�Alarming� Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[Sparko]

This is a non-argument. I have never argued for a consensus alone, except in your biased mind arising from a determination to discredit science via distorting, cherry-picked quotes. What my links provided was the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE underlying the scientific consensus. as Beagle and several others have repeatedly reminded you.

Again:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05...limate-change/

Well, I don't believe "God will save us", and when we all go down the drain it will be the fault of ignoramuses like you.

Except you never provided that link. The link you provided was:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Roy provided that other link just a couple of posts ago.

Here is what you argued to me and One Bad Pig....

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agreehttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and

So, what about the ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide, which have issued public statements endorsing this position.

And I will just continue to repeatedly post your own words back at you as long as you continue to lie about what you were arguing to me.

[Sparko]

He didn't supply the weblink as an argument. The link was right there on the webpage you were whining about and which you yourself reposted.

Thanks Jorge for showing one again you don't care a bit about learning or understanding the actual scientific basis for what mainstream science accepts. Your ego just needs to 'win".

He provided the link to support his claim for a scientific consensus. Since I don't care about the consensus, I have no use for a link supporting his argument. He did not provide evidence for climate change. He argued for a consensus. Only after I continually hammered him about his ad populum logical fallacy did he try to claim he provided evidence.

At this point the argument isn't even over whether I believe in AGW or not. It is about Tassman being a liar about what he initially argued to me and One Bad Pig. As soon as he admits he was wrong to argue for the consensus we can move on to discussing any actual evidence for AGW.

[Tassman]

Except you never provided that link. The link you provided was:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Roy provided that other link just a couple of posts ago.

Here is what you argued to me and One Bad Pig....



and



And I will just continue to repeatedly post your own words back at you as long as you continue to lie about what you were arguing to me.

You are such an idiot, and dishonest in debate as well. The link I provided, i.e. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ provides exactly what you have been demanding. Just read the extensive bit that's under the heading "EVIDENCE".

AGAIN: You have yet to explain why you don't accept it the clear EVIDENCE of global warming. Still waiting! Or are you of the Evangelical school of denial and believe God Will Save Us no matter what damage we do to the planet?

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05...limate-change/

[Tassman]

He provided the link to support his claim for a scientific consensus. Since I don't care about the consensus, I have no use for a link supporting his argument. He did not provide evidence for climate change. He argued for a consensus. Only after I continually hammered him about his ad populum logical fallacy did he try to claim he provided evidence.

You are grossly misrepresenting my argument, namely that global warming is real and that it is supported by scientific evidence. The fact that there is a scientific consensus is not the argument in and of itself, but it does strongly reinforce it.

At this point the argument isn't even over whether I believe in AGW or not. It is about Tassman being a liar about what he initially argued to me and One Bad Pig. As soon as he admits he was wrong to argue for the consensus we can move on to discussing any actual evidence for AGW.

I am not a liar. If you think that my argument was solely about consensus then you misunderstood the argument. My very first post in this thread (#57) supplied the link: https://climate.nasa.gov/ which details the scientific evidence, the causes, effects and solutions of climate change. It takes real determination on your part to misunderstand the basis of my argument.

[Roy]

Roy provided that other link just a couple of posts ago.

Uh...what?

[Sparko]

You are such an idiot, and dishonest in debate as well. The link I provided, i.e. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ provides exactly what you have been demanding. Just read the extensive bit that's under the heading "EVIDENCE".

AGAIN: You have yet to explain why you don't accept it the clear EVIDENCE of global warming. Still waiting! Or are you of the Evangelical school of denial and believe God Will Save Us no matter what damage we do to the planet?

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/05...limate-change/

No that page is just a list of the consensus information.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

But regardless, you were arguing by weblink and you only provided the link as support for your claim about the consensus. You provided no evidence. You didn't even argue about any evidence, you only argued about the consensus.

--

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agreehttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and

So, what about the ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide, which have issued public statements endorsing this position.

[Sparko]

You are grossly misrepresenting my argument, namely that global warming is real and that it is supported by scientific evidence. The fact that there is a scientific consensus is not the argument in and of itself, but it does strongly reinforce it.



I am not a liar. If you think that my argument was solely about consensus then you misunderstood the argument. My very first post in this thread (#57) supplied the link: https://climate.nasa.gov/ which details the scientific evidence, the causes, effects and solutions of climate change. It takes real determination on your part to misunderstand the basis of my argument.

That was another argument by weblink, which is not allowed. Not to mention it was just a link to an entire website, not any specific evidence. And it wasn't even addressed to me!

You need to have presented the evidence in the thread and to me.

Please quote me any actual evidence (not weblinks) you presented before I initially accused you of the arguing science by consensus. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post599189

[Sparko]

Uh...what?

The link to the nasa evidence page that you provided that Tassman is trying to claim he linked to when he did not.

[HMS_Beagle]

You are grossly misrepresenting my argument, namely that global warming is real and that it is supported by scientific evidence. The fact that there is a scientific consensus is not the argument in and of itself, but it does strongly reinforce it.

I am not a liar. If you think that my argument was solely about consensus then you misunderstood the argument. My very first post in this thread (#57) supplied the link: https://climate.nasa.gov/ which details the scientific evidence, the causes, effects and solutions of climate change. It takes real determination on your part to misunderstand the basis of my argument.

Sparko is making himself look like a real jackass with his dishonest misrepresentation just so he can "win". Let him be Jorge if it makes him happy. Everyone else can see who the real liar is.

[Tassman]

The link to the nasa evidence page that you provided that Tassman is trying to claim he linked to when he did not.

Once again: "My very first post in this thread (#57) supplied the link: https://climate.nasa.gov/ which details the scientific evidence, the causes, effects and solutions of climate change. It takes real determination on your part to misunderstand the basis of my argument." But, you seem determined to make my argument something it is not, so I'll leave you to it. I note that you have made no effort to argue why the scientists are wrong about global warming. Presumably your only purpose is to discredit science.

[Tassman]

Sparko is making himself look like a real jackass with his dishonest misrepresentation just so he can "win". Let him be Jorge if it makes him happy. Everyone else can see who the real liar is.

[JonathanL]

Sparko is making himself look like a real jackass with his dishonest misrepresentation just so he can "win". Let him be Jorge if it makes him happy. Everyone else can see who the real liar is.

You do realize there's the very distinct, and not unlikely at all, possibility that neither of them are lying, right?

[Roy]

The link to the nasa evidence page that you provided that Tassman is trying to claim he linked to when he did not.

I think you are confused. I haven't posted any links in this thread.

[Roy]

You do realize there's the very distinct, and not unlikely at all, possibility that neither of them are lying, right?

cf Hanlon.

[TheLurch]

You do realize there's the very distinct, and not unlikely at all, possibility that neither of them are lying, right?

All i know is that the issue of the oceans' heat content is an interesting one, and instead we've spent countless pages doing "is not/is too" level back and forth instead.