Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[waldo]

Who cares when it's been as vast as it has been for so long now? What possible difference could another percentage point or two make either way?

I believe it was member, 'The_Squid', that made this same point early on. These fake-skeptic/denier types have lost all credibility in terms of contesting the actual science... so they presume to now go after the consensus. Of course, from this thread, it's quite clear they don't even know what they're contesting... or at last they refuse to state/define what it is they contest.

Now that science itself has been so besmirched by this debacle we're probably doomed to become lost and confused on a range of issues that require a bias towards reality.

that is exactly what these fake-skeptic/denying fomenters of doubt and misinformation aim for

.

[waldo]

I've engaged you numerous times on this board and each time I've shown you the door. I used to take pleasure in beating you in what I thought was a fair debate. Even though I have no problems with beating you, I do have a problem with engaging a dishonest poster....like yourself

yup! You can't argue the science - you can't; you quite clearly can't!

have you found where your blog science was published yet?

[bleeding heart]

Accountability Now,

Why are you claiming that "everyone is sold in [sic] Waldo's dishonesty"?

This is patently not the case.

You're playing at an argument ad populum; but worse, actually, because it doesn't even rise to the low level of that fallacy.

That is, claiming God exists because most people believe it is an argument ad populum. (The second clause is true, but the first one does not follow from it.) Claiming that Waldo is dishonest because "everyone is sold" on the idea isn't even accurate by the low standards of argument fallacies.

[TimG]

I've engaged you numerous times on this board and each time I've shown you the door. I used to take pleasure in beating you in what I thought was a fair debate. Even though I have no problems with beating you, I do have a problem with engaging a dishonest poster....like yourself

A couple things I have learned about the debating climate on this forum:

1) A most alarmists are cheerleaders and have no interest in investing time thinking about the arguments. All they look to see is that some random text has been posted which claims to "rebut" a skeptical argument. They don't care if the text is a bunch of gibberish because they don't really try to understand it.

2) Waldo is obsessed with getting the last word. If he can't paste a link to some paper which does not actually refute the point you made, he will hurl ad homs at you or your source. The best thing to do to keep a thread on track is to let him have the last word. Responding to him is not that important if you remember 1).

[eyeball]

In the meantime the vast vast vast majority of scientists and their findings, conclusions and advice cannot even come close to the effect and influence that such a minute and shrinking minority have been able to exert on our governments.

I find that astounding not to mention chilling, no pun intended.

[TimG]

In the meantime the vast vast vast majority of scientists and their findings, conclusions and advice cannot even come close to the effect and influence that such a minute and shrinking minority have been able to exert on our governments.

Excuse me? I am not aware of any climate scientists that have have qualifications to advise on what to do about climate change because the question of what to do is largely a economic, political and technological question.

IOW - your argument is based on a false premise.

Edited March 8, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Excuse me, but I'm talking about the qualifications of economists and politicians that ignore what vast vast VAST majorities of scientists and experts in far more technically complex fields of study are saying and have been saying for years.

IOW - you're arguing with your own fabricated premise.

[TimG]

Excuse me, but I'm talking about the qualifications of economists and politicians that ignore what vast vast VAST majorities of scientists and experts in far more technically complex fields of study are saying and have been saying for years.

The "scientists and experts in far more technically complex fields of study" are no more qualified than economists and politicians when it comes to decisions about what to do about climate change.

Repeating your false premise does not make it any less false.

Edited March 8, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

The "scientists and experts in far more technically complex fields of study" are no more qualified than economists and politicians when it comes to decisions about what to do about climate change.

So you agree; we exist in a state of utter confusion from which we couldn't collectively think our way out of if we tried.

Repeating your false premise does not make it any less false.

Your reinforcing my accurate premise is priceless.

[Accountability Now]

You made it pretty clear this all about Waldo, not the reality of the vast vast scientific and expert consensus that surrounds us.

