT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY? 19 people who 90% agree with the other study???? Are you insane? Seriously? The amount of verification bias you are displaying right now is nothing short of uncanny.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Keep backtracking.
Click to expand...

Find any time when I said otherwise and I'll delete my account. I have always contended that the evidence supports we are at least *partially* responsible. There is always going to be an element of natural cycle too. We may in fact be the main driver of climate change, but we don't know that yet. In your brain, this probably means something very different than it does in mine. In mine, it means we *know* we are partially responsible at least. We *think* we might be the main driver. But even IF we are only 1/3 responsible for the warming, then we are entering a warming period WHILE wilfully making the effect of that warming period WORSE. Still a scenario we don't want.
 
vash1012 said:
YOU CALL THIS GREAT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY? 19 people who 90% agree with the other study???? Are you insane? Seriously? The amount of verification bias you are displaying right now is nothing short of uncanny.
Click to expand...

90% don't agree with the other study. That's your unique spin.
 
vash1012 said:
Find any time when I said otherwise and I'll delete my account. I have always contended that the evidence supports we are at least *partially* responsible. There is always going to be an element of natural cycle too. We may in fact be the main driver of climate change, but we don't know that yet. In your brain, this probably means something very different than it does in mine. In mine, it means we *know* we are partially responsible at least. We *think* we might be the main driver. But even IF we are only 1/3 responsible for the warming, then we are entering a warming period WHILE wilfully making the effect of that warming period WORSE. Still a scenario we don't want.
Click to expand...

I could not care less what you have posted. The point at issue is the fraudulent Cook claim of a 97% consensus that is routinely parroted without constraint.
 
Jack Hays said:
I could not care less what you have posted. The point at issue is the fraudulent Cook claim of a 97% consensus that is routinely parroted without constraint.
Click to expand...

You accused me of backtracking, genius. You brought it up. I defended myself.

The Cook claim is not fraudulent anymore than your study is fraudulent. You might not like the results, but they are the results. What's FRAUDULENT is the way you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting the results of the study you are linking.
 
Jack Hays said:
Keep up the denial. As Carl Sagan observed, great claims demand great evidence, and the 97% consensus claim did not survive this study.
Click to expand...

LoL, good god man, rather than backpedaling and trying to salvage even the tiniest little bit of face out of this disaster you've instead decided to double down in the direction you are most wrong.
 
Jack Hays said:
90% don't agree with the other study. That's your unique spin.
Click to expand...

Find me anywhere in the Cook study where it says it was looking for a only studies that contend that humans are the only, or even primary, cause of global warming. It doesn't say that anywhere.
 
vash1012 said:
You accused me of backtracking, genius. You brought it up. I defended myself.

The Cook claim is not fraudulent anymore than your study is fraudulent. You might not like the results, but they are the results. What's FRAUDULENT is the way you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting the results of the study you are linking.
Click to expand...

Your backtracking began with your attempt to substitute your posting history for the Cook consensus claim.
 
Verax said:
LoL, good god man, rather than backpedaling and trying to salvage even the tiniest little bit of face out of this disaster you've instead decided to double down in the direction you are most wrong.
Click to expand...

It's insane, isn't it? I'm not the only one thinking this guy is off his rocker, right?
 
Jack Hays said:
Your backtracking began with your attempt to substitute your posting history for the Cook consensus claim.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Are you omniscient? Or clairvoyant? Because you brought up backtracking first, genius. You are making no sense at all.
 
Jack Hays said:
I presented evidence. You denied. I'll let others decide what they think.
Click to expand...

I think this is one of those nights where you might just want to walk away from the keyboard and pay Schweddy a lot of money to erase this thread so you don't have to face yourself in the morning.

LOL!
 
Verax said:
LoL, good god man, rather than backpedaling and trying to salvage even the tiniest little bit of face out of this disaster you've instead decided to double down in the direction you are most wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're not among your circle of self-referential supporters here. I have nothing to salvage; I stand by the OP proudly.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you're not among your circle of self-referential supporters here. I have nothing to salvage; I stand by the OP proudly.
Click to expand...

Lol, in every other thread, the other skeptics come out in force to support other skeptics opinions. You see no one doing that here, right? Are you starting to wonder why? It's because there is nothing to support. Like I said, the most ardent climate change denier couldn't read that study and take any support from it.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think this is one of those nights where you might just want to walk away from the keyboard and pay Schweddy a lot of money to erase this thread so you don't have to face yourself in the morning.

LOL!
Click to expand...

Ignorance weighs in.
 
vash1012 said:
Yes. And you study says, we either are causing it mostly or causing it equally with natural forces. In either case, we are causing global warming. If we are causing some global warming, we are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you're busted. Don't blame me, blame Cook.
 
Jack Hays said:
I could not care less what you have posted. The point at issue is the fraudulent Cook claim of a 97% consensus that is routinely parroted without constraint.
Click to expand...
lol

Cook did a survey of 12,000 different peer-reviewed papers, and as you yourself should know: The claim is that 97% of papers that took a position accepted AGW. Powell's survey of 14,000 abstract only found 24 papers overtly rejected AGW.

As to the study which you laud so highly, let's read what it actually says.

Climatologists are a subset of scientists who serve a unique type of intermediary role between basic climate scientists and agricultural advisors. In 2012, a total of 22 state and extension climatologists were selected through a purposive sample to represent main outlets of publicly available and location-specific climate information in the region. Nineteen of these climatologists completed a pre-interview survey that included the climate change question (see Wilke 2013). Consistent with the many disciplinary scientists in the two USDA-NIFA projects, over 90% of the climatologists agreed that climate change is occurring while none believed that it is not occurring (Table 1). Fifty-three percent attributed climate change primarily to human activities. (Emphasis added)

Another 37% believe that climate change is "Climate change is occurring, and it is caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities."

Aside from the sheer amusement of watching you give more weight to a survey of 20 climatologists, than one with anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 scientists: This survey is suggesting that 90% of the 19 climatologists they surveyed assert that human activity is a causal factor in global warming.

Oh, and the purpose of the paper? It's trying to figure out how to communicate to the agriculture sector that climate change is real, and attributable to human activity.


I stand by the OP proudly.
Click to expand...
Why, because you can't tell that it essentially confirms the Cook and Powell studies...?

:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom