Scientific consensus: humans cause globe warming?

Created by The Respected Doofinator on Oct 7, 2007

477 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#23 Oct 17, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
We should all wonder if consensus has nothing to do with science, why are skeptics scrambling so madly to prove there isn't a consensus?
Could it be because consensus isn't as irrelevant as they claim?
As Schwarzenegger said:
"If 98 doctors say my son is ill and needs medication and two say 'No he doesn’t he is fine,' I will go with the 98. It's common sense"
He also once said
"Get Your Ass to Mars"
Go back in time and tell all of this babble to those living in Nazi Germany. The consensus of opinion is that the Cthulhu's must go. Therefore it is right just and proper that the Cthulhu's be loaded on the trains. The consensus is holy righteous and true. GAG!

Replace Nazi Germany with whatever you want. The point is the same. Consensus is a meaningless attempt to give credibility to things such as crimes against humanity. AGW is a money sucking scam fraud. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-g...

“Climate change + politics”

Since: Oct 07

Basel Switzerland

#24 Oct 17, 2007
Okay. I am a sceptic. I don't trust anybody who does something for money, weather it be government funding or private funding. Heck, here in Switzerland many people believe that all scientists who are dependant on private funding are somehow hooked up with the oil industry, and thus their science is wrong. But if it is public funding (GISS NASA, MET Office, IPCC, it is immaculate science. I am sick and tired of it. That's why I am here:-).

Because I don't trust blindly what comes from the IPCC, I did some research and posted the summary here: http://climatepatrol.blogspot.com/2007/09/con... .
You see, I am a sceptic who accepts a certain consensus;-)
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#25 Oct 17, 2007
climatepatrol wrote:
Okay. I am a sceptic. I don't trust anybody who does something for money, weather it be government funding or private funding. Heck, here in Switzerland many people believe that all scientists who are dependant on private funding are somehow hooked up with the oil industry, and thus their science is wrong. But if it is public funding (GISS NASA, MET Office, IPCC, it is immaculate science. I am sick and tired of it. That's why I am here:-).
Because I don't trust blindly what comes from the IPCC, I did some research and posted the summary here: http://climatepatrol.blogspot.com/2007/09/con... .
You see, I am a sceptic who accepts a certain consensus;-)
climatepatrol a rational soul! You might also find this link worth reading.
Survey of State Climate Experts http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climatologists1...

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#26 Oct 17, 2007
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back in time and tell all of this babble to those living in Nazi Germany.
How do you explain why players of millionaire on TV consistently go with the majority opinion when they "ask the audience"?(hint: its not because they're Nazis)

If you can grasp why they do that and why it usually works, well done you've just grasped the entire point and the benefit of consensus whcih is to help people reach a conclusion.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#27 Oct 17, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you explain why players of millionaire on TV consistently go with the majority opinion when they "ask the audience"?(hint: its not because they're Nazis)
If you can grasp why they do that and why it usually works, well done you've just grasped the entire point and the benefit of consensus whcih is to help people reach a conclusion.
A group of teens agreeing that "yes we can jump off a 200 foot building and walk away unharmed" Has zero credibility as a factual statement. Cthulhu you just can't be as stupid as you appear to be. Consensus is meaningless in the determination of fact. Come on Cthulhu you just can't be as stupid as you appear to be.

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#28 Oct 17, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you explain why players of millionaire on TV consistently go with the majority opinion when they "ask the audience"?(hint: its not because they're Nazis)
If you can grasp why they do that and why it usually works, well done you've just grasped the entire point and the benefit of consensus whcih is to help people reach a conclusion.
If this is your best argument in support of the relevance of consensus to science, it is a really dumb argument.

The Respected Doofinator
Bill

Canada

#29 Oct 17, 2007
Cthulhu, you're trying to tell creationists that consensus in science is fairly reliable.
Any idea why they don't get that?

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#30 Oct 18, 2007
pjam2825 wrote:
The self obsessed and corporate wolves say NO
your arguments are so profound ...... ly stupid

“First take log out of own eye ”

Since: Jan 07

Defender of Islamic Iran

#31 Oct 18, 2007
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
your arguments are so profound ...... ly stupid
Why Iran not allowed nuclear power plant?

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#32 Oct 18, 2007
Cthulhu wrote:
We should all wonder if consensus has nothing to do with science, why are skeptics scrambling so madly to prove there isn't a consensus?
Could it be because consensus isn't as irrelevant as they claim?
As Schwarzenegger said:
"If 98 doctors say my son is ill and needs medication and two say 'No he doesn’t he is fine,' I will go with the 98. It's common sense"
He also once said
"Get Your Ass to Mars"
the problem is the warmaholics constantly fiddle the numbers on;
consensus
temperatures
hurricanes
climate extremes
sea levels
so to take your analogy - id rather go with the doctors who rely on empirical evidence about my health rather than the ones who are using me as an experiment to test their unproved theory .

history is littered with tragic casualties where humans are used as guinea pigs for doctors and pharmaceutical companies - yeah the exaggerated spin is always the same (its proven, 100% support etc etc) but the consequences horrific - just like AGW

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#33 Oct 18, 2007
pjam2825 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why Iran not allowed nuclear power plant?
is it that difficult for you to stick to the topic

“Climate change + politics”

Since: Oct 07

Basel Switzerland

#34 Oct 18, 2007
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
climatepatrol a rational soul! You might also find this link worth reading.
Survey of State Climate Experts http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climatologists1...
Thanks for the link. You are referring to an article released by "Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation". Are you an "American for Prosperity" or a "Freedom Works"er?:-). Can you make a statment regarding the following Widipedia review: On July 23, 2006 the Washington Post reported on the organization's tactics in signing up as members people who did not even know about the organization, by enrolling them as members during unrelated transactions in order to boost membership numbers. The group obtained over $638,000 and about 16,000 members through the sale of insurance policies in this way.[1]

“First take log out of own eye ”

Since: Jan 07

Defender of Islamic Iran

#35 Oct 18, 2007
Man made Climate change is real, I have looked at all the evidence and it is beyond doubt.

People that do not except CC are delusional and can’t except basic scientific principles.

It is time to move on and look how to fix this problem.
Nuclear will need to play a large role in the future because of CC so:

Why is Iran denied nuclear power?

“Speaking Truth to Doofusses”

Since: Jan 07

The Holy City of San Jose, CA

#36 Oct 18, 2007
pjam2825 wrote:
Man made Climate change is real, I have looked at all the evidence and it is beyond doubt.
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up.

Do you also do stock market tips or football picks?

The Respected Doofinator

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#37 Oct 18, 2007
Bill wrote:
Cthulhu, you're trying to tell creationists that consensus in science is fairly reliable.
Any idea why they don't get that?
I agree, waste of time.

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#38 Oct 18, 2007
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
the problem is the warmaholics constantly fiddle the numbers on;
consensus
temperatures
hurricanes
climate extremes
sea levels
I disagree with the premise.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#39 Oct 18, 2007
Bill wrote:
Cthulhu, you're trying to tell creationists that consensus in science is fairly reliable.
Any idea why they don't get that?
You are completely ignorant of history. Easily demonstrated by looking at any culture at any time in history. Consensus in “science” is totally meaningless now as it was then.

Go to some Island and see what their consensus is concerning anything resembling “science” and compare it to another culture. Duh hello. Just because you attempt to claim that most people believe it, does not make it true.

At one time the consensus was that trolls, fairies… etc. etc. To claim that consensus equals truth at minimum just reveals a complete ignorance of history.(just for starters)

Since: May 07

Sheffield, UK

#40 Oct 18, 2007
But consensus is the most logical option when you aren't in a position to judge for yourself (and none of us are when it comes to the real science details)

It's not that consensus is always right, but that said it is more often right than fringe theories. Fringe theories are a penny a dozen and are nearly always wrong for mainly that reason.

It's like the schwartzneggar quote I gave. If 98 doctors say one thing and 2 say the other, sure those 2 could be right and the 98 are wrong, but logically you have to go with the consensus of the 98.
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#41 Oct 18, 2007
climatepatrol wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the link. You are referring to an article released by "Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation". Are you an "American for Prosperity" or a "Freedom Works"er?:-). Can you make a statment regarding the following Widipedia review: On July 23, 2006 the Washington Post reported on the organization's tactics in signing up as members people who did not even know about the organization, by enrolling them as members during unrelated transactions in order to boost membership numbers. The group obtained over $638,000 and about 16,000 members through the sale of insurance policies in this way.[1]
I am neither ("American for Prosperity" or a "Freedom Works"er?:-). I never heard of them until now.

Can you make a statement regarding:

I found and read what you refer to. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

I have learned that when money and power is at stake. Lies and all manner of evil will surface. Mixed in with all of the deception is truth.
A person should become adept at recognizing the two. A persons behavior reveals if they have developed this skill. Rabid allegiance to one party generally indicates that person has not learned that skill. Even Al Gore tells the truth. But it is not all truth. On balance Al’s shtick is lies. The refusal to tolerate opposition testimony reveals that. The labeling and silencing of “skeptic denier” voices reveals that. The Skeptic deniers” acknowledge that there is some truth in global warming, further revealing something wrong with Al’s shtick.

A person(group) that has become adept at recognizing the two is far more credible and likely to tell the truth than a person(group) that has not.

Anyway, the conservative political group Citizens for a Sound Economy is a player in the money and power gig. They are no more pure as the wind driven snow than any other. What they say can be true just as well as it could be false. My observations can be rather accurately summed up as follows.
Conservatives (political right) caught red handed in the money and power game, generally are embarrassed even to the point of apologetic resignation. And tend to stay more distant from stuff to possibly get caught doing. Although it‘s mighty tempting.(always some exceptions)

Liberals (political left) on the other hand caught red handed in the money and power game, generally make every attempt to cover up, confuse and distract from that fact. They almost like doing it. Just another behavior option to engage in.(always some exceptions) A good illustration is Bill Clinton’s “that depends on what your definition of the word “is” is”

On balance the right tends to tell the truth more than the left does. The peddling of global warming is done mostly by the political left.
“In the United States, a February 2007 survey found that 95% of the 41 Congressional Democrats surveyed agreed "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems" while only 13% of the 31 Republicans surveyed agreed”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_glob...
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#42 Oct 18, 2007
Bill Clinton’s “that depends on what your definition of the word “is” is”

http://www.slate.com/id/1000162

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The future of transport 59 min Earthling-1 9
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Earthling-1 5,586
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 53,530
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 11 hr litesong 2,121
News Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing A... 13 hr litesong 12
Seeking a objective petspective on CO2's abilit... Mon Earthling-1 20
Global Cooling Mon Earthling-1 77
More from around the web