FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Why do some people not believe the evidence?

Why do some people not believe the evidence?

(5:14) Some people don't believe vaccines work, or that today's climate change is largely man-made, even though they are supported by a mountain of scientific evidence. youtube.com/user/DNewsChannel

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (54 days ago)

We do believe in evidence. As soon as there is evidence that humans are causing global warming, we will believe it. Survey results are not evidence.

Some evidence of taking global temperatures do show the climate is getting slightly warmer. But that is a huge leap to say that humans are the cause of it especially when we are just now coming out of an ice age and the past historical record shows that we should be at 25 degrees normally but we are only at 16 degrees now.

We do believe in the science but a survey is not using science. Use the scientific method to prove your hypothesis and we will believe. Don't just submit survey results or review cherry picked papers to come up with your conclusions. That is not using the scientific method. Try getting a hypothesis, create experiments to test your hypothesis, and then repeat those experiments to prove it.

Original comment

We do believe in evidence. As soon as there is evidence that humans are causing global warming, we will believe it. Survey results are not evidence.

Some evidence of taking global temperatures do show the climate is getting slightly warmer. But that is a huge leap to say that humans are the cause of it especially when we are just now coming out of an ice age and the past historical record shows that we should be at 25 degrees normally but we are only at 16 degrees now.

We do believe in the science but a survey is not using science. Use the scientific method to prove your hypothesis and we will believe. Don't just submit survey results or review cherry picked papers to come up with your conclusions. That is not using the scientific method. Try getting a hypothesis, create experiments to test your hypothesis, and then repeat those experiments to prove it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (50 days ago)

Just the stock response. Everyone thinks they believe the evidence - but of course everyone cherry picks the evidence that they respect. Dyed in the wool Christians think they follow evidence to believe in Christ's resurrection, Atheists believe they follow evidence to believe that no gods exist anywhere, climate change deniers believe they follow evidence to know climate change isn't man-made, flat earth theorists think they follow evidence, etc etc etc. Even if you can agree what constitutes evidence, you can always find holes in any evidence that is inconvenient to your beliefs.

Original comment

Just the stock response. Everyone thinks they believe the evidence - but of course everyone cherry picks the evidence that they respect. Dyed in the wool Christians think they follow evidence to believe in Christ's resurrection, Atheists believe they follow evidence to believe that no gods exist anywhere, climate change deniers believe they follow evidence to know climate change isn't man-made, flat earth theorists think they follow evidence, etc etc etc. Even if you can agree what constitutes evidence, you can always find holes in any evidence that is inconvenient to your beliefs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the one and only MAD (50 days ago)

What is it about some people that can't seem to grasp that climate change is always happening, and has done so since the earth was formed. If anything it's the weird belief amongst alarmists that any change is automatically due to human activity despite the massive verified historical evidence of natural climate change that Geology has compiled. Btw the earths surface is cooling rapidly at this moment as we transition into la nina conditions. perfectly natural of course..

Original comment

What is it about some people that can't seem to grasp that climate change is always happening, and has done so since the earth was formed. If anything it's the weird belief amongst alarmists that any change is automatically due to human activity despite the massive verified historical evidence of natural climate change that Geology has compiled. Btw the earths surface is cooling rapidly at this moment as we transition into la nina conditions. perfectly natural of course..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (49 days ago)

Why is it some people can't seem to grasp that climate doesn't change willy-nilly - something always drives change. This time it is an increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane.

Original comment

Why is it some people can't seem to grasp that climate doesn't change willy-nilly - something always drives change. This time it is an increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (49 days ago)

We are coming out of an ice age that began 3 million years ago. That's why our climate is changing. Even the causes of ice ages and glacial/interglacial cycles is speculative.

I asked you a simple true/false question before and you refused to answer. Are you prepared to answer it today?

Question: True or False, If humans did not exist, the earth would come out of its current ice age and return back to the 25C temperatures it was before the ice age.

Original comment

We are coming out of an ice age that began 3 million years ago. That's why our climate is changing. Even the causes of ice ages and glacial/interglacial cycles is speculative.

I asked you a simple true/false question before and you refused to answer. Are you prepared to answer it today?

Question: True or False, If humans did not exist, the earth would come out of its current ice age and return back to the 25C temperatures it was before the ice age.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (49 days ago)

I have answered your question many times, and all you do is make the same point again a few months later. That's either a strategy or terrible memory, only you know which.

I will answer it again, but this time, please, I beg of you, if you disagree, say why. Don't just slope off and then revive the same point in a few months time.

Question : True or False, If humans did not exist, the earth would come out of its current ice age and return back to the 25C temperatures it was before the ice age:

Answer : False, but it's more complicated than a simple binary answer. Ice ages are caused by a combination of 3 things - the changing Earth's orbit, the changing tilt of the Earth's axis, and the Earth's wobble. All of these act over cycles measured in many thousands of years. That's why ice ages last thousands, even millions of years. This video explains it much better than I ever could. LINK

We are "naturally" in a cooling phase at the moment heading towards the next "mini" ice age (glacial period) within the "main" ice age you are referring about 2.5 million years ago. The "mini" ice age that we have been warming from ended about 11,000 years ago, and since then, the climate has been relatively stable and human civilisation has thrived.

Your theory is wrong because it links a global change in temperature over a low number of decades, to cycles that resolve over many thousands of years. So it can't possibly be correct. Even if we are still warming from the glacial period that ended 11,000 years ago, the warming would be tiny over the decades we are talking about.

Look at it this way, if you are right, then removing 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today (that's the CO2 humans have added) would make no difference - the climate would just continue to warm until it reaches your magic number of 25C.

Original comment

I have answered your question many times, and all you do is make the same point again a few months later. That's either a strategy or terrible memory, only you know which.

I will answer it again, but this time, please, I beg of you, if you disagree, say why. Don't just slope off and then revive the same point in a few months time.

Question : True or False, If humans did not exist, the earth would come out of its current ice age and return back to the 25C temperatures it was before the ice age:

Answer : False, but it's more complicated than a simple binary answer. Ice ages are caused by a combination of 3 things - the changing Earth's orbit, the changing tilt of the Earth's axis, and the Earth's wobble. All of these act over cycles measured in many thousands of years. That's why ice ages last thousands, even millions of years. This video explains it much better than I ever could. LINK

We are "naturally" in a cooling phase at the moment heading towards the next "mini" ice age (glacial period) within the "main" ice age you are referring about 2.5 million years ago. The "mini" ice age that we have been warming from ended about 11,000 years ago, and since then, the climate has been relatively stable and human civilisation has thrived.

Your theory is wrong because it links a global change in temperature over a low number of decades, to cycles that resolve over many thousands of years. So it can't possibly be correct. Even if we are still warming from the glacial period that ended 11,000 years ago, the warming would be tiny over the decades we are talking about.

Look at it this way, if you are right, then removing 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today (that's the CO2 humans have added) would make no difference - the climate would just continue to warm until it reaches your magic number of 25C.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guẹst123456789 (49 days ago)

No.

Original comment

No.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (49 days ago)

Okay, so the truth finally comes out. You don't believe in science. You actually think the earth would continue unchanged for the rest of its future if humans did not exist. I find that to be a shocking revelation because I actually thought you were smarter than that.

From PBS, "Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere."

We were not around during any of the cyclical formations of any ice age or when we came out of one. We are still in the middle of one and we don't know what caused it. If you look at the history of the planet, you can see that the planet's normal temperature is 25C and we are currently at 16C. It's as plain as day to see this. You are ignoring science completely if you don't think it's normal for the planet to be at 25C.

At least I learned one thing today, I don't have to argue about this with you anymore. I know you have a closed mind and will believe anything you want to believe.

Original comment

Okay, so the truth finally comes out. You don't believe in science. You actually think the earth would continue unchanged for the rest of its future if humans did not exist. I find that to be a shocking revelation because I actually thought you were smarter than that.

From PBS, "Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere."

We were not around during any of the cyclical formations of any ice age or when we came out of one. We are still in the middle of one and we don't know what caused it. If you look at the history of the planet, you can see that the planet's normal temperature is 25C and we are currently at 16C. It's as plain as day to see this. You are ignoring science completely if you don't think it's normal for the planet to be at 25C.

At least I learned one thing today, I don't have to argue about this with you anymore. I know you have a closed mind and will believe anything you want to believe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (49 days ago)

I'm not sure what you're on, but you make no sense. You should watch the video about ice ages, it's actually quite interesting. LINK

I answered your question, so answer me this. If we removed 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, do you think the climate would change?

If you think yes, then you believe human activity is changing the climate. If you think no, then explain how removing 40% of a significant greenhouse gas has no effect on the climate.

Original comment

I'm not sure what you're on, but you make no sense. You should watch the video about ice ages, it's actually quite interesting. LINK

I answered your question, so answer me this. If we removed 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, do you think the climate would change?

If you think yes, then you believe human activity is changing the climate. If you think no, then explain how removing 40% of a significant greenhouse gas has no effect on the climate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (48 days ago)

I have no idea what would happen to the climate, if anything, if we removed 40% of the CO2. Plants wouldn't appreciate it. At least I say that I don't know instead of making up something. Once there is evidence that human made CO2 is the cause of us coming out of the ice age and not that the cycle was over anyway, then I will believe it. But until that evidence is given, I will still consider it as a hypothesis only.

Original comment

I have no idea what would happen to the climate, if anything, if we removed 40% of the CO2. Plants wouldn't appreciate it. At least I say that I don't know instead of making up something. Once there is evidence that human made CO2 is the cause of us coming out of the ice age and not that the cycle was over anyway, then I will believe it. But until that evidence is given, I will still consider it as a hypothesis only.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (48 days ago)

Did you watch that video, or was it too difficult for you?

You have no idea what would happen to the climate because you don't have much idea of anything. And somehow, you are sure that the warming we are experiencing is due to ice age cycles. Watch that video, grasp it, and then you'll understand why you can't be right. It's better to be embarrassed than wrong.

Original comment

Did you watch that video, or was it too difficult for you?

