Climate and Weather

Daniel Miller said:
Let us assume that among qualified climate researchers there is a very small percentage that are politically or financially motivated to reach a certain conclusion. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is 10% on each side of the man-made climate change argument. About 95% of all qualified researchers come down on the side that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. About 5% disagrees. If we take away 10% from each side, we get 86 out of 100 believing that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. We get only 4 or 5 out of 100 disagreeing.

The sound bet is with the 86, and against the 4 or 5 outlier researchers.
Click to expand...
So your research is based on "lets assume"? Did you see Bad News Bears?
 
Daniel Miller said:
Let us assume that among qualified climate researchers there is a very small percentage that are politically or financially motivated to reach a certain conclusion. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is 10% on each side of the man-made climate change argument. About 95% of all qualified researchers come down on the side that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. About 5% disagrees. If we take away 10% from each side, we get 86 out of 100 believing that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. We get only 4 or 5 out of 100 disagreeing.

The sound bet is with the 86, and against the 4 or 5 outlier researchers.
Click to expand...

It's meaningless to discuss the Science aspect, clearly most actual Scientists agree AGW is possible and if it's possible, we should hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
 
Daniel Miller said:
Let us assume that among qualified climate researchers there is a very small percentage that are politically or financially motivated to reach a certain conclusion. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is 10% on each side of the man-made climate change argument. About 95% of all qualified researchers come down on the side that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. About 5% disagrees. If we take away 10% from each side, we get 86 out of 100 believing that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. We get only 4 or 5 out of 100 disagreeing.

The sound bet is with the 86, and against the 4 or 5 outlier researchers.
Click to expand...

This isn't a casino where we can bet multiple times and expect the odds to carry true in the long run. We only have one future.
 
espola said:
What part of that article supports your assertion?
Click to expand...
I linked the wrong article from that web page, although that is an interesting read.
It lays out a pretty contentious history in the field.

Here's the one I meant to link regarding abrupt climate change.
Rapid Climate Change

This was a response to Danny's belief that climate was relatively stable before the internal combustion engine.
 
Wez said:
Shouldn't you be looking for more debunked junk to post up in here??
Click to expand...
What has been debunked?
I post links and articles I find interesting and informative.
Some support the co2 hypothesis, and some don't.
Its all food for thought.

The dogmatic end of this discussion is in your lap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top