I asked you a question. Is that your answer?
What consensus? The consensus within a minority?
Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
I asked you a question. Is that your answer?
What consensus? The consensus within a minority?
I'll believe that Flossy is not just trolling us with his global warming, when he posts what kind of gas burner he drives and his gas usage usage for one year....Mine is all ready to post...screen capture from my phone app!
As they say.....Put your money where your mouth is or else be called a hypocrite!
As they say.....Put your money where your mouth is or else be called a hypocrite!
I can give far more detailed statistics from mpg to lbs of CO2 per mile to average vaccum boost right down to blown shifts and I didn't forget that coffee I owe you.
Re: Climate change shock: Burning fos vsil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
Once again, 97% of 33% is dick. Here's your consensus. Of all the scientists surveyed whose discipline was either climate science or their discipline involved knowledge of climate science, only about 1/3 actually responded. Of that 1/3, 97% agreed that humans were the primary contributor.
The other 2/3 that didn't respond claimed the questions on the survey were written to arrive at a pre-determined answer. Much like many polls and surveys done to the public.
No it's based on really bad math.
Once again, 97% of 33% is dick. Here's your consensus. Of all the scientists surveyed whose discipline was either climate science or their discipline involved knowledge of climate science, only about 1/3 actually responded. Of that 1/3, 97% agreed that humans were the primary contributor.
The other 2/3 that didn't respond claimed the questions on the survey were written to arrive at a pre-determined answer. Much like many polls and surveys done to the public.
Jobs mostly.And a decent standard of living. Unless you happen to be a government employee.
... No one works, no one gets hurt... It's the safe thing to do and, uhhh, please think of the children
No one knows. One of the theories for the ordivician mass extinction was because there were too many plants which lead to a global cooling. Then there's Venus with its run away greenhouse affect (forge it's proximity to the sun). I may not be a scientist, but I know for sure the scientists are just as clueless as iam in regards to this climate conundrum.
Really? So Climatology isn't a scientific discipline? Or were you speaking in the rhetorical?
Yeah climatologists. If you are a psychologist and write a paper on potential psychological effects of climate change you are deemed a "climate scientist".
Go through the dossiers of IPCC so called "climate scientists" sometime.
Sustainable pollution.
Soooo that means there's no such thing at all as a climate scientist? Are you telling me that climatology is not a scientific discipline?
I see the point you're driving at though. Anyone with a degree who sides with the AGW argument is considered an "expert" by the acolytes, but a paleontologist, or geologist, or anthropologist who does have some education and knowledge of climatology because it's part of their discipline and disagrees with the conclusions are somehow not experts because they aren't "actual" climatologists.
There are climatologists indeed. Call one a climate scientist and see how long it takes for him/her to correct you.
As mentioned, go over the resumes of who they are calling climate scientists and the topics of their papers.
A hairstylist could be labeled a climate scientist and polled in the formation of an alleged consensus if they wrote and submitted paper on the effects of climate on curl springiness.
As mentioned, go over the resumes of who they are calling climate scientists and the topics of their papers.
A hairstylist could be labeled a climate scientist and polled in the formation of an alleged consensus if they wrote and submitted paper on the effects of climate on curl springiness.
Call a paleontologist a "bone scientist" and I'm sure they'll correct you pretty quickly as well. At this point you're arguing semantics.
No need. I'm well aware of the process that resulted in that so-called "consensus".
[
No, not semantics when a psychologist is dubbed a "climate scientist" when he has zero credentials in anything that deals with climate or the systems involved.
Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges
Climate science or psychology?
Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges
Climate science or psychology?
Re: Climate change shock: Burning fos vsil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
Nope. Not at all. It is based on ideology, politics, and money.
Nope. Not at all. It is based on ideology, politics, and money.
Ok, now I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I already agreed with you. However, I said you were arguing semantics because you mentioned how one would be corrected for calling a climatologist a "climate scientist". By the very definition of the word, a climatologist is a scientist who studies the climate and its effects, both current and past. The climatologist may feel some perverse need to correct you, but you still wouldn't be wrong in calling them a climate scientist.