You have no idea what would happen to the climate because you don't have much idea of anything. And somehow, you are sure that the warming we are experiencing is due to ice age cycles. Watch that video, grasp it, and then you'll understand why you can't be right. It's better to be embarrassed than wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (47 days ago)

"somehow, you are sure that the warming we are experiencing is due to ice age cycles." No, I'm saying that it could be and it actually has a high chance of it. I really don't know the cause and there hasn't been any evidence either way so I'm not going to believe a cherry picked survey as science to prove AGW. There are other hypothesis but none of them have ever made it to the theory level.

Original comment

"somehow, you are sure that the warming we are experiencing is due to ice age cycles." No, I'm saying that it could be and it actually has a high chance of it. I really don't know the cause and there hasn't been any evidence either way so I'm not going to believe a cherry picked survey as science to prove AGW. There are other hypothesis but none of them have ever made it to the theory level.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (46 days ago)

If you watch that video, you'll see how you cannot be right. In a nutshell, ice age cycles are far too slow and smooth to account for the warming today. Not only that, in terms of ice age cycles, we are in a cooling phase - which is fortunate otherwise we'd be warming even faster.

Since you admit you don't know the cause, why not accept the opinion of almost every expert on the planet? If something comes up to prove them wrong, then we can all jump ship. Odds are they are right.

Original comment

If you watch that video, you'll see how you cannot be right. In a nutshell, ice age cycles are far too slow and smooth to account for the warming today. Not only that, in terms of ice age cycles, we are in a cooling phase - which is fortunate otherwise we'd be warming even faster.

Since you admit you don't know the cause, why not accept the opinion of almost every expert on the planet? If something comes up to prove them wrong, then we can all jump ship. Odds are they are right.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (46 days ago)

Because it's just that -- an opinion. I want scientific proof before I believe in something. Same reason I don't believe in God, the tooth fairy, alien piloted UFOs, and big foot.

Do you believe in God? Since you don't have proof that he doesn't exist, why don't you accept the opinion of the majority of the theologists with Phds?

Original comment

Because it's just that -- an opinion. I want scientific proof before I believe in something. Same reason I don't believe in God, the tooth fairy, alien piloted UFOs, and big foot.

Do you believe in God? Since you don't have proof that he doesn't exist, why don't you accept the opinion of the majority of the theologists with Phds?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

What's your "scientific proof" to believe there is no kind of god anywhere in the universe?

Original comment

What's your "scientific proof" to believe there is no kind of god anywhere in the universe?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (46 days ago)

Huh? What? Not sure you understood my last message.

I don't have any proof there is a god and no proof that there isn't any. So my default is that there is no god until someone shows me the proof.

Original comment

Huh? What? Not sure you understood my last message.

I don't have any proof there is a god and no proof that there isn't any. So my default is that there is no god until someone shows me the proof.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

Isn't the default option "I don't know" rather than opting for one speculation over another?

Original comment

Isn't the default option "I don't know" rather than opting for one speculation over another?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (46 days ago)

It is true that I don't know that there is no god but it's an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary proof. Since it is such a far fetched proposal, I choose to think there is no god until shown otherwise.

Just as ridiculous is the tooth fairy. I cannot prove that it doesn't exist but it's such a crazy idea that I'm not even going to bother myself thinking about it until it gets into the mainstream discussions and people start believing. Then I will require proof before I will entertain the idea.

Original comment

It is true that I don't know that there is no god but it's an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary proof. Since it is such a far fetched proposal, I choose to think there is no god until shown otherwise.

Just as ridiculous is the tooth fairy. I cannot prove that it doesn't exist but it's such a crazy idea that I'm not even going to bother myself thinking about it until it gets into the mainstream discussions and people start believing. Then I will require proof before I will entertain the idea.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

I think the claim that no god exists anywhere in the universe in any form is equally extraordinary and equally unscientific and I'm not religious at all.

Original comment

I think the claim that no god exists anywhere in the universe in any form is equally extraordinary and equally unscientific and I'm not religious at all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (46 days ago)

Then why do you believe global warming is linked to ice age cycles when there is no scientific proof?

Original comment

Then why do you believe global warming is linked to ice age cycles when there is no scientific proof?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (46 days ago)

"Believe" is a word I wouldn't use. It's more like I don't agree with AGW unless they can prove the hypothesis. Since there are other hypothesis that haven't been disproven such as ice age cycles, then I cannot get onboard as a believer in AGW. Doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it's due to the end of the ice age either. It's just that there are alternative explanations and they must all be removed as possible causes of the warming with one left and the single one left must go through the scientific method to prove it and get promoted to the theory level.

Original comment

"Believe" is a word I wouldn't use. It's more like I don't agree with AGW unless they can prove the hypothesis. Since there are other hypothesis that haven't been disproven such as ice age cycles, then I cannot get onboard as a believer in AGW. Doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it's due to the end of the ice age either. It's just that there are alternative explanations and they must all be removed as possible causes of the warming with one left and the single one left must go through the scientific method to prove it and get promoted to the theory level.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (45 days ago)

Thanks to Newton and Einstein, he Earth's orbit and tilt are totally predictable. They change too slowly to account for a 1C rise over 150 years, most of which has been in the last 50 years. So global warming today is not a part of ice age cycles. If you disagree, tell me where I'm wrong, so we can nail this mofo once and for all. Oh, I nearly forgot, in terms of ice age cycles we are cooling, the opposite to what you are claiming.

