Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzug
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Alex Epstein, the author of your Forbes article, is not a scientist. He runs a for-profit think tank relating to fossil fuels. You're skeptical of anything related to the government but willing to trust a single person whose livelihood is directly related to denying climate change.
1
Here's a direct response to his article: https://features.weather.com/course-...isinformation/
Here are actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (read: not Forbes magazine) on the issue:
2
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/307/5708/355
3
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
4
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
5
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...S-D-13-00091.1
6
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
7
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta
8
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../2/024024/meta
9
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...26/11/4/048002 (This last one is a synthesis on many of the different studies, all peer-reviewed, unlike Epstein's work.)
These studies demonstrate a range of 91-100% scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change. Most, however, are around 97%. A common refrain among climate change deniers is that this is a power grab. But this doesn't hold up: these scientists come from different countries and have many different sources of funding, as do the different government agencies from different countries, all of which overwhelmingly agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change. Besides, there's actually a huge financial incentive (see: Alex Epstein) to bring legitimate evidence to bear that climate change in fact is not real. If it was available, we would see it. Alas, unfortunately, the problem is very real.
I'll spare you the insult of "moron" that you issued to me, but either you need to get more informed on this topic or you should proceed with a bit more intellectual humility. |
I commend you for making the attempt at reasoned argument. The fact it took 14 pages for you people to do so says a lot about the real basis for your beliefs. Not facts, but feelings.
1
Nothing you say addresses my argument, in fact some of it supports it. The Forbes article wasn't relying on the author's scientific knowledge, he interviewed people and it contains quotes from scientists who say they were listed amongst the 97%who think humans aren't causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it. The arguments stated in my links against the nonsensical "97%" claims still hold.
2
Not sure what this is supposed to show, but its not related to global warming.
3
Directly refuted by my links.
4
Directly refuted by my links. Pro AGW scientists are paid to write lots of studies, so they have lots of studies. Basically, this article claims that the more articles someone posts the more "votes" they get on whether something is true or not. Truth is not determined by popular vote.
5
"a 26.3% response rate [to emails sent to AMS members]"
"There has been tension in recent years among American Meteorological Society (AMS) members who hold different views on climate change (Schweizer et al. 2011). Some members have expressed that their views, which question the view that human-caused global warming was occurring, are treated with hostility within the AMS (Schweizer et al. 2011)."
In other words, up to 3/4 of the members might disagree with the "consensus" of the 1 in 4 who responded to the survey. They never even say what % of that 1/4 agrees, so it could be as little as 51% of 1/4, which means that 1/8 of AMS might actually be supportive. Very suspicious they don't put that rate in the abstract...
"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%)."
So the most relevant field (meteorology) is only 64% supportive of man-made global warming. Modify that further downward due to the political and social pressure, and you see why we think you people are crazy to think there is any kind of consensus.
"...data from the present survey found that only 59% of AMS members agree that 81%–100% of climate scientists think that global warming is happening (Maibach et al. 2012)."
So even scientists within this skewed sample don't have a consensus that there is a consensus...
6
Same reliance on the "97%" claims that have been debunked. Same preponderance of government sources.
7
Refuted by my links.
==
Most of what your argument seems to be "sure you debunked the 97% studies, but here are the links to those studies you debunked so let's pretend they now make sense." They don't. Reread the 2 articles I provided, note how in some cases they specifically mention your studies and explain how they are invalid.
Thank you for at least attempting reasoned discourse. The more of it that happens, the more people will agree that AGW is a hoax. Perhaps this is why you people are so loathe to engage in logical argument...