The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All - Page 5

AlexM · #41 08-31-2007, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

[/ QUOTE ]
Priceless. These guys continue to make complete asses of themselves, and one has to wonder what the [censored] a doctor and an anthropologist are doing with literature surveys of subjects they can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still in disbelief that someone with a Ph.D. can conclude this debunks global warming:

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in disbelief that anyone has this much faith in PhDs.

LongRedHair · #42 08-31-2007, 04:53 PM

Well current earth temperature are about what they were in the medieval warm period around 1200AD and everyone knows that was follwed by the 400 year little ice age from around 1400AD to 1800AD so you never know you might get your wish. You could also prey for about 5 major volcanic eruptions over a 4 or 5 year period as there is pretty good scientific evidence that could trigger an ice age.

Kaj · #43 08-31-2007, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
True, skepticism is a key part of science. This is why it's so hard to believe that there's a consensus among "scientists."

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point again. Skepticism is a part of science, but does not mean that consensus is not possible. Every scientist I know believes that the earth is in orbit around the sun.

AlexM · #44 08-31-2007, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, skepticism is a key part of science. This is why it's so hard to believe that there's a consensus among "scientists."

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point again. Skepticism is a part of science, but does not mean that consensus is not possible. Every scientist I know believes that the earth is in orbit around the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said consensus wasn't possible. You're reading stuff into my post I didn't say.

Kaj · #45 08-31-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, skepticism is a key part of science. This is why it's so hard to believe that there's a consensus among "scientists."

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point again. Skepticism is a part of science, but does not mean that consensus is not possible. Every scientist I know believes that the earth is in orbit around the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said consensus wasn't possible. You're reading stuff into my post I didn't say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please elaborate/clarify your position on consensus being "so hard to believe". I'll post the entire sub-thread below so as not to seem like I'm censoring:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the study (according the article, it's not even published yet - ever heard of peer review, genius? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]), but you would expect most climate change papers to be neutral. That's because the point of scientific papers is not to wax lyrical about the topic; it's to discuss and present frameworks, data, examine specific effects, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, skepticism is a key part of science. This is why it's so hard to believe that there's a consensus among "scientists."

[/ QUOTE ]

AlexM · #46 08-31-2007, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Then please elaborate/clarify your position on consensus being "so hard to believe". I'll post the entire sub-thread below so as not to seem like I'm censoring:

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to clarify? Do you actually believe that "hard to believe" means the same thing as "impossible?"

Kaj · #47 08-31-2007, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then please elaborate/clarify your position on consensus being "so hard to believe". I'll post the entire sub-thread below so as not to seem like I'm censoring:

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to clarify? Do you actually believe that "hard to believe" means the same thing as "impossible?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. Please clarify why you find it hard to believe, however. Last time, you merely stated that skepticism was a part of science -- this is not a rationale as I can find thousands of examples where scientists have come to consensus. So again, please clarify your rationale for this statement: "skepticism is a key part of science. This is why it's so hard to believe..."

AlexM · #48 08-31-2007, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then please elaborate/clarify your position on consensus being "so hard to believe". I'll post the entire sub-thread below so as not to seem like I'm censoring:

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to clarify? Do you actually believe that "hard to believe" means the same thing as "impossible?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. Please clarify why you find it hard to believe, however. Last time, you merely stated that skepticism was a part of science -- this is not a rationale as I can find thousands of examples where scientists have come to consensus. So again, please clarify your rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of reasons to not believe (not disbelieve mind you) in MCGW. There is little to no reason to believe that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun. One has a mountain of tangible evidence backing it and the other's evidence is mostly theory.

Kaj · #49 08-31-2007, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then please elaborate/clarify your position on consensus being "so hard to believe". I'll post the entire sub-thread below so as not to seem like I'm censoring:

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to clarify? Do you actually believe that "hard to believe" means the same thing as "impossible?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. Please clarify why you find it hard to believe, however. Last time, you merely stated that skepticism was a part of science -- this is not a rationale as I can find thousands of examples where scientists have come to consensus. So again, please clarify your rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of reasons to not believe (not disbelieve mind you) in MCGW. There is little to no reason to believe that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun. One has a mountain of tangible evidence backing it and the other's evidence is mostly theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Then let's discuss the evidence rather than make blanket statements regarding consensus.

AlexM · #50 08-31-2007, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then please elaborate/clarify your position on consensus being "so hard to believe". I'll post the entire sub-thread below so as not to seem like I'm censoring:

[/ QUOTE ]

What's to clarify? Do you actually believe that "hard to believe" means the same thing as "impossible?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. Please clarify why you find it hard to believe, however. Last time, you merely stated that skepticism was a part of science -- this is not a rationale as I can find thousands of examples where scientists have come to consensus. So again, please clarify your rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of reasons to not believe (not disbelieve mind you) in MCGW. There is little to no reason to believe that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun. One has a mountain of tangible evidence backing it and the other's evidence is mostly theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Then let's discuss the evidence rather than make blanket statements regarding consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I'm not interesting in hijacking this thread.

I'm also not interested in having that discussion for the 3275192865th time on this board.