A scientific theory isn't made up of any one piece of evidence that proves the theory, it is a collection of evidence, which once large enough, becomes accepted as a scientific theory. And crucially, that there is not any evidence that disproves the theory. So in the case of evolution, there is no single piece of evidence that proves evolution, but there is a lot of evidence that is consistent - the fossil record, Galapagos, DNA structure in all living things etc. - and crucially, there is NO evidence that falsifies evolution. If a human fossil was found to have existed before fish, then that would mean evolution is either wrong or incomplete.

So with climate change, there is plenty of evidence that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere, and that man has increased the levels by 40% over 150 years, and crucially, there is NO evidence that counters that. There's a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can come up with 1 piece of credible evidence that disproves AGW.

Original comment

Thanks to Newton and Einstein, he Earth's orbit and tilt are totally predictable. They change too slowly to account for a 1C rise over 150 years, most of which has been in the last 50 years. So global warming today is not a part of ice age cycles. If you disagree, tell me where I'm wrong, so we can nail this mofo once and for all. Oh, I nearly forgot, in terms of ice age cycles we are cooling, the opposite to what you are claiming.

A scientific theory isn't made up of any one piece of evidence that proves the theory, it is a collection of evidence, which once large enough, becomes accepted as a scientific theory. And crucially, that there is not any evidence that disproves the theory. So in the case of evolution, there is no single piece of evidence that proves evolution, but there is a lot of evidence that is consistent - the fossil record, Galapagos, DNA structure in all living things etc. - and crucially, there is NO evidence that falsifies evolution. If a human fossil was found to have existed before fish, then that would mean evolution is either wrong or incomplete.

So with climate change, there is plenty of evidence that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere, and that man has increased the levels by 40% over 150 years, and crucially, there is NO evidence that counters that. There's a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can come up with 1 piece of credible evidence that disproves AGW.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

sorry "he Earth's orbit and tilt are totally predictable."" ??? who is he? you have used the wrong word. i am only trying to help.

Original comment

sorry "he Earth's orbit and tilt are totally predictable."" ??? who is he? you have used the wrong word. i am only trying to help.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (44 days ago)

Thanks, that was very helpful. I've reprimanded my index finger for taking a nap at a crucial moment. It won't happen again.

Original comment

Thanks, that was very helpful. I've reprimanded my index finger for taking a nap at a crucial moment. It won't happen again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (43 days ago)

dont worry it wasnt a spelling mistake... "he" is a perfectly good word. you just used it in the wrong place and it makes you look stupid. i am just trying to help remember.

Original comment

dont worry it wasnt a spelling mistake... "he" is a perfectly good word. you just used it in the wrong place and it makes you look stupid. i am just trying to help remember.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (43 days ago)

I don't know why you bother.

Original comment

I don't know why you bother.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

Jesus, watching you spout your Wikiscience is genuinely cringeworthy.

Original comment

Jesus, watching you spout your Wikiscience is genuinely cringeworthy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

Welcome to Bore Me.

Original comment

Welcome to Bore Me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (45 days ago)

Couple things. First, I didn't mention anything about earth's orbit and tilt. I did mention the ice age that we are currently in.

Second, you guys should all get together and come up with a common story. Last I heard is that the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record (or something like that). Now I'm being told that we are in a cooling period. So which is it?

I know what makes a scientific theory so I don't need to be educated on that. However, I didn't think you knew because you and other proponents of AGW somehow think that AGW is already a theory.

You are like a broken record and keep mentioning CO2 levels. If you look at our historical record, you will see that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperatures of the planet. In small scale scientific experiments, you might be able to hold heat using CO2 but it doesn't appear to work that way on a large scale planet all the time. Maybe once you get to the Venus stage it will but not yet. Wish you would look at the past history of the planet because that would resolve a lot of our disagreements. I think you would understand where I'm coming from if you could just look at it.

I'm not looking for a Nobel prize. But there's one for you if you can prove there is no god. As for me, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm the one asking for the proof of what others are claiming.

Original comment

Couple things. First, I didn't mention anything about earth's orbit and tilt. I did mention the ice age that we are currently in.

Second, you guys should all get together and come up with a common story. Last I heard is that the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record (or something like that). Now I'm being told that we are in a cooling period. So which is it?

I know what makes a scientific theory so I don't need to be educated on that. However, I didn't think you knew because you and other proponents of AGW somehow think that AGW is already a theory.

You are like a broken record and keep mentioning CO2 levels. If you look at our historical record, you will see that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperatures of the planet. In small scale scientific experiments, you might be able to hold heat using CO2 but it doesn't appear to work that way on a large scale planet all the time. Maybe once you get to the Venus stage it will but not yet. Wish you would look at the past history of the planet because that would resolve a lot of our disagreements. I think you would understand where I'm coming from if you could just look at it.

I'm not looking for a Nobel prize. But there's one for you if you can prove there is no god. As for me, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm the one asking for the proof of what others are claiming.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

Do you have any references for your claims?

