View Single Post
Old 07-13-2009, 02:41 PM  
TheDoc
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
TheDoc's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Currently Incognito
Posts: 13,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
71 total
7 predicted cooling = 9.86%
44 predicted warming = 61.97%
20 were neutral = 28.17%

I have no idea where you got the 7%, but either way, it's clear that the ones who predicted cooling were a small minority. Judging today's large majority of climate scientists by the views of a small minority some decades ago is stupid, plain and simple.



Again, it's nothing like today. Today, the theory in question isn't one only supported by a small minority. Today, the theory at hand is one supported by a large majority of scientists.



It has not been proven as merely a cycle. And, in fact, it was about 20 years ago that a start was made in reducing CFC output. Recovery was expected to start around 2010, and that estimate is turning out to be fairly accurate.

In case you feel like reading more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=ozone+layer





Have you been drinking?

3146 respondents, all of whom were earth scientists. 79 of those 3146 both listed climate science as their area of specialization and published more than half of their papers on the topic of climate change.

I have no idea where you get the "3", but I am starting to suspect that your preferred method of doing math is smashing yourself in the head with a brick repeatedly, then randomly smashing your face into the numpad of your keyboard and seeing what shows up on your screen.

In fact, after your numerous wildly inaccurate statements ("cows produce more co2 than humans", "one volcano releases more co2 into the atmosphere in a day than humans do in a year", etc) I am now realizing that it's entirely pointless to discuss this with you. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. It's as if you're just wildly quoting things you vaguely remember hearing on tv half a decade ago.

The sad thing, of course, is that that still puts you ahead of most of the other "skeptics" in this thread, most of whom more than likely failed high school science

Clearly, you have no idea how statistics work.. and I just got the numbers from the pdf and the article posted. If you are confused, read them again.



Funny though.. did you read the questions in the poll? Why don't they just ask a yes/no question?

"Now, thinking specifically about the issue of global warming: Do you think most climate scientists agree that the earth has been warming in recent years, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether the earth has been warming?"

Most Agree 25%
A Lot of Dis-agreement 39%
Unsure 9%


"Do you think most climate scientists agree that human activities, such as burning coal and oil, are a major cause of global warming, or do you think there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether human activities are a major cause?"

Most Agree 47%
A Lot of Dis-agreement 42%
Unsure 11%



47% agree... that's it.... Your "consensus" is busted. And why does the "no" answer have to be a disagreement question and an unsure?

Why are the majority of questions about "global warming" vs. "man made" global warming?

Clearly... the reason is to skew the results making the pdf, the poll, and your argument full of bullshit.
__________________
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
TheDoc is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote