The "97% scientists agree" is a total lie. There are thousands of scientists...

>>hurr I love science
Who are you quoting?

>There are thousands of scientists, actual climatologists who do not agree that humans contribute significantly to climate change as actual data does not back up the alarmists claims.
No there aren't, and simply claiming there is some number of climatologists doesn't show that that number is greater than 3% of climatologists. Non sequitur.

>Earth's climate has been changing for 4 billion years and will continue to do so weather we are here or not.
Yes, but this change is much faster than any humans or the ecosystems we rely on have experienced. Non-sequitur.

>Some scientists believe in fact that we are headed for a new mini ice age due to suns diminished activity and he/she has done calculations to back up those claims. An ice age like the Maunder minimum.
The Maunder minimum had a miniscule effect compared to current global warming. Either you are misrepresenting your source or your source is misrepresenting the science.

>long list
That's like 70 scientists, only 4 of which are climatologists. Still think more than 3% disagree?

>Non sequitur.
You repeatedly use this term but it seems like you don't know what it means

That's a non sequitur

It means that your claims are irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Claiming that there are x number of climatologists does not show that greater than 3% of climatologists disagree with AGW. Saying that Earth's climate has been changing throughout it's entire history doesn't show that the current change is not happening or isn't extraordinary. Now did I really have to explain this to you like you are a child or are you just being obtuse?

Science isn't based on consensus, it's based on the evidence. These climate scientists aren't collecting the data for themselves, they're getting it on faith. Science shouldn't work like that.

>Now did I really have to explain this to you like you are a child or are you just being obtuse?
Ad hominem.

Next?

Your mind

>Science isn't based on consensus, it's based on the evidence.
You don't seem to understand what scientific consensus means. For example, when these studies say that 97% of scientists agree, they are actually saying that 97% of published research supports the theory. A consensus of evidence is indeed how science determines facts.

>These climate scientists aren't collecting the data for themselves, they're getting it on faith.
Wrong. Many of them are collecting data first hand, and then the rest are analyzing that data. It works the same in any other science. Do you think every physicist runs an experiment at CERN?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>ad hominem
Are you going to cry? Or are you just trying to avoid the fact that your claims are irrelevant?

non sequitur

How is that ad hominem?

So the latter then.

>Are you going to cry? Or are you just trying to avoid the fact that your claims are irrelevant?
Ad hominem.

Next?

If you aren't going to put any effort in these shitposts then you won't get any (You)s

>they are actually saying that 97% of published research supports the theory

And who's publishing the theories? They have to be approved first. Peer review creates power structures within science which is open to corruption and deceit.

>Many of them are collecting data first hand

They're measuring the entire earth's temperature? Got any examples?

If only a select amount of physicists can do experiments then it's not a consensus.

L y s e n k o i s m
> the day the music died

>And who's publishing the theories?
Climatologists.

>They have to be approved first. Peer review creates power structures within science which is open to corruption and deceit.
How so? Do you think only climatologists get peer reviewed?

>They're measuring the entire earth's temperature?
The entire Earth's temperature is the average of local temperatures.

>If only a select amount of physicists can do experiments then it's not a consensus.
So there is no consensus in physics? Weird claim. Only a select amount of physicists can do experiments because funding is not infinite and many physicists are only concerned with analyzing and theorizing, thus the difference between theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. The same is true in climatology. But this really has nothing to do with scientific consensus, which is not simply a consensus of experiments but of research. It seems like you are just making up arbitrary claims about science so that you can say climatology is wrong. Except these claims don't make much sense and could be easily applied to deny any science.

>For example, when these studies say that 97% of scientists agree, they are actually saying that 97% of published research supports the theory
You mean 97% of abstracts that included a stance supported the theory. In reality about a third took no stance since the science is not yet "settled".

Considering only global warming denial is ideologically mandated, Lysenkoism is much more analogous to you.

babby got a B- in Logic 101 so babby thinks any insult is automatically you trying to substitute the body of your argument as that insult

kind of adorable really

>global warming denial
You mean "skepticism".

>In reality about a third took no stance since the science is not yet "settled".
Or they needed not mention a stance since the science is already settled.

