John Oliver - Global Warming Video

[Heywood]

I would say nearly 100% of scientist would agree that humans are a factor in climate change. But that isn't the important question. The important question is are we humans so much of a factor that we are headed on a path of a humanitarian catastrophe?

You are probably in a better position to answer that question then I am. I don't know...I haven't studied the subject deeply. Right now I'm content with whatever course humanity chooses on this subject.

So basically, you're just being a dick, picking nits and wasting people's' time.

So basically you don't want anyone to be skeptical of claims made that support the agenda you are supporting.

[Raeven]

So basically, you're just being a dick, picking nits and wasting people's' time.

So basically you don't want anyone to be skeptical of claims made that support the agenda you are supporting.

Be skeptical all you want. But provide some actual facts that contradict what is being said.

[Heywood]

So basically you don't want anyone to be skeptical of claims made that support the agenda you are supporting.

Be skeptical all you want. But provide some actual facts that contradict what is being said.

I'm skeptical because I looked at the evidence provided to support the claim that consensus is 97% and found it lacking.

Apparently....that makes me a dick.

What does it make you?

[Raeven]

You assert an "agenda." I don't see one. I found the links sufficient, along with all the other study I've done on the issue, to feel confident in the 97% figure. If you didn't and you reached a different conclusion, then in an honest debate, you would share what you knew and the basis for it. Instead, you said you'd basically reached the same conclusion -- but failed to share this fount of persuasive information to which you are, apparently, the only person privy. So I don't think that makes me anything, except dumb enough to have a conversation with someone who is, for all practical purposes, a troll. I shan't make the mistake again.

[popeyespappy]

Doing it in a lab is a far cry from making it a viable energy source.

Did you check the skeptical science link?

I did, they took 12,000 papers from climate change researchers and from that cherry picked 4000 papers that dealt with human caused climate change to come up with the 97% figure.

If we cherry picked papers about the non human caused climate change we would come up with a different consensus figure.

I have a 900 foot driveway. I am thinking of paving part of it. If I do the black asphalt will absorb more heat then the gravel that is there now. Since less heat is reflected, my asphalting the driveway will contribute to climate change. Is it going to be enough to lead us to a catastrophe? I doubt it. Is the totality of human endeavors going to be enough to lead us to catastrophe? That's really the question and this survey doesn't give me any information whatsoever that allows me to answer that question.

It makes a good talking point for someone pushing an agenda on the non-thinking but other than that its useless piece of information.

If that is what you got from reading that article you either have serious reading comprehension issues or just saw what you wanted to see. The later is called conformation bias and you have it bad. That's not surprising given the content of many of your other posts on this board.

[Heywood]

I did, they took 12,000 papers from climate change researchers and from that cherry picked 4000 papers that dealt with human caused climate change to come up with the 97% figure.

If we cherry picked papers about the non human caused climate change we would come up with a different consensus figure.

I have a 900 foot driveway. I am thinking of paving part of it. If I do the black asphalt will absorb more heat then the gravel that is there now. Since less heat is reflected, my asphalting the driveway will contribute to climate change. Is it going to be enough to lead us to a catastrophe? I doubt it. Is the totality of human endeavors going to be enough to lead us to catastrophe? That's really the question and this survey doesn't give me any information whatsoever that allows me to answer that question.

It makes a good talking point for someone pushing an agenda on the non-thinking but other than that its useless piece of information.

If that is what you got from reading that article you either have serious reading comprehension issues or just saw what you wanted to see. The later is called conformation bias and you have it bad. That's not surprising given the content of many of your other posts on this board.

Well I am not biased for or against taking action against climate change. Like I said earlier, I am sure some global warming is the result of human action and defer to the crowd on what level of action we should take.

If I am biased against anything it is the 97% number. In 2009 Pew research polled scientist and found that only 97% of scientist believed humans evolved over time. Human evolution is a much more settled question then the effects of human caused climate change. I do find it hard to believe that the number of scientist who believe we are headed toward a climate catastrophe is the same as the number that believe humans evolved over time.

The study just smacks of cherry picking data to support an agenda. Sorry but I just don't give it a lot of creditability. I can find it plausible that 97% of scientist would agree climate change is happening now(its always happened). I can find it plausible that 97% of scientist believe humans are a factor in climate change(every living organism has some impact on climate). I just don't find it plausible that 97% of scientist believe unless we change our ways, we are headed toward a climate catastrophe.

Do a poll, ask climate scientist this question:
"Are human actions causing a climate catastrophe such that we can prevent it or mitigate it significantly by altering our behavior?"

I bet the number of scientist who answer "yes" to that question.....is quite a bit less than 97%.

[pocaracas]

Do a poll, ask climate scientist this question:
"Are human actions causing a climate catastrophe such that we can prevent it or mitigate it significantly by altering our behavior?"

I bet the number of scientist who answer "yes" to that question.....is quite a bit less than 97%.

That's because they are aware that it's too late to prevent it... and mitigation has high costs, which they are aware those in charge (lobbies) will not allow implementation.