Original comment

Do you have any references for your claims?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (45 days ago)

Which claim?

Original comment

Which claim?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

"If you look at our historical record, you will see that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperatures of the planet. In small scale scientific experiments, you might be able to hold heat using CO2 but it doesn't appear to work that way on a large scale planet all the time."

Original comment

"If you look at our historical record, you will see that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperatures of the planet. In small scale scientific experiments, you might be able to hold heat using CO2 but it doesn't appear to work that way on a large scale planet all the time."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (44 days ago)

Take a look at the historical record that contains both CO2 and temperature and you tell me if you see any correlation: LINK

Original comment

Take a look at the historical record that contains both CO2 and temperature and you tell me if you see any correlation: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (44 days ago)

I traced your historical record back to where it originally was published. Make use of your mental faculties and tell me if you would blindly trust anything originating from this website.

LINK

Original comment

I traced your historical record back to where it originally was published. Make use of your mental faculties and tell me if you would blindly trust anything originating from this website.

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (44 days ago)

Blindly trust. No. I don't blindly trust anything from anyone.

Original comment

Blindly trust. No. I don't blindly trust anything from anyone.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (43 days ago)

You take a figure completely out of context, presented by a bogus scientist on his homemade webpage from the early 90s and you accept that as the truth. Additionally you choose to completely disregard the scientific community's take on the topic, although claiming to be a proponent for the scientific method.

I don't know.. Blind trust might not be the right word after all. You'd might have to look to the DSM for a proper diagnosis.

Original comment

You take a figure completely out of context, presented by a bogus scientist on his homemade webpage from the early 90s and you accept that as the truth. Additionally you choose to completely disregard the scientific community's take on the topic, although claiming to be a proponent for the scientific method.

I don't know.. Blind trust might not be the right word after all. You'd might have to look to the DSM for a proper diagnosis.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (44 days ago)

You don't see the correlation because solar radiation is missing from the graph. The composition of the atmosphere is not the only thing that affects the climate.

Original comment

You don't see the correlation because solar radiation is missing from the graph. The composition of the atmosphere is not the only thing that affects the climate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (44 days ago)

Yes, solar radiation is missing from the graph. Are you now saying that CO2 isn't the only thing causing climate change and other things like solar radiation is part of it too? I thought you previously stated that there hasn't been any change in solar activity. What are you trying to say now?

Do you at least agree that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 when you look at the historical record of the planet?

Original comment

Yes, solar radiation is missing from the graph. Are you now saying that CO2 isn't the only thing causing climate change and other things like solar radiation is part of it too? I thought you previously stated that there hasn't been any change in solar activity. What are you trying to say now?

Do you at least agree that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 when you look at the historical record of the planet?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

Do you have any references for your claims?

Original comment

Do you have any references for your claims?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (48 days ago)

Then why walter are you so often wrong and so rarely embarassed?

Original comment

Then why walter are you so often wrong and so rarely embarassed?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (48 days ago)

How do you know I'm rarely embarrassed?

Original comment

How do you know I'm rarely embarrassed?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (48 days ago)

because you can never admit when your wrong.

Original comment

because you can never admit when your wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (47 days ago)

“your” is wrong. It should be “you’re" .

And since we’re talking about who is wrong - I’m saying guest123456789 is wrong when he claims global warming is a part of ice age cycles, and that climate scientists are right when they say global warming is caused by humans changing the composition of the atmosphere. This is not about me, I’m simply agreeing with much-smarter-than-me climate scientists and explaining to guest123456789 why he is wrong.

Original comment

“your” is wrong. It should be “you’re" .

And since we’re talking about who is wrong - I’m saying guest123456789 is wrong when he claims global warming is a part of ice age cycles, and that climate scientists are right when they say global warming is caused by humans changing the composition of the atmosphere. This is not about me, I’m simply agreeing with much-smarter-than-me climate scientists and explaining to guest123456789 why he is wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (47 days ago)

you have confuzed me wiv some one that gives a **** and no you dumb ass we are not talking about who is wrong. read again. we are talking about people who cant ADMIT WHEN there wrong. like you. i thoght it was funny seeing you acuse him of what you always do. deal with it

Original comment

you have confuzed me wiv some one that gives a **** and no you dumb ass we are not talking about who is wrong. read again. we are talking about people who cant ADMIT WHEN there wrong. like you. i thoght it was funny seeing you acuse him of what you always do. deal with it

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (47 days ago)

Calm down, it just makes you sound stupid. Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll be happy to admit it and be embarrassed if I agree.

Btw, "there" is wrong, it should be "they're".

Original comment

Calm down, it just makes you sound stupid. Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll be happy to admit it and be embarrassed if I agree.

Btw, "there" is wrong, it should be "they're".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

By the way, your first and final sentence both exhibit a comma splice error. The clauses are independent as they all have their own subjects and verbs. This sort of mistake makes you seem stupid, as it's taught in primary schools.

Just trying to help, Walter.

Original comment

By the way, your first and final sentence both exhibit a comma splice error. The clauses are independent as they all have their own subjects and verbs. This sort of mistake makes you seem stupid, as it's taught in primary schools.