>Or they needed not mention a stance since the science is already settled.
Doesn't make sense if the others did mention a stance

Skepticism is based on evidence and reason, not political ideology. It's denial. But do feel free to actually criticize AGW with skepticism. Until then, you're in denial.

>political ideology
Who's talking about politics?

>Climatologists.

No bias there then.

>How so? Do you think only climatologists get peer reviewed?

Of course not, it's how it works all over.

>funding is not infinite

Who's doing the funding?

>many physicists are only concerned with analyzing and theorizing

That's not science then. You need practical experiments.

Can someone explain why the 3% are all wrong?

If 97% of the others mentioned a stance in the affirmative, that is exactly what we would expect from a settled matter.

>If 97% of the others mentioned a stance in the affirmative, that is exactly what we would expect from a settled matter.
But you just said there's no reason to mention a stance if it's settled

I didn't say that you were talking about politics, I said that your denial is motivated by poltical ideology.

But if you want:
>The us delegate who presented climate "research" at the Paris Agreement summit/meeting straight up lied about climate data to make it look more serious. It's all a scam and big business.
>What really makes me mad is that most climate change supporters aren't even scientists. It's mostly business men and dirty politicians like Al gore.

>I didn't say that you were talking about politics, I said that your denial is motivated by poltical ideology.
I'm apolitical, so I doubt it.

>No bias there then.
No more than any other science.

>Who's doing the funding?
Various governments, mostly.

>That's not science then. You need practical experiments.
Science is both experimentation and analysis. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You should learn a little more about science before coming on the science board and trying to tell others what science is and isn't.

FUCK YOU GLOBAL WARMING ERR I MEAN CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL YOU DIRTY CAPITALIST REEEEEEE

You'll have to present a specific argument if you want it to be shown wrong. That's like asking to explain why the 97% are all wrong.

>You'll have to present a specific argument if you want it to be shown wrong.
I'm not sure what's not specific enough. What could be ambiguous about the 3%?

>But you just said there's no reason to mention a stance if it's settled
No I didn't. I said that the 1/3 of people who did not mention a stance did not mention a stance because they felt no need to, not because they couldn't. It's not like every paper is written in the exact same context with the exact same intent.

>the 1/3 of people who did not mention a stance did not mention a stance because they felt no need to, not because they couldn't
[citation needed]

Science doesn't work by having a small group of people do experiments, they have to be repeated by the wider scientific community to have any scientific validity.

Then why do you deny AGW?

The 3% is a group of published scientists or papers, not an argument.

>Then why do you deny AGW?
You can keep using the word "deny" if you feel like it helps your position, but repeating something doesn't make it true.

>In reality about a third took no stance since the science is not yet "settled".
[citation needed]

>The 3% is a group of published scientists or papers, not an argument.
I'm not sure what this has to do with my post.

Why is the 3% wrong?

I don't know where you got the idea that only a small group of climatologists do measurements, or that climatological measurement and analysis is not repeated. The premise of your argument is false.

If you actually presented a rational argument or evidence for your position, then I would call it skepticism. Until then I just see denial. Your failure to do so is not my fault.

Did you misread my post?

I asked for a specific argument and you said the 3% is specific enough. Do you know what an argument is?

>If you actually presented a rational argument or evidence for your position, then I would call it skepticism. Until then I just see denial. Your failure to do so is not my fault.
If all you choose to "see" is "denial", then your failure to see the reality of it (skepticism) is not my fault.

>I asked for a specific argument and you said the 3% is specific enough.
Yes, the 3% of papers that are in the complement of the 97%. Either the abstract lands in the 97% of the 3%, there's no middle ground. Which part of this confuses you?

No.

You couldn't even answer the question by pointing to a post in this thread, so I think we all can see there is no argument here.

97% or* the 3%

>You couldn't even answer the question
There was no question in the post I replied to.

Next?

We only got a few decades worth of climate records. And geological records aren't sensitive enough to measure the climate to the decade this is all silly.

Which part of this post identifies a specific argument?

>No.
Then I'll assume you have no evidence for the claim that the scientists just "felt no need to".

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

How many people have access to the raw data spat out by satellites? And how can they be 100% sure that even that data is accurate because it's still second hand data which is prone to inaccuracies.