By the way, why we don't require such a high standard of consensus for other things, like our economic policies for example?

I guess you missed my earlier posts about the range of studies showing the consensus being between 82-98% and the subsequent conversations on that? I guess you also missed my conversations with Squid about the pine beetle. I guess you also missed my conversations with waldo that led up to this point....that of course being where he showed yet again that he is willing to lie just to try and get some apparent edge. I have debated with waldo on a number of other threads and although I was aware of his deflection tactics, I never thought he would flat out lie. I have tried to move passed waldo and his lies with conversations with jbg but he persists to engage me although I will not. As a result I remind him. I honestly couldn't care less about what waldo says or if anyone on here believes him. I only care to have good honest debates...something he clearly can't do.

As for the economic policies not needing this high of a consensus....it's because science is out to prove facts...not opinions. Policies (economic and political) are opinions of how to deal with something of which there may be more than one answer. If you want to call something a fact then it needs to be proven and have a high acceptance level.

[Accountability Now]

Accountability Now,

Why are you claiming that "everyone is sold in [sic] Waldo's dishonesty"?

This is patently not the case.

You're playing at an argument ad populum; but worse, actually, because it doesn't even rise to the low level of that fallacy.

That is, claiming God exists because most people believe it is an argument ad populum. (The second clause is true, but the first one does not follow from it.) Claiming that Waldo is dishonest because "everyone is sold" on the idea isn't even accurate by the low standards of argument fallacies.

I see you don't like extremes? Then I guess you'll have no problem asking waldo why he said "no one's buying it" when clearly in this thread we've had two other members call him out for his deception.

With that being said, I don't care if you or anyone else thinks waldo is dishonest. I really don't care. It's my opinion based on the fact that he has lied three times in our recent conversations. Of course if you feel that is ok then go ahead and chat with him all you want.

[Accountability Now]

A couple things I have learned about the debating climate on this forum:

1) A most alarmists are cheerleaders and have no interest in investing time thinking about the arguments. All they look to see is that some random text has been posted which claims to "rebut" a skeptical argument. They don't care if the text is a bunch of gibberish because they don't really try to understand it.

2) Waldo is obsessed with getting the last word. If he can't paste a link to some paper which does not actually refute the point you made, he will hurl ad homs at you or your source. The best thing to do to keep a thread on track is to let him have the last word. Responding to him is not that important if you remember 1).

You were right the first time you told me and you are right now. I accepted that he deflected all the time and that his narcissistic ways force him to have the last word. I didn't mind that stuff but the outright lies are just too much and frankly a waste of my time.

[bleeding heart]

AC:

You said "everyone" thinks Waldo is lying; this isn't your "opinion"; it's a falsehood, generated, no doubt, from your sense of pique.

[TimG]

So you agree; we exist in a state of utter confusion from which we couldn't collectively think our way out of if we tried.

Yep. We know nothing about the future. Everyone is flailing and because of that the status quo is an awfully compelling option for many people.

Your reinforcing my accurate premise is priceless.

Your original premise was politicians were wrong for ignoring "expert" advice. I pointed out that the "experts" are not experts in the fields of knowledge required to make decisions. If anything you are now agreeing with me. Edited March 8, 2014 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

AC:

You said "everyone" thinks Waldo is lying; this isn't your "opinion"; it's a falsehood, generated, no doubt, from your sense of pique.

Do you want to maybe get my quote right before you call me out? Where do I say "everyone" as you quote it? Where? What I said was "I don't need to sell anyone on anything.....they're already sold." Where is everyone in that statement? Does 'they' automatically mean everyone? There are many people that know waldo's ways as KeepitSimple and TimG have pointed out? Perhaps these might be the they I'm referring to?

[WestCoastRunner]

Lol. I'm talking about everyone being sold in waldo's dishonesty......not global warming. Glad to see you're keeping up with the conversation.

I believe this is where you said 'everyone'.

[bleeding heart]

I'm not sure how much I enjoy your pedantry, though you seem to like it a lot..

"I don't need to sell anyone on anything....they're already sold."

Who exactly is left out of that "anyone"?

[bleeding heart]

Ah...never mind. WestCoastRunner corrected you.

As you say, "Do you maybe want to get [your] quote right before you call me out?"

[Accountability Now]

I believe this is where you said 'everyone'.

Fair enough. Again...as I pointed out to bleeding heart, I'm referring to the people that we're taking part in the thread.

[Accountability Now]

I'm not sure how much I enjoy your pedantry, though you seem to like it a lot..

Pedantry? You are the one getting all hopped up on a word. Talk about pedantry!!

My point is very simple. I have shown three times where waldo has been outright dishonest in his approach. If you are ok with this then that's fine. I just choose not to engage dishonest posters. That is my only point.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Accountability Now

[jbg]

Flash urgent update!!

Because of CO² and noxious sulfuric compounds emitting from mammal food digestion, on March 9, 2014 we are due to lose an hour from the day so that day will have 23 hours (link). Then, we will be faced with an hour's loss of morning daylight. This will take over a month to recover. Time to panic!

[waldo]

A couple things I have learned about the debating climate on this forum:

1) A most alarmists are cheerleaders and have no interest in investing time thinking about the arguments. All they look to see is that some random text has been posted which claims to "rebut" a skeptical argument. They don't care if the text is a bunch of gibberish because they don't really try to understand it.

2) Waldo is obsessed with getting the last word. If he can't paste a link to some paper which does not actually refute the point you made, he will hurl ad homs at you or your source. The best thing to do to keep a thread on track is to let him have the last word. Responding to him is not that important if you remember 1).

what arguments have you ever "thought about"? Your brazen cut&paste antics from your regular go-to denier blogs is legion! There's no problem refuting anything you've ever parroted... again, real science trumps your fake-skeptic/denier wizardry any time, any place, any where.

you're simply bitter and twisted because, on this board, you're continually challenged over your "denier blog science" nonsense. Your perpetual fall-back when cornered is to revert to your tried and true... you play out your victimization card and/or you start throwing out your labeling of other MLW members/legitimate scientists as, "conspirators, group thinkers, job protectors, fraudsters, data manipulators, peer-review corruptors, disaster porn sellers, rent seekers, religious zealots, exhibiting ideological bias, exhibiting confirmation bias, etc., etc., etc."

[waldo]

AC:

You said "everyone" thinks Waldo is lying; this isn't your "opinion"; it's a falsehood, generated, no doubt, from your sense of pique.

yes, as usual, you cut through it... straight to the core!

[waldo]

AC, lil' buddy... you've repeatedly been asked to stop your pissant whining, to stop your repeated false claims that I've lied/I'm dishonest. At some point, you'll need to get over being shown you can't argue actual science... at some point you'll need to stop this continued deflection charade of yours.

by the by, have you found the publication where you claimed your creationist source was published? ... you know, other than in his personal blog that you linked to? What's that... no, you haven't? Like I said, you take postured peer-review/peer-response to a whole new level!

Edited March 9, 2014 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

Well - after 37 pages of posts, it's still difficult to determine exactly where "people" stand. One group of posters (that includes me) do not accept a figure of 97% as a consensus - for a variety of reasons that include:

1) The origin of the 97% or 95% is questionable. We've seen several studies/surveys in this thread that have some reference to these figures - but where does it really originate from?

2) The questions/choices of surveys are open to wide interpretation

3) It's almost impossible for any survey that involves humans to arrive at a 97% consensus for even the most basic topics, let alone one as complex that address natural and human caused Climate Change

Another group argues against these posters - but offers no explanation of what they actually believe the consensus is - in terms of percentage or substance.

So I'll ask this question again to those that believe in a wide-spread consensus along the order of 95/97%. What does this consensus actually agree on? What is this consensus? Anyone care to weigh in?