[Pants-of-dog]

I'd hope so. Either way, we're talking about a doomsday cult. Just another thing to keep people in fear and under control. Ultimately man doesn't decide the fate of this planet; that's an arrogant position.

No.

If you are wrong about they said, and you are, then it is not a doomsday cult.

If you were to look at the actual evidence of what has actually been said, it may help your thinking.

[Sivad]

the planet is literally warming up.

do you even know what the evidence is for that claim? I doubt it. I doubt you even know what the claim is exactly.

[Potemkin]

I'd hope so. Either way, we're talking about a doomsday cult. Just another thing to keep people in fear and under control. Ultimately man doesn't decide the fate of this planet; that's an arrogant position.

Precisely the point I've been trying to make. Man proposes, but God disposes. We are ourselves a part of the world we are changing, and it changes us in return. We cannot keep the Earth's biosphere in some equilibrium state forever, because the Earth's climate and biosphere is usually not at equilibrium anyway, with or without human intervention. The glaciers will come again, sooner or later, and grind our homes and our civilisation into dust. And if we cause a mass extinction, then we ourselves will likely be one of the first victims of the disruption of the environment, which will remove the cause of the mass extinction. The Earth has nothing to fear from us; quite the reverse in fact.

[Finfinder]

At first I though this thread was about the Iowa caucus. Apparently none of the forum libs have the courage to defend it. Biggest news of the month and you wouldn't know it reading this forum.

[Godstud]

@Finfinder Did you just skip a whole bunch of pages, or are you just trolling? Do you have anything to say?

[Donna]

do you even know what the evidence is for that claim? I doubt it. I doubt you even know what the claim is exactly.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Rancid]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You are going to use the guys that faked the moon landing and claim the earth is round as source?

Get out of here with that fake science shit.

[Sivad]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

that 97% consensus claim has been debunked so thoroughly so many times by now that anyone trotting it out is either an idiot or a shill.

[Rancid]

that 97% consensus claim has been debunked so thoroughly so many times by now that anyone trotting it out is either an idiot or a shill.

Indeed. I would argue, that even if climate change were really happening; fuck nature.

[Donna]

:knife: that 97% consensus claim has been debunked so thoroughly so many times by now that anyone trotting it out is either an idiot or a shill.

[Sivad]

You are going to use the guys that faked the moon landing and claim the earth is round as source?

Get out of here with that fake science shit.

they're definitely making fake claims about a consensus, that's an easy one to debunk and I've done it multiple times on this board but you all keep trying to pretend like it's still valid.

whatever, you can keep being all obtuse and dismissive and pretending like you're the adults in the room and real people with good sense will just keep laughing at your breying jackassery.

[Pants-of-dog]

:knife: that 97% consensus claim has been debunked so thoroughly so many times by now that anyone trotting it out is either an idiot or a shill.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 09eo030002

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman[2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global tem-peratures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geo-physics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of
their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) that suggests that only 58% of the general pub-lic would answer yes to our question 2. The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

.....and......

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 8/2/024024

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

....and......

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

The science disagrees with you.

[Sivad]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002

[list]
This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman[2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global tem-peratures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?



[b]In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

76 climate scientists, that's your big consensus, eh? and those two questions are totally non-controversial, 97% of skeptics would also answer in the affirmative to both.

So I'll tell you what, if from now on, instead of claiming a 97% consensus, you say 76 climate scientists agree that the earth has warmed and human activity has contributed to the warming then I promise you will never hear another peep out of me about it.

those other two studies you cited are a fucking joke that nobody but idiots and shills take seriously. go look at the bullshit methodology they employed, they're just blatant junk science.

[Donna]

You are going to use the guys that faked the moon landing and claim the earth is round as source?

Get out of here with that fake science shit.

lol is Sivad really a moon landing truther

[Sivad]

lol is Sivad really a moon landing truther

No I'm pretty sure they went to the moon. What I am is just someone who doesn't have their head all the way up their own ass. I'm just not a retarded fucking dink about everything.

[Godstud]

What I am is just someone who doesn't have their head all the way up their own ass.

Sure you are.

I'm just not a retarded fucking dink about everything.

Don't put yourself down. Of course you are!

So, is insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you, an argument?

[Sivad]

Godstud, you're one of my all-time favorites.

[Donna]

No I'm pretty sure they went to the moon. What I am is just someone who doesn't have their head all the way up their own ass. I'm just not a retarded fucking dink about everything.

Ah, one of the skeptic bros.

[Sivad]

Donna

[Pants-of-dog]

76 climate scientists, that's your big consensus, eh? and those two questions are totally non-controversial, 97% of skeptics would also answer in the affirmative to both.

So I'll tell you what, if from now on, instead of claiming a 97% consensus, you say 76 climate scientists agree that the earth has warmed and human activity has contributed to the warming then I promise you will never hear another peep out of me about it.

Sure. When we talk about climate scientists who disagree with ACC, you can mention the one or two people.

The size of the surveyed group does not change the fact that 97% of the scientists who study climate agree.

those other two studies you cited are a fucking joke that nobody but idiots and shills take seriously. go look at the bullshit methodology they employed, they're just blatant junk science.

If all you have is an ad hominem, then you have no real criticisms.