Just trying to help, Walter.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

HAHA!

Original comment

HAHA!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (46 days ago)

Thanks for that. Now I'm embarrassed. I knew I should never have skipped primary school. God willing, I'll get over it soon enough.

Original comment

Thanks for that. Now I'm embarrassed. I knew I should never have skipped primary school. God willing, I'll get over it soon enough.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

My point was simply that if you're going to obsess over grammatical errors to imply superiority rather than engaging with the subject matter, perhaps you ought to avoid the type of error that is tackled before the age of 12.

I'd agree with guest - you never really show embarassment on here, nor any signs you have learned anything. Just a strange hypocrisy and an undeserved, uninspected smugness. This thread has really done you no favours.

Original comment

My point was simply that if you're going to obsess over grammatical errors to imply superiority rather than engaging with the subject matter, perhaps you ought to avoid the type of error that is tackled before the age of 12.

I'd agree with guest - you never really show embarassment on here, nor any signs you have learned anything. Just a strange hypocrisy and an undeserved, uninspected smugness. This thread has really done you no favours.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (44 days ago)

Let's look at this thread then. I was having a conversation with guest123456789 on climate change - he has a theory about global warming and ice ages, I'm trying to explain why he can't be right. Then guest jumps in and heads straight off point "Then why walter are you so often wrong and so rarely embarassed?". I'm happy to play along, and I try to get him back on point a couple of times, but I know from experience that there's no chance. Then you come along and continue off point. Thanks a bunch.

Original comment

Let's look at this thread then. I was having a conversation with guest123456789 on climate change - he has a theory about global warming and ice ages, I'm trying to explain why he can't be right. Then guest jumps in and heads straight off point "Then why walter are you so often wrong and so rarely embarassed?". I'm happy to play along, and I try to get him back on point a couple of times, but I know from experience that there's no chance. Then you come along and continue off point. Thanks a bunch.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (47 days ago)

im perfectly calm thanks. i can call you a fking nob without getting excited. oh noooo you think it makes me sound stupid.. you have no idea how much that bothers me. your opinion is so important to us all, P. well i think not being able to admit when your wrong makes you sound stupid. being a hipocrite makes you sound stupid. not following arguments but picking up on spelling mistakes makes you sound stupid. getting all passive aggresive and sarky when some one doesnt agree with you makes you sound stupid. you are often wrong and i have watched more educated people than you and me set you straight and you still dont get it. your a stuck record. i just had to say it because its so stupid watching you accuse some one else of exactly that.

soz butt i dont think am the onely perzon to of notissed it.

Original comment

im perfectly calm thanks. i can call you a fking nob without getting excited. oh noooo you think it makes me sound stupid.. you have no idea how much that bothers me. your opinion is so important to us all, P. well i think not being able to admit when your wrong makes you sound stupid. being a hipocrite makes you sound stupid. not following arguments but picking up on spelling mistakes makes you sound stupid. getting all passive aggresive and sarky when some one doesnt agree with you makes you sound stupid. you are often wrong and i have watched more educated people than you and me set you straight and you still dont get it. your a stuck record. i just had to say it because its so stupid watching you accuse some one else of exactly that.

soz butt i dont think am the onely perzon to of notissed it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (46 days ago)

I didn't pick you up on your spelling. You spelt "your" and "there" perfectly. It's just that they were the wrong words. Better to use the right words, otherwise you just sound stupid. I'm only trying to help.

Original comment

I didn't pick you up on your spelling. You spelt "your" and "there" perfectly. It's just that they were the wrong words. Better to use the right words, otherwise you just sound stupid. I'm only trying to help.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

your not listening. what you think sounds stupid isnt relavant to me. a spelling mistake doesnt sound stupid to most people because most people are not so judgemental and desparate to score points. try it. what probably does sound stupid is people who try and sound smart by ignoring arguments but picking up on spelling. your to much of a sheeple to realy learn about what your talking about. even when smart people set you straight you will never get it. you just want to link to vids and wiki pages that you hope explain it all for you. so smart. LOL. seems you have a reputation on here and it is well deserved!!!

Original comment

your not listening. what you think sounds stupid isnt relavant to me. a spelling mistake doesnt sound stupid to most people because most people are not so judgemental and desparate to score points. try it. what probably does sound stupid is people who try and sound smart by ignoring arguments but picking up on spelling. your to much of a sheeple to realy learn about what your talking about. even when smart people set you straight you will never get it. you just want to link to vids and wiki pages that you hope explain it all for you. so smart. LOL. seems you have a reputation on here and it is well deserved!!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (46 days ago)

I didn't pick you up on your spelling. "your not listening" doesn't make sense. It should be "you're (you are) not listening". If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

Original comment

I didn't pick you up on your spelling. "your not listening" doesn't make sense. It should be "you're (you are) not listening". If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

im old enough to know that using one homo-phone instead of another hardly ever affects how the meaning of a sentence is understood. how about you? you old enough to know that yet? are you finding it hard to decifer my comments? it must be real tricky for you. and why didnt you reply to guest pointing out your written mistakes.. if written mistakes are what matter to you. dont tell me.... you find it hard to admit when you wrong and you never get embarassed??? funny that. when you cant meet your own standards you gotta worry.

