What does it mean to "believe in climate change"?

[SnailyBoy]

The figures for the number of people in each group are given, so one can calculate it.

 

I think you're broadly speaking right, that if you add the strong and moderate groups together you can get close to, but still not reach, 97%.

The problem with that is that "moderate" warming is not consistent with the consensus statements nor with the IPCCs summary for policy makers.

So it's still a whopping great lie.

 

Your confirmation bias is showing.

[unbeliever]

Your confirmation bias is showing.

 

If you say so.

 

Read it yourself.

Even with strong confirmation bias toward warmism, you're going to have a hell of a time twisting this into 97% support for the "consensus".

[SnailyBoy]

If you say so.

 

Read it yourself.

Even with strong confirmation bias toward warmism, you're going to have a hell of a time twisting this into 97% support for the "consensus".

 

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

[unbeliever]

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

 

Yes. I looked it up.

 

Are you going to read it?

Even if you add up the "strong" and "moderate" groups (which is completely invalid), then exclude the less prolific publishers (I can't think how you would justify that); you can only get into the high 80s.

Edited August 1, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

That's a blatant false analogy.

Are you suggesting that 30% of climate scientists are somehow financially dependent on defying the consensus?

It's preposterous.

 

Even more preposterous than that, the things that many people aspire to do, foreign travel and holidays, large cars and 4x4s, big houses, people are lazy - they want to drive; are people meant to give up these aspirations.

 

Or an easier option might be to be 'skeptical' about climate change.

[SnailyBoy]

Yes. I looked it up.

 

Are you going to read it?

Even if you add up the "strong" and "moderate" groups (which is completely invalid), then exclude the less prolific publishers (I can't think how you would justify that); you can only get into the high 80s.

 

Contact NASA and ask for justification for the figure of 97%.

[unbeliever]

Even more preposterous than that, the things that many people aspire to do, foreign travel and holidays, large cars and 4x4s, big houses, people are lazy - they want to drive; are people meant to give up these aspirations.

 

Or an easier option might be to be 'skeptical' about climate change.

 

You find that a plausible explanation for dissent from the consensus amongst professional climate scientists?

Why not reverse it? Research funding and career progression are much easier to come by in climate science if you're seen to support the consensus.

In which case the opinion of climate scientists becomes irrelevant. That doesn't sound remotely reasonable to me. And I don't think you want that as then you have no grounds for believing in climate change at all. At least if you accept the fundamental validity of studying the climate with science, you can make a case that you have the majority of experts on your side, even if it's a far smaller majority than you thought it was this morning.

 

---------- Post added 01-08-2015 at 20:22 ----------

 

Contact NASA and ask for justification for the figure of 97%.

 

You ask them.

I've presented a study, by the climate change believers no less, which blows the 97% lie completely out of the water. If you want to contest it, by all means do so.

[SnailyBoy]

 

You ask them.

I've presented a study, by the climate change believers no less, which blows the 97% lie completely out of the water. If you want to contest it, by all means do so.

 

Present the study to NASA as your evidence and give them a chance to respond.

[unbeliever]

Present the study to NASA as your evidence and give them a chance to respond.

 

It's in the public domain. If they want to respond they can.

Perhaps they already have. You could look if you like.

So far, the only evidence presented on this thread supports my position. Feel free to try and change that.

[SnailyBoy]

It's in the public domain. If they want to respond they can.

Perhaps they already have. You could look if you like.

So far, the only evidence presented on this thread supports my position. Feel free to try and change that.

 

Lol

 

All you've got is one study v another study. You've attempted to boost your argument with a premise (with no evidence) that climate scientists stick together for financial benefit, with additional assumptions for a little padding. That's it.