On Oct 31, 2:20 pm, Argent <last_think...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Global Warming
> What the science says...
> The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming in
> recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
> There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific consensus.
debate the science.
> Scientist roll call Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and
> parading of credentials.
Yes, this is Al Gores and the IPCC's approach.
> On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as
> presented in the National Post Denier series.
Who is "you." What is a National Post Denier series? This post is
gibberish.
> On the other side, you have the
> IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global
> warming.
The other side? The other side of what?
> If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific
> organisations also endorse the consensus:
Who cares? Science isn't about consensus. Only a retard would
confuse your argument for a valid scientic argument.
> * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
> * Environmental Protection Agency
> * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
> * American Geophysical Union
> * American Institute of Physics
> * National Center for Atmospheric Research
> * American Meteorological Society
> * The Royal Society of the UK
> * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
> * American Association for the Advancement of Science
> Academies of Science from 19 countries
> The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus.
> 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
> * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
> * Royal Society of Canada
> * Chinese Academy of Sciences
> * Academie des Sciences (France)
> * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
> * Indian National Science Academy
> * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
> * Science Council of Japan
> * Russian Academy of Sciences
> * Royal Society (United Kingdom)
> * National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
> Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as
> several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing
> the IPCC consensus:
> * Australian Academy of Sciences
> * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
> * Caribbean Academy of Sciences
> * Indonesian Academy of Sciences
> * Royal Irish Academy
> * Academy of Sciences Malaysia
> * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
> * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
> Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature
It's little more than a propaganda tactic.
> However, it's more
> relevant to examine peer reviewed journals
Then why are you not doing this, dumbass.
> - scientists can have their opinions
> but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives
> the peer review process.
Yep. BTW, there is zero peer reviewed and/or experimental evidence
that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. This is a
fact.
> A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change"
> published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the
> consensus position that global warming is man caused.
Irrrelevant. Science isn't about consensus you mental retard. You
stated this yourself above. Pay attention.
> 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment
> either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Irrelevant.
> More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...\
Who cares?
> Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus That is not to
> say there are no studies that reject the consensus position.
Hey retard. You can't reject consensus. Consensus isn't a
hypothesis. Get a clue.
> Klaus-Martin
> Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims
> 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position.
Irrelevant. Same reason.
> In these cases, it's instructive
> to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if
> so, what their arguments are.
Hey retard. You can't refute consensus. Consensus isn't a
hypothesis. Get a clue.
> You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic
> studies here...
Why would anybody bother? By your own admission consensus is
irrelevant.
> Judge the science,
You haven't presented any science you idiot.
> not the person Ultimately what matters is what a person says,
> not who says it (that's not to say there's people I respect and pay attention to
> but I don't automatically agree with everything they might say). In the global
> warming debate, there are smart people on both sides subscribing to polar
> opposite views - intelligence does not always equate to correctness. This is a
> debate where people often form a view then muster up the arguments (valid or
> not) to back up their preconception.
> So note the credentials but ultimately, make your judgements based on the
> scientific arguments.
My mind is greatly determined by the fact that the AGW scientists
refuse to debate or discuss the science. They only wish to hide
behind consensus, as you have here.
|
