[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
How 'bout appeals to logic?[/quote]
It would be nice to see one.[/quote]
He that hath eyes let him see.[/quote]
Look I’m not painting doomsday signs here.
I am making this point (which I have substantiated where substantiation was necessary): If you are going to appeal to scientists who deny anthopogenic climate change, you are guilty of special pleading unless you prove that there is some reason to discard the testimony and findings of the vastly greater body of scientists–and we are talking about men and women of the highest credential–who affirm anthropogenic climate change.
No such thing has been proved, and thus…[/quote]
So what do you think of my hunch that in 20 years or less the consensus among scientists will be that significant AGW was nothing more than just anthropogenic dust in the wind?
[/quote]
I think that hunches are like assholes.
^ However, if the scientific consensus shifts in a way you’re predicting, I will accept it. Because I’d be a fool to tell a mathematician how to do long division.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.[/quote]
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[/quote]
Not by a long shot. I didn’t say the statue of liberty was going to be underwater. I didn’t say anything about “catastrophic” effects. I explicitly said that I’m in line with center-business on the issue. Eighty-five percent predicting moderate to catastrophic consequences is perfectly consistent with my view of things, and I’ve never said different.
In fact, I’ve been arguing only that AGW is the consensus among the scientific community–and I was under the distinct impression that you’ve been resisting this.If not, then what exactly are you saying? Didn’t you use the term “pseudoscience” in this thread? Weren’t you arguing against me on the specific point of AGW as consensus?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.[/quote]
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[/quote]
You haven’t even defined “significant” yet. You provided statistics that are totally unrelated to your claim. You claimed that a “huge number” of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors are having a significant effect on climate change.
Your statistics refer to the likelihood that catastrophic effects will occur. That has nothing to do with whether or not changes are going to be significant or not. Define “moderate”. Define “catastrophic”. Define “relatively little danger”.
The fact is that you just said that huge numbers of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors will be significant in terms of climate change. Then you cite a study in which 85% of the scientists polled (who were polled SEVEN years ago) agree that there will be at least moderate changes. And apparently moderate is more significant than relatively little danger, a term that is beyond vague.
Not only have you mischaracterized these statistics, you clearly don’t even understand them, given how you’ve used them.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not by a long shot. I didn’t say the statue of liberty was going to be underwater. I didn’t say anything about “catastrophic” effects. I explicitly said that I’m in line with center-business on the issue. Eighty-five percent predicting moderate to catastrophic consequences is perfectly consistent with my view of things, and I’ve never said different.
[/quote]
You’re conflating the figures for ‘catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ together to try to validate your claim. ‘Catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ are at two opposite ends of the spectrum and should not be conflated. Furthermore, you are using the word ‘between’ to try to suggest that the results lie between moderate and catastrophic. The fact remains that more scientists in the survey predicted moderate change than catastrophic.
[quote]
In fact, I’ve been arguing only that AGW is the consensus among the scientific community–and I was under the distinct impression that you’ve been resisting this.If not, then what exactly are you saying? Didn’t you use the term “pseudoscience” in this thread? Weren’t you arguing against me on the specific point of AGW as consensus?[/quote]
It is a pseudoscience as not enough is known about the climate to make accurate predictions. Obviously humans have some impact on the climate but the evidence for significant anthropogenic change simply does not exist. And as I explained before, getting a climate scientist to admit that anthropogenic climate change is insignificant is like getting an alternative medicine practitioner to admit that alternative medicine is quackery. It’s simply not going to happen. Too many careers, too many reputations and too much government cheese is at stake.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not by a long shot. I didn’t say the statue of liberty was going to be underwater. I didn’t say anything about “catastrophic” effects. I explicitly said that I’m in line with center-business on the issue. Eighty-five percent predicting moderate to catastrophic consequences is perfectly consistent with my view of things, and I’ve never said different.
[/quote]
You’re conflating the figures for ‘catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ together to try to validate your claim. ‘Catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ are at two opposite ends of the spectrum and should not be conflated. Furthermore, you are using the word ‘between’ to try to suggest that the results lie between moderate and catastrophic. The fact remains that more scientists in the survey predicted moderate change than catastrophic.
