Im not a believer in poor induction, so even if they offered 2,000 other failed predictions, it would have nothing to do with this one. Imagine how many failed predictions from republicans from the 70s on we could uncover, if we tried. It still would not disprove any claim of a current Republican. It’s a logical error that we’ve know about since the 1700s.
Actually they looked at both estimates based on publication (blue) and those that aren’t (red). This one is also based on direct surveys and not published results: You of course don’t have to believe in any of this data, but if you want to be scientific, you’ll again have to face the tough question I gave you last time: what evidence, if it existed, would convince you? If the answer is none, then this case was never open to start with.
You're missing a huge piece here. The people in your example who wish they ate healthier aren't trying to get the government to ban ice cream or tax you if you don't walk 10,000 steps a day. The climate change gang, meanwhile, wants you to pay $8 a gallon for gas while they drive Teslas powered by fossil fuel created electricity stored in batteries created by third world slave labor in huge open mines that caused more pollution than your suv will over its lifetime. I don't believe that humans are causing climate change but I bet I have a lower environmental footprint than 9/10 climate change activists, because I don't consume unnecessarily and drive less than 150 miles a week in my Toyota Corolla commuter. I also do things like volunteer for local waterway cleanups, and generally try to leave things better than when I arrived, but I don't think I know better than other people how they should live.
Any number of things could happen, which is why “Where is everybody?” was right. Species don’t last forever. However, as Ovid said ‘all things change, nothing is extinguished’.
If you look at charts, you’ll see a dramatic rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution. That’s an incontrovertible fact. It’s not reasonable to conclude that man has not contributed to the rise, but some do. See #103 for example.
the graphs you posted are meaningless without more info. There is zero data behind the pretty colored bars. It does not seem to address the absurdity of the math analysis I raised. If you think otherwise, please explain. I would be convinced of global warming by a robust debate of ideas. But the global warming nutjobs refuse to allow the skeptics to share the microphone. When I hear the political/media sheep use terms like “settled science” I know it is false.
You’re right that the people that don’t eat as well as they’d like usually don’t ask for sugary foods to be taxed, but I think that just makes them less hypocritical. My concern is more with epistemology and what is true, and I don’t see how the increased hypocrisy is relevant in that aspect.
I guess Im confused. I thought your critique was that it isn’t necessarily valid to infer the internal beliefs of the authors based only on their externally published words, which I think that is a valid criticism.However, administering direct surveys of internal beliefs would seemingly sidestep that obstacle, so I showed that data. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding.
I think we all agree that Earth’s temperature is influenced by many factors, so it isn’t unreasonable to be uncertain of the exact extent of the impact of anthropogenic CO2. That said, I do think it’s unreasonable to be absolutely certain that anthropogenic CO2 can never have any effect, no matter the dose. That’s the opposite of skepticism.
You are confused by one of my problems. The math. The ridiculous assertion that 97% of scientists support the hoax. That assertion should be stated as “a minute fraction of the 8 million worldwide scientists who have been weeded out by the Global Warming consortium and permitted to publish agree with Global Warming.” That is more accurate than lying by asserting there is a “scientific consensus“
Ah, perhaps I understand better now. One, we dealt with the publishing part above by showing the results of direct surveys. Two, this claim of consensus involves only the beliefs of climate scientists, specifically. I think this is appropriate, as the beliefs of a molecular neuroscientist are probably immaterial to our cause.
Assume an oncologist tells you an operation may save your life. You're afraid of anesthesia and don't want the operation, so you seek the opinions of 98 other oncologists. They all agree with the first one. Finally, the 99th oncologist you consult says you don't need the operation, that there's a medicine normally given to animals which will cure you. If you take the last oncologist's advice, you're a complete fool. The overwhelming number of scientists around the world have opined that man has made a significant contribution to climate change over the last 150 years. Thus, the only reasonable and productive conversation to have at this point is what to do about it, keeping in the forefront the consequences to our children and other descendants.
aw, but that’s not the case in the data you posted. We don’t know if the “scientist” who support this hoax are physicist, zoologist or a proctologist. or, perhaps they have a masters political science. regardless, the number of people who publish is such a small small fraction of all of the scientist out there, it is a complete lie to say that there is a 97% consensus. In fact, it is a complete lie to say there’s any consensus
I think we are still having a miscommunication. Maybe it would be useful if I reframed the issue slightly. Let’s forget about “consensus”, since that requires a specific definition. If we could find a direct survey of beliefs of climate scientists that showed that a large majority of them, say 80%, believed in anthropogenic climate change, would that change your mind? If not, what evidence would you need?
I would need actual evidence, which has been vetted, debated and thoroughly reviewed by experts who have zero financial interest in the trillion dollar snake-oil climate industry. As for what precisely that evidence would be? I don’t know because I haven’t seen any yet. I guess by comparison I would need the same evidence necessary to convince me that Big Foot exists.
My aim here was much less ambitious than evidencing climate change itself. I was only asking about what would count as evidence of the much simpler claim that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. But like I said before, if there is no evidence that could possible convince you of a claim, then it is simply not a scientific question for you. Instead, it’s more of a philosophical or religious issue.
I don’t think you understand my answer. You asked me what evidence it would take, and I said I don’t know, because I’ve never seen any evidence. You asked a question which is incapable of a rational response. How would I know what evidence it would take, if I don’t know what evidence exists? That is why I use the Bigfoot example.
I think you have this backwards. What I’m suggesting is that if you don’t know what the evidence would look like, then of course you would never see it. E.g.: Doctor: It looks like you have Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency. Patient: There is absolutely no way I have Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency! I don’t show any of the symptoms! Doctor: What are the symptoms of Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency? Patient: I have no idea. Statement 2 simply cannot be meaningful when it’s joined to statement 4. If you don’t know what the evidence for climate change or even a consensus would be, then you wouldn’t recognize it even if it were all around you.
Our general population would have to be getting smarter for that to happen. We seem to be going backwards. Falling College Academic Standards: New Evidence Gender studies, woke professors, and kids just wanting to be influencers these days... Something has to change.
