[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, or don’t understand it in the first place. If you really want to take it up, PM me.[/quote]
PMs don’t work any more man. Why won’t you just link the study you want to cite so I can look at it?? Don’t cop out.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master?s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures[/quote]
I’m not sure that’s the paper he’s citing actually.
Also, if you look at that paper the survey asks an opinion, UNquantified. So if you hold the opinion that say 5% of global climate change is manmade, you agree. If you hold that 60%+ is manmade, you also agree. And you don’t even have to quantify the amount you believe humans cause.
This is an inherent weakness in survey studies, and journalists who don’t understand science are easily susceptible to jumping on this sort of thing.[/quote]
This is true. However that is the only fact that shares his 97% figure that I have been able to find with a little digging and it appears to be parroted quite incorrectly over and over again on several sites.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, [/quote]
Lemee guess, you are an Atheist as well?
I can feel how you just want to…HATE…anybody who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist, yes. I don’t hate people who disagree with me. I hate those who argue with me based on opinion, not fact.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also expertise in this questionnaire was defined by the sheer number of material published by an individual on climate change. It is proof by assertion in the purest form. [/quote]
Unfortunately, material published in the field is the best indicator you have. It is a fair question to classify somebody by “do you actively publish in the field” when you are surveying a question.
I still hate survey studies with a passion.
I just find it humorous that the stat is basically 97% of scientists who right a lot of papers about human caused global warming agree that they were right and humans actually do cause global warming.
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, [/quote]
Lemee guess, you are an Atheist as well?
I can feel how you just want to…HATE…anybody who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist, yes. I don’t hate people who disagree with me. I hate those who argue with me based on opinion, not fact.[/quote]
“Facts” that are your opinion…according to a large number of scientists that were quoted in the link I posted above.
Lemme guess, when you meet a Christian/Catholic/Muslim you just CANNOT believe they would not listen to THE SCIENCEZZZ
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also expertise in this questionnaire was defined by the sheer number of material published by an individual on climate change. It is proof by assertion in the purest form. [/quote]
Unfortunately, material published in the field is the best indicator you have. It is a fair question to classify somebody by “do you actively publish in the field” when you are surveying a question.
I still hate survey studies with a passion.[/quote]
But when the biggest event in the field itself, leading to much interest and in turn funding, is the thing in question, lots of material published in that field causes such a subjectivity problem that a large percentage of responses would almost have to be somewhat effected.
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, [/quote]
Lemee guess, you are an Atheist as well?
I can feel how you just want to…HATE…anybody who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist, yes. I don’t hate people who disagree with me. I hate those who argue with me based on opinion, not fact.[/quote]
Everybody has opinions, even scientists. And yes, scientists do use those opinions to frame their research.
Which study was it you were citing btw?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, or don’t understand it in the first place. If you really want to take it up, PM me.[/quote]
PMs don’t work any more man. Why won’t you just link the study you want to cite so I can look at it?? Don’t cop out.[/quote]
I actually can’t find it. I do have a good source showing scientific consensus in regards to man-made global warming.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the main international body associated with investigating Climate Change says: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level…There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”
I have their report too, it’s in a PDF form if anyone would like it:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, [/quote]
Lemee guess, you are an Atheist as well?
I can feel how you just want to…HATE…anybody who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist, yes. I don’t hate people who disagree with me. I hate those who argue with me based on opinion, not fact.[/quote]
“Facts” that are your opinion…according to a large number of scientists that were quoted in the link I posted above.
Lemme guess, when you meet a Christian/Catholic/Muslim you just CANNOT believe they would not listen to THE SCIENCEZZZ
[/quote]
Read “agnostic”. I don’t think you can prove it either way. So there is no science saying their god does not exist. So they can believe whatever they want.
Calm your tits brah.
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, [/quote]
Lemee guess, you are an Atheist as well?
I can feel how you just want to…HATE…anybody who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist, yes. I don’t hate people who disagree with me. I hate those who argue with me based on opinion, not fact.[/quote]
Almost the entirety of climate change science is not fact. Factually based conjecture sure, but not fact. Is the climate changing, certainly. That is a fact. It is human caused or reason for concern?? No idea, and anyone that tells you that they know it is for a fact is either profiting from fear mongering or they do not understand the difference in conjecture and fact.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also expertise in this questionnaire was defined by the sheer number of material published by an individual on climate change. It is proof by assertion in the purest form. [/quote]
Unfortunately, material published in the field is the best indicator you have. It is a fair question to classify somebody by “do you actively publish in the field” when you are surveying a question.
I still hate survey studies with a passion.[/quote]
But when the biggest event in the field itself, leading to much interest and in turn funding, is the thing in question, lots of material published in that field causes such a subjectivity problem that a large percentage of responses would almost have to be somewhat effected.[/quote]
I will agree. However I’ll also say that there is a lot of negative science on things getting major funding in all areas—biomedical, biochemical, physics, etc. Alzheimer’s even–the amyloid Beta theory is not the only one, there is a competing frame of reference called tau protein. And a lot of research that looks at amyloid beta because of funding also finds a negative hypothesis. That’s just one example off the top of my head, and there are lots of others. So you can’t just say that “because this topic is leading to a lot of interest and driving a lot of funding, we have a subjectivity problem”. It doesn’t work like that.
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, or don’t understand it in the first place. If you really want to take it up, PM me.[/quote]
PMs don’t work any more man. Why won’t you just link the study you want to cite so I can look at it?? Don’t cop out.[/quote]
I actually can’t find it. I do have a good source showing scientific consensus in regards to man-made global warming.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the main international body associated with investigating Climate Change says: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level…There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”
I have their report too, it’s in a PDF form if anyone would like it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf[/quote]
May I ask what area of research you are in?
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
[/quote]
That’s weak sauce man. Unless you posted it facetiously.
What kind of research do you do?
Here’s a few alarmist predictions that didn’t quite pan out.
Snowfall a thing of the past, said in 2000. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
By 1995 crippling droughts, crop failure, food riots, Platte River in NE dry, said in 1990 book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1850432414/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=heartlands&go.x=0&go.y=0#reader_1850432414
Ice free Arctic Ocean by 2000. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/doc/511318988.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jun%208,%201972&author=&pub=Christian%20Science%20Monitor&edition=&startpage=&desc=Ice-free%20Arctic%20Ocean%20near?
In 2008 Al Gore predicted north polar ice cap would be gone.
IPCC bats 0/5. http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm
I could go on and on and on. I guess even atheists and agnostics need a religion to adhere to.