• 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!

Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

ashurbanipal said:
I'm sure it does on both counts. However, that it does on the frequency of events supports the AGW hypothesis. More people means more carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there are no actual increases in such events. However, the severity impact of droughts are greater, because there are now more people needing the same water. Fires are cause by careless people more than by nature, and more people equals more fires.
 
Glitch said:
You know that the IPCC is political body, not a scientific one, right? Your first clue is in their name: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The purpose of the IPCC is to push political propaganda that other governments may use. Facts and reality play no part with the IPCC.
Click to expand...

No. It’s literally a scientific body convened by a governmental one.

I see you’re confused by the name. That’s OK- it happens with lots of amateurs.
 
Threegoofs said:
No. It’s literally a scientific body convened by a governmental one.

I see you’re confused by the name. That’s OK- it happens with lots of amateurs.
Click to expand...

They have you fooled....
 
jmotivator said:
That "study" has long been debunked. What he did was do a wide net poll of scientists and then continually narrow down the group of accepted responses until he got to the percentage he desired.

The poll he was trying to match was the two question poll that asked "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" and "Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on the climate?" ... in that poll I would be in the 97% based on the meaning of those questions in a scientific speak.

The reason the head count method of "science" is so broken is because there is no actual root science in global climate, it is a collection of various disciplines from biology and physics to statistics. You don't have to be a "climate scientist" to reject the methodology of "climate science", and in fact, a physicist is better suited to critique the use physics in AGW theory than the average climate "scientist", and a statistician is better suited to critique the statistics than is a "climate scientist"... but the idiots at "Skeptical Science" decided that they would only allow the opinions of "climate scientists" and throw out the physicists critiquing the physics and the statisticians critiquing the statistics.

It wasn't long after that "study" was released that someone leaked a batch of emails from the team running that "study" wherein the head of the study was emailing his staff about how best to market the results to help the AGW movement before the study was even conducted. You can't do a statistical analysis of anything when you want a specific answer... that is how you get statistical malpractice like was used in that study.
Click to expand...

What an active imagination you have!
 
Threegoofs said:
What an active imagination you have!
Click to expand...

Well, it's the truth.

Well, except that 8 years later I had forgotten that it was a private space on his forum that was hacked that revealed that his study was utter propaganda bull****, but same result.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
You are right, because the science is settled, its fact. Right wing assholes who suck the dick of oil and gas companies make it political.
Click to expand...

Good grief I've been hearing this refrain for the last 30 years. There is no 'science' involved here just government indoctrinated green guilt. I take it you are one of those guys who truly believes the IPCC is a scientific entity who's gospels must be believed and unquestioned :doh
 
flogger said:
Good grief I've been hearing this refrain for the last 30 years. There is no 'science' involved here just government indoctrinated green guilt. I take it you are one of those guys who truly believes the IPCC is a scientific entity who's gospels must be believed and unquestioned :doh
Click to expand...

He's another one indoctrinated into the cult of AGW.
 
flogger said:
Good grief I've been hearing this refrain for the last 30 years. There is no 'science' involved here just government indoctrinated green guilt. I take it you are one of those guys who truly believes the IPCC is a scientific entity who's gospels must be believed and unquestioned :doh
Click to expand...

Just what, exactly, makes you think hundreds of scientists convened on a project that is, for the most part, completely science driven and extensively referenced is somehow a biased political project?

I understand you think this, but, as we’ve all repeatedly seen, you’re judgement is questionable at best here.

So what literature can you point to that tells you this??
 
Outlook said:
The climate change debate has nothing to do with science, it’s all about politics.
Click to expand...

That's what Republicans are trying to get us to believe.
 
jmotivator said:
That "study" has long been debunked. What he did was do a wide net poll of scientists and then continually narrow down the group of accepted responses until he got to the percentage he desired.

The poll he was trying to match was the two question poll that asked "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" and "Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on the climate?" ... in that poll I would be in the 97% based on the meaning of those questions in a scientific speak.

The reason the head count method of "science" is so broken
Click to expand...

Good ole predictable right wingers. Every poll is a lie because it proves you wrong. Even in the 2016 election the polls that weren't dead on balls accurate had Hillary winning and she won the popular vote by 3 million. Polls may have a margin for error, but they are still closer to being accurate than what your gut is telling you. Join us in reality won't you?
 
MrWonka said:
Good ole predictable right wingers. Every poll is a lie because it proves you wrong. Even in the 2016 election the polls that weren't dead on balls accurate had Hillary winning and she won the popular vote by 3 million. Polls may have a margin for error, but they are still closer to being accurate than what your gut is telling you. Join us in reality won't you?
Click to expand...

Let's be honest: Science deniers are actually very funny to watch.

3otl4r.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom