So youre accusing others of following conspiracy theorists but apparently the villainous Petroleum industry is behind all those climate change deniers?![/QUOTE]
Obviously not all of them, but certainly many of the loudest voices.
They have hired the same people tobacco companies hired in the 60s to convince the public that cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
All we need to do is look at birds' changing migratory patterns and the declining number of polar bears to know if climate change is real or not. Or maybe even talk to a few people in equatorial island nations - the dry season was 5 months early in Seychelles last year.
The cattle industry alone is largely to blame - it amounts to more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transport combined.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.
[/QUOTE]
If you actually read the study:
67% say it's entirely caused by our species, with a further 21% saying it's at least partially caused by our species.
That makes 88%.
However - 97% of climate scientists (i.e. the actual experts who have been actively researching this topic daily for decades) agree that it's man made. Why cherry-pick for lower numbers?
Well, anyone with scientific literacy knows the answer - it's called confirmation bias.
Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. [/QUOTE]
...
Uh no.
67% of meteorologists say it's MOSTLY caused by our species.
97 % of CURRENTLY PUBLISHING climate scientists (ie currently funded) say it is mostly caused by our species
I am not sure why you choose to EXAGGERATE? ... perhaps it is confirmation bias? ... or perhaps it is because you are merely a musician.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] The cattle industry alone is largely to blame - it amounts to more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transport combined. [/QUOTE]
Myth ... Not even close
14 to 18 % of human greenhouse gas emissions is due to animal agriculture (including lamb ... not just cattle) while fossil fuels account for 60% (Transportation is 27%).
Publishing in academic journals does not necessarily equate to "funding" but it does equate to "peer reviewed" i.e. quality control. So the fact that almost all of the research published in reputable academic journals is subject to peer review should make you happy. But if your mind is already made up then it will lead to conspiracy theories about "funding" in an attempt to avoid the majority consensus viewpoint.
Oscar J · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] I am not a climate change denier, I only stated the importance is exaggerated. The 97% "concensus" is based on a small subset of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING climate scientists who have predisposed bias toward continued funding of their work.
The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.
"Last month, a new survey of members of the American Meteorological Society confirmed as much. It turns out that just about an equal percentage of meteorologists accept that human activity is the primary cause climate change (67 percent) as the general public (65 percent, from the similarly worded Gallup poll)"
Do they have to be American to be credible? And just a meteorologist isn't nearly as qualified as specialised scientists within the subject. Not that 67 % isn't still a strong majority, which makes this an even worse argument.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
The concensus amongst American meteorologists is merely 67%.
[/QUOTE]
If you actually read the study:
67% say it's entirely caused by our species, with a further 21% saying it's at least partially caused by our species.
That makes 88%.
However - 97% of climate scientists (i.e. the actual experts who have been actively researching this topic daily for decades) agree that it's man made. Why cherry-pick for lower numbers?
Well, anyone with scientific literacy knows the answer - it's called confirmation bias.
Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. [/QUOTE]
...
Uh no.
67% of meteorologists say it's MOSTLY caused by our species.
97 % of CURRENTLY PUBLISHING climate scientists (ie currently funded) say it is mostly caused by our species
I am not sure why you choose to EXAGGERATE? ... perhaps it is confirmation bias? ... or perhaps it is because you are merely a musician.[/QUOTE]
"Merely" a musician? I'll ignore your patronizing attitude towards the creative industry, and instead ask - are you suggesting that one's profession somehow disqualifies them in a discussion on climate change? Never mind the glaring irony that this obviously would disqualify you as well.
And nice dig at climate scientists by pointing out that they're funded - as if that has anything to do with the quality of their work.
Discrediting something because there's money involved - isn't that a loony left position? I thought you were a conservative...
Anyone with half a brain can see through your bush league debate tactics. You really aren't as smart as you think you are. And no matter how much selective data you attempt to cite and skew, you're not going to convince educated adults that climate change isn't real to the extent that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it is.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] The cattle industry alone is largely to blame - it amounts to more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transport combined. [/QUOTE]
Myth ... Not even close
14 to 18 % of human greenhouse gas emissions is due to animal agriculture (including lamb ... not just cattle) while fossil fuels account for 60% (Transportation is 27%).
