I personally debunked that here just the other day. I gave you the first forty listed and you couldn't find one that supported AGC. That's pretty sad.
. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: > > My favourite link on the topic: > > http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart > > 13926 studies support human caused climate change vs. 24. > > That's a pretty good definition of scientific consensus. > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:19 PM, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately, when discussing the scientific community as a whole and > it's > > consensus, we can't just "confining the question to geoscientists and > > engineers", which is the basis for this entire article. > > > > I know you can show me a few studies, or point to a few articles that > > question this group or that group...but I need a consensus. Actually, > i'll > > just settle for a simple majority. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So what is a consensus? A majority? A plurality? A large group? > > > 39%? > > > > > > > > > > > > http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm > > > > > > > > > The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that > > > there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate > change. > > > Fact is, they're not even close. > > > Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases > > are > > > heating the earth. Of course there are some who don't. > > > But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it > turns > > > out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth's > > climate > > > to warm. > > > > > > > > > This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper "Science or Science > > Fiction? > > > Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change" and this > group > > is > > > categorized as the "Comply with Kyoto" cohort. > > > Members of this group, not unexpectedly, "express the strong belief > that > > > climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, > and > > > humans are the main or central cause." > > > Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. > > > Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the > Copenhagen > > > Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 > > > professional engineers and geoscientists. > > > Their work also revealed that 24% "believe that changes to the climate > > are > > > natural, normal cycles of the earth" while another 10% consider the > > "'real' > > > cause of climate change" to be "unknown" and acknowledge that "nature > is > > > forever changing and uncontrollable." > > > The 10% group, known as the "Economic Responsibility" cohort, expresses > > > "much stronger and more negative emotions than any other group, > > especially > > > that climate science is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, > > > useless, and impossible." > > > The 24% group, tagged as the "Nature is Overwhelming" faction, is the > > "most > > > likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, > > > 'manipulated and fraudulent'" and is "least likely to believe that the > > > scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate." > > > The researchers also found a group they call the "Fatalists" the 17% > > who > > > "diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused," > "consider > > > climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their > > > personal life" and "are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled > > > regarding the IPCC modeling." > > > Lefsrud and Meyer also note that "skepticism regarding anthropogenic > > > climate change remains" among climate scientists. They mention, as > well, > > > that "the proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database > > > that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from > 75% > > > (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to > > 2008, > > > while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6%." > > > > > > If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they > are > > > getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the > > green > > > shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, > has > > > "with a few weeks of growth still to occur ... blown away the previous > > > record for ice gain this winter." > > > "This is only the third winter in history," when more than 10 million > > > square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science > > > reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the > > > University of Illinois. > > > At the same time, the Antarctic "is now approaching 450 days of > > > uninterrupted above normal ice area," says the skeptical website Watts > Up > > > With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate > > Research > > > data, notes that "the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal" > > was > > > Nov. 22, 2011. > > > This is all illuminating information. But it won't get the same media > > > attention given to Al Gore and the usual assortment of eco-radicals, > > > because it violates the narrative that our selfish activities are > warming > > > this planet. > > > It is consistent, however, with what most people call common sense. > > > > > > Read More At Investor's Business Daily: > > > > > > > > > http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, why'd you cut off the last line of that first paragraph?? Here, > > i'll > > > > add it back in for ya: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it > > is > > > > not > > > > > part of the scientific method. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments > and > > > the > > > > scientific method." > > > > > > > > But of course. One study suggests only what one study suggests. It > uses > > > the > > > > scientific method. Only multiple studies could reach what is > > considered a > > > > "consensus", or in the case of global warming, THOUSANDS of studies. > > > > > > > > What i seek is really simple, Sam: A collection of scientific studies > > > who's > > > > results refute the hypothesis that increased rate of change of global > > > > warming today is caused by human activity, that is larger and more > > > > convincing than the same set of studies which support that > hypothesis. > > > > > > > > If you can bring that, i'm on board. If you can't, i stick with the > > > > scientists. Pure, simple, no religion involved. If you can't do that, > > > then > > > > I won't demand that you change your position, but i will demand that > > you > > > > cease accusing my position of being based on "religion"...because I > > will > > > > have proven otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:362649 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
