The arguments made by climate change sceptics

Pitbull said:
BCO, back it up. You are saying 95% of all scientist support Global warming. After repeatedly asking for you guys to back it up no one can prove it :confused:
Click to expand...

Are you ****ing blind?

ORESKES 2004

I am saying that the vast majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (read, those who are qualified to speak on global warming) endorse AGW. The opinions of scientists in unrelated fields has no bearing on this issue.
 
Pitbull said:
You can call it what you like.

I doubt they would sue if their intergrity was in question ;)
Click to expand...

Could you confirm that court case for me? I want to follow it so I need to know which roll it is on and where it is. So a list of mostly fake people are suing Al Gore. People in America can sue for anything including getting fat off McDonalds. That means absolutely nothing at all.
 
BCO said:
Are you ****ing blind?

ORESKES 2004
Click to expand...

I posted the information as well.

BCO said:
Enjoy living in your dreamland dude. w1z4rd is correct, you have made up your mind on what you want to believe and no amount of facts are going to sway you. It's pointless even trying to talk to you about this.
Click to expand...
I think I am also starting to get wizards point.
 
BCO said:
Are you ****ing blind?

ORESKES 2004

I am saying that the vast majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (read, those who are qualified to speak on global warming) endorse AGW. The opinions of scientists in unrelated fields has no bearing on this issue.
Click to expand...

ok Bluecollar.

Since you fail at this let me try again.

She did a concensus on reviews right of which she submitted it to a number of scientists (No all) from those she submitted it to 75% agreed 25% didn;t respond.

Pls prove to me how even 75% off scientists buy into this? Not some little thing done by a woman and few people she wrote to :rolleyes:

You having a slow day today?
 
Pitbull said:
ok Bluecollar.

Since you fail at this let me try again.

She did a concensus on reviews right of which she submitted it to a number of scientists (No all) from those she submitted it to 75% agreed 25% didn;t respond.

Pls prove to me how even 75% off scientists buy into this? Not some little thing done by a woman and few people she wrote to :rolleyes:

You having a slow day today?
Click to expand...

FAIL. She didn't write to anyone. She did a study of over 900 peer reviewed published papers on climate. Of those 75% endorsed the AGW standpoint. The remainder made no mention of anthropogenic factors. None of them took the stance that people are NOT mainly responsible.

Her paper is itself peer-reviewed and as such can be counted upon as much more reliable evidence than a petition put together by OISM, an oil-funded lobbyist group.
 
BCO said:
FAIL. She didn't write to anyone. She did a study of over 900 peer reviewed published papers on climate. Of those 75% endorsed the AGW standpoint. The remainder made no mention of anthropogenic factors. None of them took the stance that people are NOT mainly responsible.

Her paper is itself peer-reviewed and as such can be counted upon as much more reliable evidence than a petition put together by OISM, an oil-funded lobbyist group.
Click to expand...

And you supplied this as your proof?

lol, read this little bit just for my entertainment :p

http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm
 
BCO said:
lol. You just pwned yourself with that link. It reinforces that the Oreskes article is valid.
Click to expand...

Don't just read the first to lines :p

The Viscount Monckton of Benchley's rebuttal

Despite Peisner's retraction, the same argument was repeated by the Viscount Monckton of Benchley (and plagiarised by Schulte). Here are the five studies Monckton claims Oreskes should've included in her survey as rejecting the consensus position:

. Multi-resolution time series analysis applied to solar irradiance and climate reconstructions (Ammann 2003) finds a correlation between solar activity and temperature. However, the temperature reconstructions used end in the mid-20th century before the modern global warming trend and don't address the consensus position that warming over the past 50 years is primarily anthropogenic. However, Amman has published a more recent study examining more up-to-date temperature records, concluding "although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century" (Ammann 2007).

. Solar Forcing of Global Climate Change Since The Mid-17th Century (Reid 1997) finds a link between solar variability and climate change, concluding that "solar forcing and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing made roughly equal contributions to the rise in global temperature that took place between 1900 and 1955". Considering CO2 forcing before 1955 was much lower while solar forcing was much greater due to increasing solar activity, this conclusion only serves to reinforce the consensus position. More on the sun...

. Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual Report (Gerhard 2000) is non-peer reviewed. Oreske's survey only included peer reviewed studies. This is even conceded by Schulte.

. Atmospheric Greenhouse-Effect in the Context of Global Climate-Change (Kondratyev 1995) is a review, not an article - it doesn't actually include any research but reviews other studies. Oreskes' survey only included articles, not reviews.

. Review and impacts of climate change uncertainties (Fernau 1993) is another review, not an article, and is found in the Social Science Citation Index. Oreskes sampled articles only from the Science Citation Index
Click to expand...

Edit:
Ok reading it again I notice that I have :p
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
Fixed for you. I have no respect for climate change skeptics but if you feel so offended by the usage of the word I wont use it.
Click to expand...

Fine if you don't want to respect an opposing opinion, that's your decision, but there's no need to resort to name-calling.

B
 
Bismuth said:
Fine if you don't want to respect an opposing opinion, that's your decision, but there's no need to resort to name-calling.

B
Click to expand...

The point is that the opposing opinion is not based on much (if any) sound science.
 
BCO said:
The point is that the opposing opinion is not based on much (if any) sound science.
Click to expand...

:erm:

Even if these predictions made by various scientists have been found to be wrong? Kilimanjaro is but just one of many :p
 
BCO said:
:D;)
Click to expand...

I'll give you that KO :p

That being said:

There is still no proof that Science in the majority agree with Global warming. There was a thing on CNN confirming that the numbers in support of GW has dropped massively since 2007. What would you contribute that to?
 
Pitbull said:
I'll give you that KO :p

That being said:

There is still no proof that Science in the majority agree with Global warming. There was a thing on CNN confirming that the numbers in support of GW has dropped massively since 2007. What would you contribute that to?
Click to expand...

I would attribute that to the fact that there is a very powerful and succesful campaign of disinformation being waged against the actual science of AGW, and that it if one doesn't have a deep understanding of climate science, it is easy to fall for papers that seem convincing to non-climate scientists, but are clearly flawed if you know what to look for.
 
BCO said:
The point is that the opposing opinion is not based on much (if any) sound science.
Click to expand...
I guess you are going to have to define the opposing view and then clump that opposing view and think that it applies to a group of people and then knock down that opposing view.

What is the opposing view? Could you perhaps provide a little more detail?
 
BCO said:
I would attribute that to the fact that there is a very powerful and succesful campaign of disinformation being waged against the actual science of AGW, and that it if one doesn't have a deep understanding of climate science, it is easy to fall for papers that seem convincing to non-climate scientists, but are clearly flawed if you know what to look for.
Click to expand...

Do you agree there should be some substance in it to make Scientists change their view?
 
Phronesis said:
I guess you are going to have to define the opposing view and then clump that opposing view and think that it applies to a group of people and then knock down that opposing view.

What is the opposing view? Could you perhaps provide a little more detail?
Click to expand...

The only opposing view right now that actually attempts to posit an alternate cause for warming seems to be Svensmark's GCR theory.

A lot of the other deniers seem content merely to point at perceived flaws in AGW without actually trying to explain an alternate mechanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X