You’re forgetting that 85% still predicted change. The terms of those changes are ambiguous. Does a moderate change become catastrophic if we deny that anything is happening at all, as you have done repeatedly?
I find it hysterical that you point to careers, reputations and gov’t cheese being at stake as evidence that the fix is in. As if all of that doesn’t apply ten-fold to the fossil fuel lobby.
I also find it hysterical how “climate alarmist” is the new catchphrase. Notice how the narrative has insidiously been changed from “nothing is going on at all” to “something is going on, but we needn’t worry.”
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.[/quote]
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[/quote]
You haven’t even defined “significant” yet. You provided statistics that are totally unrelated to your claim. You claimed that a “huge number” of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors are having a significant effect on climate change.
Your statistics refer to the likelihood that catastrophic effects will occur. That has nothing to do with whether or not changes are going to be significant or not. Define “moderate”. Define “catastrophic”. Define “relatively little danger”.
The fact is that you just said that huge numbers of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors will be significant in terms of climate change. Then you cite a study in which 85% of the scientists polled (who were polled SEVEN years ago) agree that there will be at least moderate changes. And apparently moderate is more significant than relatively little danger, a term that is beyond vague.
Not only have you mischaracterized these statistics, you clearly don’t even understand them, given how you’ve used them.[/quote]
The study doesn’t define ‘moderate.’
‘Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme’
I would argue, based on the commonly used meaning of ‘moderate’ that it is commensurate with the claim I made about significant climate change.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I also find it hysterical how “climate alarmist” is the new catchphrase. Notice how the narrative has insidiously been changed from “nothing is going on at all” to “something is going on, but we needn’t worry.”[/quote]
Putting quotation marks around it doesn’t mean that’s why I actually said. Obviously humans have some effect on the climate as we emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It’s the extent of the change I’ve been arguing about.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.[/quote]
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[/quote]
You haven’t even defined “significant” yet. You provided statistics that are totally unrelated to your claim. You claimed that a “huge number” of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors are having a significant effect on climate change.
Your statistics refer to the likelihood that catastrophic effects will occur. That has nothing to do with whether or not changes are going to be significant or not. Define “moderate”. Define “catastrophic”. Define “relatively little danger”.
The fact is that you just said that huge numbers of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors will be significant in terms of climate change. Then you cite a study in which 85% of the scientists polled (who were polled SEVEN years ago) agree that there will be at least moderate changes. And apparently moderate is more significant than relatively little danger, a term that is beyond vague.
Not only have you mischaracterized these statistics, you clearly don’t even understand them, given how you’ve used them.[/quote]
The study doesn’t define ‘moderate.’
‘Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme’
I would argue, based on the commonly used meaning of ‘moderate’ that it is commensurate with the claim I made about significant climate change.[/quote]
First of all, it’s a survey, not a study. You’re right. It doesn’t define “moderate”. It also doesn’t define whether these moderate changes will be moderate in nature if we are prepared for them or if we do nothing about them.
The survey was poorly conducted at best. And yet, you refer to it as evidence in support of your argument. Typical.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I also find it hysterical how “climate alarmist” is the new catchphrase. Notice how the narrative has insidiously been changed from “nothing is going on at all” to “something is going on, but we needn’t worry.”[/quote]
Putting quotation marks around it doesn’t mean that’s why I actually said. Obviously humans have some effect on the climate as we emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It’s the extent of the change I’ve been arguing about.[/quote]
Are you denying the use of the term “climate alarmist”? I put it in quotes because that is a term you yourself have used. Shall I direct you toward the lobby thread?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
How 'bout appeals to logic?[/quote]
It would be nice to see one.[/quote]
He that hath eyes let him see.[/quote]
Look I’m not painting doomsday signs here.
I am making this point (which I have substantiated where substantiation was necessary): If you are going to appeal to scientists who deny anthopogenic climate change, you are guilty of special pleading unless you prove that there is some reason to discard the testimony and findings of the vastly greater body of scientists–and we are talking about men and women of the highest credential–who affirm anthropogenic climate change.
No such thing has been proved, and thus…[/quote]
So what do you think of my hunch that in 20 years or less the consensus among scientists will be that significant AGW was nothing more than just anthropogenic dust in the wind?
[/quote]
Your hunch? This from the guy who ridiculed me in another thread for having a “feeling”? I’ll borrow from you and respond in kind. When your arguments run fallow and you realize you have nothing to substantiate your claims, you are left with “feelings”, in this case a “hunch”.
God, your intellectual double standard is really starting to grow, Push.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I also find it hysterical how “climate alarmist” is the new catchphrase. Notice how the narrative has insidiously been changed from “nothing is going on at all” to “something is going on, but we needn’t worry.”[/quote]
Putting quotation marks around it doesn’t mean that’s why I actually said. Obviously humans have some effect on the climate as we emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It’s the extent of the change I’ve been arguing about.[/quote]
Are you denying the use of the term “climate alarmist”? I put it in quotes because that is a term you yourself have used. Shall I direct you toward the lobby thread?[/quote]
“Nothing is going on here” is the quote to which I am referring.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.[/quote]
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[/quote]
You haven’t even defined “significant” yet. You provided statistics that are totally unrelated to your claim. You claimed that a “huge number” of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors are having a significant effect on climate change.
Your statistics refer to the likelihood that catastrophic effects will occur. That has nothing to do with whether or not changes are going to be significant or not. Define “moderate”. Define “catastrophic”. Define “relatively little danger”.
The fact is that you just said that huge numbers of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors will be significant in terms of climate change. Then you cite a study in which 85% of the scientists polled (who were polled SEVEN years ago) agree that there will be at least moderate changes. And apparently moderate is more significant than relatively little danger, a term that is beyond vague.
Not only have you mischaracterized these statistics, you clearly don’t even understand them, given how you’ve used them.[/quote]
The study doesn’t define ‘moderate.’
‘Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme’
I would argue, based on the commonly used meaning of ‘moderate’ that it is commensurate with the claim I made about significant climate change.[/quote]
First of all, it’s a survey, not a study. You’re right. It doesn’t define “moderate”. It also doesn’t define whether these moderate changes will be moderate in nature if we are prepared for them or if we do nothing about them.
The survey was poorly conducted at best. And yet, you refer to it as evidence in support of your argument. Typical.[/quote]
You don’t even define ‘typical.’ Typical.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…
Look I’m not painting doomsday signs here.
Look I’m not painting doomsday signs h
I am making this point (which I have substantiated where substantiation was necessary): If you are going to appeal to scientists who deny anthopogenic climate change, you are guilty of special pleading unless you prove that there is some reason to discard the testimony and findings of the vastly greater body of scientists–and we are talking about men and women of the highest credential–who affirm anthropogenic climate change.
No such thing has been proved, and thus…[/quote]
But isn’t that the point of contention?
(Remember Dr Skeptix’ dictum: “A consensus is an opinion endorsed by many but embraced by no one.”}
I have seen many consensus embraced and discarded when trials are conducted or facts are discovered.
In climate science–if we dare call it a science–should not the minimum standards of proof include support of the theory? When a trial is impossible–say in climatology–should a theory produce a predictive model, and that predictive model be subjected to subsequent examination of outcomes?
(Case in point: Einstein was lauded for Theory of Special Relativity not on based on the theory in the 1905 paper, but because his model of it in 1911 was subsequently “proven” by a observations during a solar eclipse in 1919. Precisely. (As it turns out, the statistics of the event were flawed, and the Nobel Prize was awarded for his theory on the photoelectric effect.))
So then: if you do not recognize “appeal to authority” as a valid rhetorical argument, then you can not recognize “appeal to consensus” either.
Instead, if you believe in AGW–or AGC or whatever the code is now–show us the model from before, say, 2008, which accounts for findings now. Do current measures match with statistical validity the predicted measures of the climate change model?
If not, find a new model.
Certainly the politics is not good for the “consensus model.” Sulfites and methane are far worse green house gases than is CO2–but they were left out of Kyoto I because of the northern European dependence on brown coal. And no one wants to limit China and India, the biggest polluters n the planet.
Perhaps a model that includes Mongolian dust storms and Chinese soot is a better theory, since it now seems that soot is decreasing the albedo of the North Pole and causing much of the Greenland melt. (Note that would explain why the Antarctic has increasing ice.)
So, show me the model, and show me the validated major predictions which have followed it.
That is why I ask for the human costs of “adjustment,” since we may be adjusting to the wrong models entirely, to the the world’s detriment.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, this is a claim of fact:
(Actually, it really isn’t, “huge number” being subjective, but lets pretend it is for now.)
What evidence do you have of it? It should certainly be reputable and peer-reviewed, as my evidence is. What constitutes “a huge number”? Forty percent of climatologists? Fifty? Can you prove to me, in direct refutation of the evidence I’ve already offered, that numbers like these exist? How about for scientific societies?[/quote]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University…
Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.
[/quote]
Under what possible interpretation does a survey wherein 85 percent of the respondents said that AGW would have moderate to severe effects–in what possible world does this substantiate the claim that “a huge number of scientists say they don’t know if anthropogenic climate change is having a significant effect on global temperatures”? This is evidence of exactly my contention: There is a consensus, that consensus is clear, it affirms AGW and it urges caution.[/quote]
You’re mischaracterising the results. 44% predict only ‘moderate’ change. 13% saw relatively little danger. 5% didn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. It substantiates my claim not yours.
[/quote]
You haven’t even defined “significant” yet. You provided statistics that are totally unrelated to your claim. You claimed that a “huge number” of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors are having a significant effect on climate change.
Your statistics refer to the likelihood that catastrophic effects will occur. That has nothing to do with whether or not changes are going to be significant or not. Define “moderate”. Define “catastrophic”. Define “relatively little danger”.
The fact is that you just said that huge numbers of scientists don’t know if anthropogenic factors will be significant in terms of climate change. Then you cite a study in which 85% of the scientists polled (who were polled SEVEN years ago) agree that there will be at least moderate changes. And apparently moderate is more significant than relatively little danger, a term that is beyond vague.
Not only have you mischaracterized these statistics, you clearly don’t even understand them, given how you’ve used them.[/quote]
The study doesn’t define ‘moderate.’
‘Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme’
I would argue, based on the commonly used meaning of ‘moderate’ that it is commensurate with the claim I made about significant climate change.[/quote]
First of all, it’s a survey, not a study. You’re right. It doesn’t define “moderate”. It also doesn’t define whether these moderate changes will be moderate in nature if we are prepared for them or if we do nothing about them.
The survey was poorly conducted at best. And yet, you refer to it as evidence in support of your argument. Typical.[/quote]
You don’t even define ‘typical.’ Typical.
[/quote]
I did you one better. I put it into contextual terms that you would understand. And yet, even with context from which you could infer the meaning of typical, you still complain. Typical.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not by a long shot. I didn’t say the statue of liberty was going to be underwater. I didn’t say anything about “catastrophic” effects. I explicitly said that I’m in line with center-business on the issue. Eighty-five percent predicting moderate to catastrophic consequences is perfectly consistent with my view of things, and I’ve never said different.
[/quote]
You’re conflating the figures for ‘catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ together to try to validate your claim. ‘Catastrophic’ and ‘moderate’ are at two opposite ends of the spectrum and should not be conflated.[/quote]
No, the end opposite “catastrophic” is “there is no AGW and there will thus be no consequences of it.” This, it has seemed to me throughout our debate, has been your contention. If you were instead arguing that AGW is the truth and that most climatologists expect it to have consequences but there is no clear consensus with regard to the scale and scope of those consequences in the relatively near future, then I’d have agreed with you and we could have skipped the whole thing.
I reiterate that I am not making, and have not made, a single claim with regard to catastrophe. I am not conflating the two scenarios, I am instead making the obvious point that the vast majority of the scientists in the survey you cited (which, by the way, is one of many) not only affirm the reality of anthropogenic climate change but also affirm that some kind of consequences of it await us within the century. This, I feel the need to say yet again, is precisely in line with my own view of the entire issue.
I don’t see the word “between” in my post, and I am not suggesting any such thing. My suggestion is simple: The consensus is that AGW is reality and that it will have consequences. You have evidenced this well.
On a broader note, ma I mistaken in saying that you moved the goal posts here? It was my impression that you were denying AGW outright just a few pages ago. I’m not telling you this; I’m asking you. I haven’t been reading along this entire time, so I could be mistaken.