ZRod
Well-known member
It's actually a good one, especially if you check the sources used. :cheersWikipedia?!?! :laughpound :laughpound as a source...??? :funnyhahah
:cheers (I kid of course)
It's actually a good one, especially if you check the sources used. :cheersWikipedia?!?! :laughpound :laughpound as a source...??? :funnyhahah
:cheers (I kid of course)
There is no content. No links to research papers, no citations. It's basically a guy's opinion. For a supposed Academic it's a terrible article. As I pointed out, it's no surprise because, the sources is dubious on all fronts.You did a great job talking through everyone’s background. But I noticed you skipped over the content and point of the article :dunno
He does tell you where the information is coming fromThere is no content. No links to research papers, not citations. It's basically a guy's opinion. For a supposed Academic it's a terrible article. As I pointed out, it's no surprise because, the sources is dubious on all fronts.
I mean, this entire site is everyone thinking they know everyone else's job better. Are we stopping that now?Why do you think you know more about this subject than the people who study it for a living?
I don't go around telling you how to run your drive-through cattle insemination business.
First he doesn't state what paper is drawing the 97% conclusion. Not that we should be hung up on that number to begin with when it's always an overwhelming majority, but it'd be nice to knowHe does tell you where the information is coming from
First he doesn't state what paper is drawing the 97% conclusion. Not that we should be hung up on that number to begin with when it's always an overwhelming majority, but it'd be nice to know
Then he's specific about one survey by AMS, and it's extremely important to note that meteorologist are not necessarily climate scientists. However, they overwhelming say that climate change is happening and it's man made. Only 6% definitely said climate change was not influenced by man.
Finally he talked about some Dutch survey, but then points out the survey doesn't really include only climate scientists aka climate experts. So, why did he bother bringing up the AMS survey then???
I mean, this entire site is everyone thinking they know everyone else's job better. Are we stopping that now?
I don’t. I listen and read to multiple scientific arguments.
"Hey, Tad, Brenner, Ollie, do I go with one strap up over my shoulder and topless or do I go just in the boots with a firehose covering my junk"You clearly have no idea what our brave fireman go through, trying to decide what to wear or not wear for their charity calendars.
Climate scientists routinely advocate for policy.
Just to be clear, as you seem to not be understanding, I don’t disagree the climate changes. Quite the opposite.
Everyone knows the climate changes. The problem is, you seem to attribute the negative changes to random chance like it will start trending in a better direction given enough time and you refer to overwhelming scientific consensus as alarmism.Just to be clear, as you seem to not be understanding, I don’t disagree the climate changes. Quite the opposite.
Sorry for the delay, just getting back to this.So the question becomes, do you believe man and emissions are negatively impacting climate change? Yes or no? If yes, why do you choose to refer to it as alarmist rather than actionable information?