Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  08:10:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Some have, but believers in the theory tend to discount or ignore them.

Remember:"The sky is falling" sells

"Everything is O.K." doesnt sell.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25977 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  08:21:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Remember:"The sky is falling" sells

"Everything is O.K." doesnt sell.
And neither the absence of a consensus, nor the existence of a conspiracy, is required for the news media to shout "the sky is falling." They do that just fine, all on their own, and the only pockets they're looking to line are theirs.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13459 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  08:29:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
You know, I could provide many sources, as I have done before for Bill Scott that may have been used in the IPCC report but were not specifically researched for that report. The thing is, most of the science is funded through grants in all of the countries that are doing climate science. Some of those grants are invariably government grants, though it should be noted that much of that money is provided indirectly, through the educational institutions where most of research goes on, for the obvious reason that they are home to most of the scientists. In other words, the money is used to fund research by the institutions in order of priority.

Other monies are provided privately by corporations, the military, and by donations to private institutions.

And that goes for all of science and not just climate research.

The problem is that you Jerome will not accept any of the conclusions based on a criteria that is far and away unreasonable. All of scientific research takes money to conduct. Why then accept any science at all? Based on your criteria we should dismiss evolution as another government hoax. Or particle physics or you name it.

You have set the bar so high, almost no research would qualify as untainted. And yet, I am sure you do accept the findings of much research done in other areas. You have therefore cherry picked the one science you don't agree with even though they are no different from any of the other areas of science in where they get the money to do the research…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  08:52:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Some have, but believers in the theory tend to discount or ignore them.

Remember:"The sky is falling" sells

"Everything is O.K." doesnt sell.
You seem keen on percentages. What percentage of legitimate climate scientists is "some"? What percentage makes up a "consensus"? And how do you respond to the notion that you "discount or ignore" those legitimate climate scientists who have argued for global warming?
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  18:56:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Cuneiformist--- 30 scientists and 270 government agents do not make a "world wide scientific consensus".

Believers tend to argue "world wide scientific consensus" whenever a scientist with an opposing view speaks.

This is not a fair argument as "world wide scientific consensus" is not true.


"What percentage makes up a "consensus"?"

---100% of 30 scientists is not "world wide"

"And how do you respond to the notion that you "discount or ignore" those legitimate climate scientists who have argued for global warming?"

---I do not "discount or ignore" any of the data, I look at it as a whole.





What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  18:58:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Kil--- I have not argued that because money is funded from government to science that science is corrupt.

I have argued that this science is being misrepresented by government.




I just got flood controlled!!!


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:03:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Cuneiformist--- 30 scientists and 270 government agents do not make a "world wide scientific consensus".

Believers tend to argue "world wide scientific consensus" whenever a scientist with an opposing view speaks.

This is not a fair argument as "world wide scientific consensus" is not true.


"What percentage makes up a "consensus"?"

---100% of 30 scientists is not "world wide"

"And how do you respond to the notion that you "discount or ignore" those legitimate climate scientists who have argued for global warming?"

---I do not "discount or ignore" any of the data, I look at it as a whole.
You're so obtuse. There's no point in even arguing. Yes, governments control the stream of scientific information in order to tax citizens and get rich. Only smart people like you can see it for what it is. Go tell the New York Times and go away.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:19:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Cuneiformist---"There's no point in even arguing. Yes, governments control the stream of scientific information in order to tax citizens and get rich."

YEAA, I win.




Its not to "get rich", its control.

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13459 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:32:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Kil--- I have not argued that because money is funded from government to science that science is corrupt.

I have argued that this science is being misrepresented by government.


Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Kil---Scientist are just men like you or I.

Most men can be compromised.


So, you forgot this about discussion? You did argue that scientists, based on funding, could not be trusted.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:42:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Cuneiformist---"There's no point in even arguing. Yes, governments control the stream of scientific information in order to tax citizens and get rich."

YEAA, I win.




Its not to "get rich", its control.

You win for being stupid? GREAT! Claim all the victory you want!
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:48:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Kil---"You did argue that scientists, based on funding, could not be trusted.'


Not at all, I argued that all men could be compromised in response to:

"You think a scientist would sit by if he thought his research was

being misused?" which implied that a scientist could not be

compromised.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:53:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Cuneiformist---" You win for being stupid"

A win is a win.

Your not taking this too seriously are you? I hope not as I enjoy your retorts.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  19:59:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Cuneiformist---" You win for being stupid"

A win is a win.

Your not taking this too seriously are you? I hope not as I enjoy your retorts.
I'd like to fight a fair fight. If you refuse to acknowledge evidence you or I present and then claim victory, it's just stupid. What's the point? If you're really just having fun, then go to the humor folder and tell jokes!
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13459 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  20:03:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

From the AAAS, Science:

...IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect...





Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2007 :  20:52:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message
Kill---This is not a fair presentation of the survey of the data.

We are told that 75% the papers looked at, accept the view of mmgw including "evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals"

We are also told "Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.


This is dishonest.

These papers "may believe its natural" but counted as accepting mmgw.







What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.41 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000