Teach the children about the evil of Leftist Global Warming theory

[T. A. Gardner]

Saying that it's an opinion piece is genetic fallacy? You sure you know what it means?

You attacked the source, not the information within it. That is no different than saying it was this magazine, show, person, whatever that wrote it. Opinion pieces can be filled with factual, accurate information and make a credible argument. They can be tripe too.

It requires you read the article and respond to what's inside it rather than dismiss it on the basis of its origins.

 

[AProudLefty]

You attacked the source, not the information within it.

Um I didn't. You realize it says "opinion" in those articles?

Pro-tip: Check to see if they're opinion or news before posting here to prevent making a fool out of yourself.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Um I didn't. You realize it says "opinion" in those articles?

Pro-tip: Check to see if they're opinion or news before posting here to prevent making a fool out of yourself.

So? I read the articles before posting them. I always do. They make a damn good case that the 97% number is a myth and hoax.

 

[AProudLefty]

So? I read the articles before posting them. I always do. They make a damn good case that the 97% number is a myth and hoax.

And yet they're labelled as opinions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And yet they're labelled as opinions.

So? A good op ed is one that includes a factual basis and reasoning within it. Refute the content, not it's origin.

 

[AProudLefty]

So? A good op ed is one that includes a factual basis and reasoning within it. Refute the content, not it's origin.

Okay sure I'll try. I'll start with this one.

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

That's because nobody made such claim except for the fringe right wing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Um I didn't. You realize it says "opinion" in those articles?

Pro-tip: Check to see if they're opinion or news before posting here to prevent making a fool out of yourself.

Hardly a valid rebuttal. Here's the gist of the first article I linked:

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible...

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people....

This is the first clear fallacy in the argument that 97% agree. The terms "climate scientists" and "scientists" are used interchangeably. It is nowhere near 97% of all scientists that agree on anthropogenic climate change, and its even hard to make a claim that climate scientists agree to that degree.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man.

That is, Cook simply assumed that any paper that stated anthropogenic climate change was a factor automatically was in consensus that it was a major threat even if the paper itself was skeptical.

The author then gives examples:

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

This is not a 97% consensus, but rather those most invested in Gorebal Warming putting their thumb on the scale to make their case. There is no general consensus and never has been, but that doesn't deter the True Believers...

 

[AProudLefty]

What is the actual percentage of scientists agree? And what are the specifics of the agreement?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What is the actual percentage of scientists agree? And what are the specifics of the agreement?

Within the climate scientist community it's somewhere over 50% maybe as high as 75% if you are very liberal with claims. Overall, it's under 50%. Many scientists outside climate science disagree that anthropogenic climate change is a major cause of global warming.

https://climatepowered.us/resources...her&utm_campaign=StatewideSummerSearchC3-2021

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/ther...-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
https://www.aier.org/article/climate-science-seeking-truth-or-defending-consensus/

The recitation of the 97% number is generally by those that are already vested in the whole anthropogenic climate change movement and want things like the New Green Deal. It is intended more as a STFU argument than anything. It tries to intimidate you into accepting their position as unassailable.

Well, I don't think the world's gonna end in about 8 years as Greta Thunberg and others have predicted (2030). Even if generously interpreted to mean massive changes, it isn't happening. It's not like she's the first in a long line of 'scientists' and others who support the Left's version of Gorebal Warming to make outlandish claims like that.
Remember, its the same bunch of scientists, more or less, that told us banning CFC's would close the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole. It's still there and about the same size, and we banned CFC's like they wanted...

You can only be wrong so many times before nobody believes you...

Think of it this way:

We didn't know there was a jet stream affecting weather patterns until about the 1930's...
Plate tectonics was unknown until the 1950's
We had no grasp what the bottom of the oceans and life there was like until the 1960's

We don't know a lot about our planet even today. Look at how models of the planet's core are changing. What don't we know about climate is far greater than what we do know, but yet we're supposed to accept without question that if we don't radically upend society and technology in favor of Leftist favored systems we're all going to die in eight years?
I think I'll bet on a different horse because the one those groups want me to be on is really lame...

 

[AProudLefty]

Within the climate scientist community it's somewhere over 50% maybe as high as 75% if you are very liberal with claims. Overall, it's under 50%. Many scientists outside climate science disagree that anthropogenic climate change is a major cause of global warming.

https://climatepowered.us/resources...her&utm_campaign=StatewideSummerSearchC3-2021

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/ther...-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
https://www.aier.org/article/climate-science-seeking-truth-or-defending-consensus/

The recitation of the 97% number is generally by those that are already vested in the whole anthropogenic climate change movement and want things like the New Green Deal. It is intended more as a STFU argument than anything. It tries to intimidate you into accepting their position as unassailable.

Well, I don't think the world's gonna end in about 8 years as Greta Thunberg and others have predicted (2030). Even if generously interpreted to mean massive changes, it isn't happening. It's not like she's the first in a long line of 'scientists' and others who support the Left's version of Gorebal Warming to make outlandish claims like that.
Remember, its the same bunch of scientists, more or less, that told us banning CFC's would close the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole. It's still there and about the same size, and we banned CFC's like they wanted...

You can only be wrong so many times before nobody believes you...

Think of it this way:

We didn't know there was a jet stream affecting weather patterns until about the 1930's...
Plate tectonics was unknown until the 1950's
We had no grasp what the bottom of the oceans and life there was like until the 1960's

We don't know a lot about our planet even today. Look at how models of the planet's core are changing. What don't we know about climate is far greater than what we do know, but yet we're supposed to accept without question that if we don't radically upend society and technology in favor of Leftist favored systems we're all going to die in eight years?
I think I'll bet on a different horse because the one those groups want me to be on is really lame...

Well I asked for the specifics of the agreement.

Of course there are disagreements with the specifics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well I asked for the specifics of the agreement.

Of course there are disagreements with the specifics.

There always will be.

 

[AProudLefty]

There always will be.

Of course. That's why I asked.