Original comment

im old enough to know that using one homo-phone instead of another hardly ever affects how the meaning of a sentence is understood. how about you? you old enough to know that yet? are you finding it hard to decifer my comments? it must be real tricky for you. and why didnt you reply to guest pointing out your written mistakes.. if written mistakes are what matter to you. dont tell me.... you find it hard to admit when you wrong and you never get embarassed??? funny that. when you cant meet your own standards you gotta worry.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (46 days ago)

That blows my theory then. I thought you were maybe pre-teens. I don't think you're stupid, but you sure do sound like it. Is English your second language?

Original comment

That blows my theory then. I thought you were maybe pre-teens. I don't think you're stupid, but you sure do sound like it. Is English your second language?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

What a poor and petty response. Guest is absolutely spot on about gauging the meaning of a sentence that includes homophones. Can you accept that? No. Quickly move on, and work in another silly insult, until he takes that one apart too. I don't think it's him that needs to grow up.

Original comment

What a poor and petty response. Guest is absolutely spot on about gauging the meaning of a sentence that includes homophones. Can you accept that? No. Quickly move on, and work in another silly insult, until he takes that one apart too. I don't think it's him that needs to grow up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the one and only MAD (45 days ago)

And yet another guest who disagrees with Walter filed under "stupid". It's getting to be a big file.....

Original comment

And yet another guest who disagrees with Walter filed under "stupid". It's getting to be a big file.....

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (45 days ago)

These climate threads seem to attract stupid like moths to a flame.

Original comment

These climate threads seem to attract stupid like moths to a flame.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the one and only MAD (44 days ago)

I must admit that It is stupid to try and reason with resident troll Walter, no matter how informed or qualified in science you are, you will never get Walter to concede that you are correct, although eventually you will get him to the point where he runs away and sulks.

Original comment

I must admit that It is stupid to try and reason with resident troll Walter, no matter how informed or qualified in science you are, you will never get Walter to concede that you are correct, although eventually you will get him to the point where he runs away and sulks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (44 days ago)

I am not referring to Walter.

Original comment

I am not referring to Walter.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (44 days ago)

When I said stupid moths, I was most definitely referring to Walter

Original comment

When I said stupid moths, I was most definitely referring to Walter

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

a spelling mistake doesn't sound stupid to most people, it looks stupid

Original comment

a spelling mistake doesn't sound stupid to most people, it looks stupid

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (46 days ago)

thats walters mistake not mine. a spelling mistake on a internet chat board doesnt sound or look stupid to any one that isnt judgemental. most people with any inteligence with nothin to prove look at the content of the message instead.

Original comment

thats walters mistake not mine. a spelling mistake on a internet chat board doesnt sound or look stupid to any one that isnt judgemental. most people with any inteligence with nothin to prove look at the content of the message instead.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the one and only MAD (47 days ago)

You're not wrong,Walter was born to follow the crowd and chant slogans.As far as he is concerned surveys can prove physical hypothesis, this of course going against the considered opinion of every philosopher and scientist of note..

I have to say that whilst Walter probably isn't the most ill educated dogmatic antiscience troll in the world.....,by god he is damn close.

Original comment

You're not wrong,Walter was born to follow the crowd and chant slogans.As far as he is concerned surveys can prove physical hypothesis, this of course going against the considered opinion of every philosopher and scientist of note..

I have to say that whilst Walter probably isn't the most ill educated dogmatic antiscience troll in the world.....,by god he is damn close.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: GFMC (47 days ago)

Last week I read that the CO2 they measure in the Earths atmosphere has not increased in the last 12 years. Where is all the gas going, NASA who dis the meaurements, suggested that plants were using it up.

Original comment

Last week I read that the CO2 they measure in the Earths atmosphere has not increased in the last 12 years. Where is all the gas going, NASA who dis the meaurements, suggested that plants were using it up.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (54 days ago)

The 97% is from surveys of the science. You are making it sound like it is surveys of scientists' opinions. It's not, it's a simple count of actual peer reviewed climate studies that support AGW compared with those that don't.

The scientific method varies depending on the discipline. In climate science, we know CO2 traps heat - that can be lab tested. We know how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year - we can measure it, and we have accounts. We know a lot about solar radiation, methane, water vapour, effects of volcano erruptions, warm periods, ice ages, Earth's orbits, etc. Put it all together and we have a hypothesis - that human activity is causing the warming we are measuring.

We are living the experiment you ask for. We are pumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Scientists tell us it's an experiment we are far enough into to know we should not complete it. How many more billions of tons do we need to add before you will be satisfied that proper science has been done? Do we need to wait until sea level has risen 1 metre more, or is half a metre enough? Do we need to reach 2C above pre-industrial revolution temperatures, or will you only accept it when we reach 3C? Do all coral reefs need to die before acidification of the oceans is "proven", or will 90% be enough?

Original comment

The 97% is from surveys of the science. You are making it sound like it is surveys of scientists' opinions. It's not, it's a simple count of actual peer reviewed climate studies that support AGW compared with those that don't.

