How many scientists really dispute global warming?
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
I am not pretending to be a scientist like BigDAve. These are not opinions at all, just objections from a lay man concerning the statistical relevance of the chart posted earlier in the thread. I think that .00001% of all the existing data is not enough to draw any type of predictions or conclusions. If you can prove othewise I will admit it.
Do u believe in God? If not then how did u disprove his existence? right... u don't believe in him because there is no evidence, same here, and ditto for global warming (although it is a better case).
Comparing the case for god and global warming. Priceless.
As it happens there are substantially more independent scientists who find the case for global warming to be compelling than the "scientists" who don't. (And many of the latter are not so independent, given that a goodly number are subsidized by Big Oil. This is fact, not opinion. Look it up. I've posted links in the past.) I would not be surprised if the scientists who are disputing climate change, some of whom are also the same scientists who disputed a link between tobacco and cancer (I've posted such links in the past), would also take up the cause of ID subject to adequate funding.
Religious people blame natural disasters on God and say God did it because the people were acting selfishly.
Leftists blame natural disasters on global warming and say it happened because the people were acting selfishly.
How many of the global warming alarmists are funded by the Sierra Club and Green Peace and other such organizations? I notice the left never wants to discuss that.
Many of the scientists that believe in global warming are subsidized by govts and the UN, same point u made about big oil. The movement is politicized which is why u assume I've simply agreed with the party I prefer. The reality is there is no definitive proof of anthropogenic (???) global warming, no proof of what will happen if you are right, and no proof that it is even detrimental to the planet or us. It is all based on theory, which is why I equated it to mysticism. And if u wish for everyone to take it seriously, then u are going to have to prove it, even to the lowly lay man.
Excuse me for doubting the predictive "abilities", of anyone, even... the mighty climatologists. lol
"THE FUTURE CANNOT BE PREDICTED" hmmm ..... As an absolute statement that is 100% wrong. I predict night follows day. I predict spring follows winter. Civil engineers predict that the structures they design won't fall down under the weight of gravity and if they follow good practice that is the case. Science is all about prediction, otherwise it wouldn't be much use at all because it would only be able to discuss what we already know.
James Hansen's climate models from the 1980s predicted temperature would rise. It has. The same models also predicted temporary cooling due to volcanic eruptions. There was. Climate models have predicted the stratosphere will cool just as the troposphere warms. It has.
Some things are hard to predict (perhaps impossible) but prediction is fundamental to science. You have it completely wrong.
Back in October I predicted that Brett Favre's season with the Vikings would end with a interception in a tight game that would end the Vikings season. Now that is a prediction.
Predicting something that has a 50% chance of happening is nothing to brag about. We know that the climate changes all the time. It will get warmer or cooler. Claiming something that has a 50% chance of happening then declaring victory is not much at all.
My prediction showed more insight than Jansen.
I also notice that you failed to mention that Jansen got caught manipulating data last year.