97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans, study finds

[Gheld]

Clearly you know better than the scientific community. Please enlighten us all with your plethora of evidence.

Arguing to authority.

[breadisfunny]

but what about the other 3% clearly there is some debate that must be resolved?

[Garnier Fructis]

Using the word proof like that proves that you don't understand the scientific method and you are being just as zealotous as somebody who "denies" it just because Rush Limbaugh does.

Most likely he means 'evidence' when he says 'proof.'

[Revi]

Using the word proof like that proves that you don't understand the scientific method and you are being just as zealotous as somebody who "denies" it just because Rush Limbaugh does.

The use of "proof" was specifically because he used the word, to keep his sentence as intact as possible while reshuffling the words to be more correct.

Nice rebuttal though, I'm sure climate change will be solved by semantics.

[Kretan]

This is old news.

But this thread is fucking depressing.

It really is. A small part in the back of my mind finds the opinions some have hilarious and entertaining though. The ravings of climate deniers are the same reason fox news is entertainment haha.

[iceberg265]

Arguing to authority.

Nope, I am asking you for evidence. Sarcastically, yes. But it is not a logical fallacy to ask someone who is ignoring evidence to provide evidence.

[Orlong]

The study, published recently in the Environmental Research Letters journal

Yeah, Im not going to believe some biased study commissioned by an environmental activist rag

[Magical Mudcrab]

Just ignore me... just realized I disagreed and then agreed with the article in two sentences. Gonna go jump off a building now.

[Orbitus]

This is a scam as much as Global warming is for money.....

IT;s still cold here in indiana in April....we had snow last week *granted small amount*

every person i know with a PhD thinks Global warming is a scam

my dad included who has a PhD in Biochemistry but also knows more about weather then most because he really wanted to be a meterologist but they do not pay/hard to get a job.

also it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out most of these models lack the Sun as a Variable and consider it a CONSTANT.
*this is why i like the sun spot Theory, but like climate change NONE OF IT HAS BEEN PROVEN AS FACT!

Planets climate has changed many times without humans even exisiting yet, and it is always changing......

Also if global warming is a disaster waiting to happen caused by humans, that means we should go to war with china in the name of saving DAH PLANET as they do more enviromental damage then anyone.

What the fuck did I just read? Are you for real? You do know that all people with PhDs aren't climatologists right? Your dad that is supposedly a "biochemist" has NOTHING to do with climatology.

[Gheld]

but what about the other 3% clearly there is some debate that must be resolved?

Theoretically that's how the scientific process works. Unless there's some feel good SJW narrative behind it.

[Garnier Fructis]

Again, more zealotous behaviour. You're commiting like a thousand logical fallacies here. But as long as it supports the SJW narrative it's okay right?

The links that Orbitus is taking issue with are bullshit, though. I've already explained numerous times on this board why their refutation of Cook is fundamentally flawed statistics.

[Gheld]

Nope, I am asking you for evidence. Sarcastically, yes. But it is not a logical fallacy to ask someone who is ignoring evidence to provide evidence.

It doesn't work that way. You don't have to provide evidence to the contrary. YOU have to provide a precise mathematical model that can be tested against a repeatable observation with 100% accuracy.

[Redasurc]

Science is only a fact until proven wrong.

[Garnier Fructis]

What the fuck did I just read? Are you for real? You do know that all people with PhDs aren't climatologists right? Your dad that is supposedly a "biochemist" has NOTHING to do with climatology.

People that take issue with a scientific field generally have a PHD in another field if they have a PHD, which is really rather telling. 'Physicist disagrees with evolution! He has a PHD!'

[Gheld]

Science is only a fact until proven wrong.

That's where it comes out as superior to dogma.

Dogma continues to perpetuate itself after being disproven.

[Orlong]

Okay. You have two options.

Go with the scientists, switch to green energy.

You forgot live with inferior products, higher prices, and big inconveniences

[Overdispersion]

Yeah, Im not going to believe some biased study commissioned by an environmental activist rag

Yeah it'd be much more believable if it was written by a football magazine...

[Magical Mudcrab]

This wasn't a poll. It was a meta-study. For example, one of the many studies involved looks at 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

And it's overwhelmingly clear. There is a global scientific consensus. Humans are causing changes within earths climate.

Except it's not overwhelmingly clear for that reason.
It doesn't actually matter that there's 11,944 abstracts that purport humans being the major cause of climate change. What matters is whether they are (and relative to those which deny climate change, they most definitely are) good-quality research. The truth of the matter is that these studies stand on their own merits, not because they are the most common result.

[Garnier Fructis]

Science is only a fact until proven wrong.

This wording suggests that science will eventually be proven wrong.

Which is rather likely for many parts of it. But applying it to the whole is bad logic.

[Orbitus]

This study is FALSE! It is information used by the whitehouse even though they knew it was incorrect. What it was, was a study that looked at other studies and publications in journals. For example, a publication about oil prices might reference global warming. The study would assert that this study suggests global warming is man made. So a guy paid a bunch of students to pour through scientific publications and journals and came to the conclusion that 97% of scientists believe global warming was man made.

A skeptic did a follow up study and contacted the journals and publications to see if they were asserting global warming was man made. Why did he do this? Because this new study stated to look at the journals and so no reference to man made global warming. The new study sent letters to the writers of the studies and journals and it turned out that only 3% said global warming was man made.

So there you have it, 3%. Don't believe me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

Stefan Molyneux is a fucking retard.