The scientific method varies depending on the discipline. In climate science, we know CO2 traps heat - that can be lab tested. We know how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year - we can measure it, and we have accounts. We know a lot about solar radiation, methane, water vapour, effects of volcano erruptions, warm periods, ice ages, Earth's orbits, etc. Put it all together and we have a hypothesis - that human activity is causing the warming we are measuring.

We are living the experiment you ask for. We are pumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Scientists tell us it's an experiment we are far enough into to know we should not complete it. How many more billions of tons do we need to add before you will be satisfied that proper science has been done? Do we need to wait until sea level has risen 1 metre more, or is half a metre enough? Do we need to reach 2C above pre-industrial revolution temperatures, or will you only accept it when we reach 3C? Do all coral reefs need to die before acidification of the oceans is "proven", or will 90% be enough?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (53 days ago)

You misunderstand the scientific method if you think it varies depending on the discipline.

Also, you misunderstood my point. I do not disagree that the temperatures have risen.

Answer this question. True or False. If humans did not exist on this planet, the ice age would eventually end by itself and the temperature would rise to the normal 25 degrees?

If you believe the temperature should have stayed at 16 degrees for the entire future of the planet regardless if humans were on the planet or not, then you don't understand the cyclical history of this planet. If humans are accelerating the temperature increase, that is not proven with evidence. Your CO2 points don't mean anything because you're just trying to link related things together to prove something. That is not the scientific method. At best, that is only a hypothesis.

Original comment

You misunderstand the scientific method if you think it varies depending on the discipline.

Also, you misunderstood my point. I do not disagree that the temperatures have risen.

Answer this question. True or False. If humans did not exist on this planet, the ice age would eventually end by itself and the temperature would rise to the normal 25 degrees?

If you believe the temperature should have stayed at 16 degrees for the entire future of the planet regardless if humans were on the planet or not, then you don't understand the cyclical history of this planet. If humans are accelerating the temperature increase, that is not proven with evidence. Your CO2 points don't mean anything because you're just trying to link related things together to prove something. That is not the scientific method. At best, that is only a hypothesis.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (53 days ago)

A survey can most certainly be science. Although the foundation of the scientific method is the same across all disciplines, there is considerable difference between how science is actually conducted in physics versus social science. And if the question is what percentage of scientists believe in climate change, you are deeply into the social sciences. It seems to me that you are the one who's misunderstanding.

Original comment

A survey can most certainly be science. Although the foundation of the scientific method is the same across all disciplines, there is considerable difference between how science is actually conducted in physics versus social science. And if the question is what percentage of scientists believe in climate change, you are deeply into the social sciences. It seems to me that you are the one who's misunderstanding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (54 days ago)

Emotional walls seem to turn the smartest folk stupid. For over 15 years, my Libertarian Dad with an I.Q. of 200 can't get past the Climate Change = Regulation = Bad sequence despite an ability to interpret vast quantities of conceptually advanced complex information hundreds of times faster than most people. Either that or he's just too old and self-focued to be concerned about future generations.

Original comment

Emotional walls seem to turn the smartest folk stupid. For over 15 years, my Libertarian Dad with an I.Q. of 200 can't get past the Climate Change = Regulation = Bad sequence despite an ability to interpret vast quantities of conceptually advanced complex information hundreds of times faster than most people. Either that or he's just too old and self-focued to be concerned about future generations.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (50 days ago)

Hahaha! An IQ of 200!!

Original comment

Hahaha! An IQ of 200!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the one and only MAD (50 days ago)

Or maybe he has the ability to tell the diffe3rence between quantifiable evidence and unverified speculation

Original comment

Or maybe he has the ability to tell the diffe3rence between quantifiable evidence and unverified speculation

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Anchorage (54 days ago)

WHERE DID THE 97% FIGURE COME FROM?

The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.


Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from. Link: LINK

Original comment

WHERE DID THE 97% FIGURE COME FROM?

The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.


Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from. Link: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (54 days ago)

There are many surveys that the 97% refers to - the one that started it all, I believe, is one by John Cook of Skeptical Science that looked at peer reviewed climate research papers between 1991 and 2011. LINK

Original comment

There are many surveys that the 97% refers to - the one that started it all, I believe, is one by John Cook of Skeptical Science that looked at peer reviewed climate research papers between 1991 and 2011. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AudiCode (53 days ago)

Saudi Arabia recently got 6 inches of global warming see here: LINK

Original comment

Saudi Arabia recently got 6 inches of global warming see here: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (43 days ago)
Latest comment:

Insight doesn't necessarily correlate with behavior.

Original comment
Latest comment:

Insight doesn't necessarily correlate with behavior.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Why do some people not believe the evidence?
Why do some people not believe the evidence?
Hey Bill Nye, could government be hiding extraterrestrials from us?
Hey Bill Nye, could government be hiding extraterrestrials from us?
Alex Jones wants to save humanity from Satan
Alex Jones wants to save humanity from Satan
The truth behind chemtrails
The truth behind chemtrails
Donald Trump spouting conspiracy theories
Donald Trump spouting conspiracy theories