ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Should have left those on page one instead of that chart you posted.
Why did you choose that chart anyway?
I thought you guys were "winning"...?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Why did you choose that chart anyway?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't understand your first question. My intent for posting the chart was to show how absurd it is to believe that there is a massive conspiracy involving 97% of trained scientists regarding climate change.
What was your intent when you made a very specific claim regarding the content of the chart which was demonstrably false?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why did you insist repeatedly that the chart implied something it didn't?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
What is false about my claim?
Exactly what does 97% of scientist say?
You are doing it again with that statement.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Because it uses the scientific consensus from government funded scientists yet not the money. Therefore that chart is misleading and dishonest. Why do you think it isn't?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ok, I can see you weren't just being willfully dishonest at first, you actually thought it was making a claim. You were just wrong. THEN you went on to repeatedly insist that I was arguing what I was not and refusing to acknowledge how wrong you were. So I will explain the intent of the image.
In order for one to believe that there is a massive hoax involving over 97% of the scientific community, one has to call into question their objectivity by claiming that they are funded not by the international community, but by activists. The conclusion tht the image attempts to lead one toward is that this is absurd. Obviously, the international community (gov'ts) funded the science and the peer review was indeed objective and that humans are the cause of climate change.
Simply put, the column on the left of the image is what the climate deniers would like to convince people of and the column on the right is true, that oil profiteers, with seemingly unlimited resources would like to fund denial.
The chart doesn't claim that the koch brothers outspent the entire sum of what has been spent on all of the research. In fact, it doesn't even say they outspent anyone, or even the oil industry for that matter. It asks a question about what is more believable.
In order for one to believe that there is a massive hoax involving over 97% of the scientific community, one has to call into question their objectivity by claiming that they are funded not by the international community, but by activists. The conclusion tht the image attempts to lead one toward is that this is absurd. Obviously, the international community (gov'ts) funded the science and the peer review was indeed objective and that humans are the cause of climate change.
Simply put, the column on the left of the image is what the climate deniers would like to convince people of and the column on the right is true, that oil profiteers, with seemingly unlimited resources would like to fund denial.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
So what exactly does that 97% represent?Ok, I can see you weren't just being willfully dishonest at first, you actually thought it was making a claim. You were just wrong. THEN you went on to repeatedly insist that I was arguing what I was not and refusing to acknowledge how wrong you were. So I will explain the intent of the image.
The chart doesn't claim that the koch brothers outspent the entire sum of what has been spent on all of the research. In fact, it doesn't even say they outspent anyone, or even the oil industry for that matter. It asks a question about what is more believable.
In order for one to believe that there is a massive hoax involving over 97% of the scientific community, one has to call into question their objectivity by claiming that they are funded not by the international community, but by activists. The conclusion tht the image attempts to lead one toward is that this is absurd. Obviously, the international community (gov'ts) funded the science and the peer review was indeed objective and that humans are the cause of climate change.
Simply put, the column on the left of the image is what the climate deniers would like to convince people of and the column on the right is true, that oil profiteers, with seemingly unlimited resources would like to fund denial.
Are those scientists portrayed on the left?
Is the money accurately portrayed on the left if they are going to use those same scientists?
You are not going to let it go are you.
If you noticed, Pad, who I consider the biggest seeker of climate change facts on this site, has stopped using that 97% number. Maybe you should too. Pad posts mostly factual stats, when he lets his emotion use things like 97% and is shown the truth, he stops doing it. You don't.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
In case you're as stupid as I think you are, what that link indicates, is that there is a peer reviewed scientific study which concludes that more than 97% of peer reviewed studies support the conclusion that global warming is man made.
So the 97% is double confirmed bro.
So the 97% is double confirmed bro.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Of course.
What do you think that 97% number represents? It's right there in that post, see if you can figure it out yourself.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
The left side of that "diagram" is completely misrepresenting the actual counter-assertion to the right side... but it's also a false paradigm, again... i'm pretty sure what is actually occurring is a combination of both sides of that diagram, and not "either one or the other only."Ok, I can see you weren't just being willfully dishonest at first, you actually thought it was making a claim. You were just wrong. THEN you went on to repeatedly insist that I was arguing what I was not and refusing to acknowledge how wrong you were. So I will explain the intent of the image.
The chart doesn't claim that the koch brothers outspent the entire sum of what has been spent on all of the research. In fact, it doesn't even say they outspent anyone, or even the oil industry for that matter. It asks a question about what is more believable.
In order for one to believe that there is a massive hoax involving over 97% of the scientific community, one has to call into question their objectivity by claiming that they are funded not by the international community, but by activists. The conclusion tht the image attempts to lead one toward is that this is absurd. Obviously, the international community (gov'ts) funded the science and the peer review was indeed objective and that humans are the cause of climate change.
Simply put, the column on the left of the image is what the climate deniers would like to convince people of and the column on the right is true, that oil profiteers, with seemingly unlimited resources would like to fund denial.
That diagram is essentially not much more than a deliberate attack on the "conspiracy theorist" stereotype. It's trying to be insulting and provocative, not accurate.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
ffs dude it's right there
66% expressed no position, of the rest who did, 97% agree it's man made. So that 97% is of that 33% who expressed an opinion. Not what you are claiming (while calling me stupid btw) it's saying at all.
Do the math, of the scientists abstracts, 32% state GW is man made. Personally I think it's much higher so I would never use that stat to back up my claim. You did, then called me stupid, that's priceless.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
How many peer reviewed studies conclude that man is not the cause of climate change?
link one fucking peer reviewed study
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Why is that relevant to either one of our claims? Is this where you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing?
Also (your dick must be really sore by now), you posted a study showing almost 12,000 peer reviewed articles, .03% were deniers. That's atleast 1 isn't it? Or are you really asking me to link your link?
Last edited:
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
There is a website that published the amount of money funded by our government for research into AGW, comparing it to the amount the government spent on research into natural causes. The disparity is astounding, I believe it was 98% : 2%
I tried but I can't find it again.
I tried but I can't find it again.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I made a claim and you are more focused on the semantics.
Me: "97% of scientists conclude thusly."
Your reply: "of those who concluded anything at all, 97% affirm"
you have no interest in the debate, your only interest is semantics
So here is a question, of those who made no conclusion, which will you cite?
Will you cite one who concluded negatively?
Will you focus on semantics?
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Uh oh! Fallacy of demanding disproof of a yet-unverified assertion...
See, the way it works, is that someone notices something, then thinks about it, then investigates, then thinks more, then does some tests... and until those tests either Prove or "reasonably substantiate" their hypothesis, that hypothesis should not be asserted as fact, and should not be represented as needing "disproof," until post-substantiation. It's the same as the god debate (or rather, lack of debate, since theists have Never been able to sufficiently substantiate their assertion of "god's" existence, while both demanding disproof, and also disregarding the requirement of evidence to support their own claim).
I think it's very likely that Some people are indeed significantly responsible for a considerable amount of pollution, which should be curtailed, minimized, or ideally, completely eliminated where possible... but it seems that this idea of ACC/AGW/MMGW is being Used by certain groups, to endorse a "carbon tax" on the populace, while "the populace at large" is most likely not the primary culprit causing the amounts and types of pollution that actually needs to be curtailed.
Those giant too-big-to-fail businesses should alter their own practices out of their own pockets, instead of trying to buy legislation that obligates the average citizen to pay for their reconfiguration costs.
I'm not denying we are impacting the earth in negative ways, but i reject the notion that "everyone else" should have to be taxed to pay for what a small percentage of highly pollutant organizations are causing, for their own profits, which are not actually being shared with those people who will end up being "carbon taxed." I also question the degree to which "my personal carbon footprint" is actually impacting the world; i doubt it's significant at all, since i've always been a fan of reducing my negative impacts on my environments as much as possible, regardless of any ACC/AGW/MMGW debate. I just think it's generally a good idea to not trash the planet. I don't need anyone to prove ACC/AGW, to agree with altering our behaviors to minimize the amount of planet-trashing.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
All one has to do is read this post to see that it doesn't reference anything objective.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I provided citation for my assertion. I THEN demanded proof of the counter claim.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
What?