When I said it's all on that list, I wasn't kidding.
32 "Climate scientists are in it for the money"
Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry.
Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
I've seen this 1st hand. Climate skeptics can make nice cash on speaking engagements to oil company and association conventions. Yet to see a real climate scientist do that.
That 97% turned out to be 97% of 1/3 of 2000 or so scientists surveyed. So, it's 32% of scientists surveyed that agreed to a question that was vaguely worded to begin with. This has been exposed years ago but apparently still unknown to some.
152 "97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven"
The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
More accurately, it's financial ambition.Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...wouldn't one expect most climate scientists to say there is dangerous climate change? I mean, it's big science nowadays...there is now funding for these folks. Lots of public money being spent. There is also the herd thing...if you are a climate scientist with any career ambition will you dare disagree?
From here 8 out of 10 cats fear statistics – AI doesn't have this problem • The Register
"There is a wonderful example of misuse that eventually passed into the English language as the phrase "eight out of ten cats" – also the name of a long-running Channel 4 quiz show hosted by Jimmy Carr. This goes back to the 1980s when Whiskas cat food was promoted using the advertising slogan: "Eight out of ten owners said their cat prefers it."
You might have thought that was vague enough to escape without challenge but, after complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, it was rephrased as: "Eight out of ten owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it." You can see why the manufacturer preferred the snappy first version but it was simply a misstatement of the statistical evidence."
"There is a wonderful example of misuse that eventually passed into the English language as the phrase "eight out of ten cats" – also the name of a long-running Channel 4 quiz show hosted by Jimmy Carr. This goes back to the 1980s when Whiskas cat food was promoted using the advertising slogan: "Eight out of ten owners said their cat prefers it."
You might have thought that was vague enough to escape without challenge but, after complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, it was rephrased as: "Eight out of ten owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it." You can see why the manufacturer preferred the snappy first version but it was simply a misstatement of the statistical evidence."
You've burst the bubble now. No escaping this.
(not to mention the increasing standard of living ambitions of the existing population)
8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
I sincerely hope that science decisions aren't made by consensus.
129 "Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo"
Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.
Contrasting climate denial with evidence-based Galileo
@leadbelly: I am not so sure about the water-tightness of the contents of that list. 78 downplays methane on the grounds that it is a relatively small portion of existing gases in the atmosphere but in 34 it argues about the addition of CO2. However, according to the EPA methane is a much larger contributor to global warming potential by human-caused emissions than CO2. There is supposed to be a lot of CO2 in the air...or the ecosystem wouldn't work!
What we actually know is the history of greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere. And it is increasing rapidly. The rest is forecasting and it is difficult to do reliably. At least that is the reason for any skepticism.
What we actually know is the history of greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere. And it is increasing rapidly. The rest is forecasting and it is difficult to do reliably. At least that is the reason for any skepticism.
If you spent more time with it, you would probably appreciate it more. Note that the comments section has many intelligent comments, and the website is "live", it gets updated with new and better content as it gets suggestions and becomes available.
68 "The science isn't settled" That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.
Is the science settled?
No one but that's not what we're talking about.
In this context "Climate Change" is short for
"Man-caused climate change that will result in serious harm if we carry on as we are."
We may be wiped out by antibiotic resistant bacteria before the climate is destroyed anyhow.
Well, ad hominem is a smart tactic, as we know that at least one contributor, Luke, falls for it.
But for the life of me, I can't see the "smoking gun" you seem to be pointing out in John Cook's bio. And your link is to the TEAM, which is impressive.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.