The question was the one you avoided farther up the thread, why do you deny AGW?

>Which part of this post identifies a specific argument?
"the 3% of papers that are in the complement of the 97%"

Are you saying this 3% is ambiguous in some way? I'm not sure what part of this confuses you.

>The question was the one you avoided farther up the thread, why do you deny AGW?
The question is irrelevant as I don't deny AGW (and there's no post in this thread where I claimed that I did). Repeating something does not make it true. A better question is why you think I deny AGW.

That's false, we have more than a century of instrumental temperature records. But why is this even relevant? Which part of AGW would be disproved by not having temperature records past a few decades?

Then I'll assume you have no evidence these scientists thought the issue wasn't settled, meaning I have no need to respond to the claim in the first place.

>we have more than a century of instrumental temperature records
ie a few decades
>Which part of AGW would be disproved by not having temperature records past a few decades?
the part where you say the rate is out of proportion and something that hasn't happened before

>How many people have access to the raw data spat out by satellites?
Anyone with an internet connection:

realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

>And how can they be 100% sure that even that data is accurate because it's still second hand data which is prone to inaccuracies.
We don't need to be 100% sure, just a certain level of certainty and accuracy is needed. The same is true in everything else. Why are you trying to exert unrealistic constraints on the argument instead of contending with the substance?

Still no specific argument. Try again.

Ah then you admit AGW is real, good.

>Still no specific argument. Try again.
Which part is confusing to you? Can you point to one of the publications that landed in either both or neither of the 3% and 97%? I can't tell where any ambiguity would arise.

>Ah then you admit AGW is real, good.
Can you make up your mind? Last post you said I denied it.

>the part where you say the rate is out of proportion and something that hasn't happened before
The rate is out of proportion of both the instrumental and paleoclimate records. The paleoclimate data has a small enough resolution to allow us to make this comparison. For example, interglacial warming is an order of magnitude slower than current warming.

>Ah then you admit AGW is real, good.
Unfortunately for you, claiming that I both accept and deny AGW does not make AGW real, nor does it have anything to do with my actual position as a skeptic.

Next?

I'm asking you to point to one. I'm not going to both present an argument for you and debunk it.

You're confused. You denied it throughout this thread and only now are you claiming that you aren't. For example, in the OP you claimed "It's all a scam and big business." You're the one who can't make up your mind.

I didn't claim you both accept and deny it, so your point is irrelevant.

>I didn't claim you both accept and deny it
see:
>Ah then you admit AGW is real, good.
>why do you deny AGW?

Next?

>You denied it throughout this thread and only now are you claiming that you aren't.
Can you point to such a post?

>The paleoclimate data has a small enough resolution to allow us to make this comparison.
oh really so the paleoclimate data is precise to the decade? so you'd be able to tell me the average temperature in the decade between the year 5.677.250 and the year 5.677.240?

>realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

I don't see a direct connection to a satellite anywhere.

>a certain level of certainty and accuracy is needed

Can you define that level?

You do realize both those posts are in the present tense and made at different times right?

I did in the post you're replying to. Don't be obtuse.

>You do realize both those posts are in the present tense and made at different times right?
My stance hasn't changed throughout this thread. I was a skeptic before and after you claimed I "denied" it (which I did not, but you can attempt to point to such a post), and before and after I "admitted" it was real (which I did not, but you can attempt to point to such a post).

Next?

You didn't ask for a direct connection, you asked for raw data. It would be foolish to give anyone on the internet the capability to connect directly to your satellite, possibly endangering it.

>I did in the post you're replying to.
That's not my post, but you can continue to misrepresent my position if strawmen are easier for you to argue against.

>My stance hasn't changed throughout this thread.
But it has. As I already showed, and you ignored, in the OP you claimed it's a all a scam and then later you claimed you never denied it.

>I'm asking you to point to one. I'm not going to both present an argument for you and debunk it.
Do you not know how to navigate the literature? They're all available here:
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

>But it has.
Where?

>in the OP
That's not my post, but you can continue to misrepresent my position if strawmen are easier for you to argue against.

Thanks I will.

If that is not your post, why are you responding to a thread which started by me replying to the OP:

Again, you fail to present a specific argument, try again.