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

[Sparko]

OTOH the vast majority of scientists worldwide agreeing on climate change, based upon the statistical distribution of weather patterns over an extended period of time, are in a better position to know than a “bunch” of climate change deniers trusting in their deity to take care of them.



Consensus grounded in facts is not the same as unsubstantiated belief. Certainly “belief” in and of itself “does not drive reality”.

If you argued that they believe it because it is true, that is a different thing altogether. But you have been arguing it is true because they all believe it. And that I should believe it because they do.

[shunyadragon]

A consensus by definition means a group that agrees on some belief or choice. So it is scientists personally.

The definition of consensus does not define it as only personal opinion, except in your biased imagination and agenda.

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consensus

usually in singular A general agreement.

with clause ‘there is a growing consensus that the current regime has failed’
as modifier ‘a consensus view’

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

If you argued that they believe it because it is true, that is a different thing altogether. But you have been arguing it is true because they all believe it. And that I should believe it because they do.

No. I argued that the vast majority of scientists worldwide believed global warming was occurring on the basis of facts, such as the statistical distribution of weather patterns over an extended period of time...and much else.

[Sparko]

The definition of consensus does not define it as only personal opinion, except in your biased imagination and agenda.

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consensus

usually in singular A general agreement.

with clause ‘there is a growing consensus that the current regime has failed’
as modifier ‘a consensus view’

© Copyright Original Source

How does that invalidate what I said?

[Sparko]

No. I argued that the vast majority of scientists worldwide believed global warming was occurring on the basis of facts, such as the statistical distribution of weather patterns over an extended period of time...and much else.

No you didn't. You argued I should believe it because 97% of climate scientists believed it:

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.

[shunyadragon]

How does that invalidate what I said?

Consensus in science is NOT based on personal opinion agreement,and by definition consensus does not necessarily refer to agreement of'opinions,' and often is not the case.

You made the false assertion that it was the definition of consensus.

[shunyadragon]

No you didn't. You argued I should believe it because 97% of climate scientists believed it:

The over whelming consensus of scientists is based on years of research based on objective verifiable evidence. Why should you not believe it?

[Tassman]

No you didn't. You argued I should believe it because 97% of climate scientists believed it:

The reason 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is because of facts, such as the statistical distribution of weather patterns over an extended period of time...and much else as previously linked numerous times.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Why are you so opposed to the fact of global warming given that the consequences for the planet and our families will be disastrous? You have yet to answer this oft repeated question. Surely you are not one of those who think that the dramatic climate changes are a sign of the 'end times' and that Jesus is on his way?

[Sparko]

The over whelming consensus of scientists is based on years of research based on objective verifiable evidence. Why should you not believe it?

I never said I shouldn't. But I would be believing the evidence, not believing it was true merely because a group of scientists said it was. Which was what Tassman argued.

[Sparko]

The reason 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is because of facts, such as the statistical distribution of weather patterns over an extended period of time...and much else as previously linked numerous times.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Why are you so opposed to the fact of global warming given that the consequences for the planet and our families will be disastrous? You have yet to answer this oft repeated question. Surely you are not one of those who think that the dramatic climate changes are a sign of the 'end times' and that Jesus is on his way?

But that is not what you argued, as I showed you. You never argued that they believed it BECAUSE of the evidence. You argued I should believe the evidence because they believed it.

The evidence should stand alone, regardless of who believes it or not. The consensus doesn't matter. It is a byproduct.

[Tassman]

But that is not what you argued, as I showed you. You never argued that they believed it BECAUSE of the evidence. You argued I should believe the evidence because they believed it.

I never argued that we "should believe the evidence because they believed it". I almost always provided a link to NASA with the evidence of Climate Change and Global Warming given in some detail.

The evidence should stand alone, regardless of who believes it or not. The consensus doesn't matter. It is a byproduct.

The evidence of global warming stands alone, but the fact that the vast majority of scientists accept the evidence reinforces its impact.

You did not explain why you are so skeptical of global warming given that, if true as is probable, the consequences for the planet and our families will be disastrous?

[shunyadragon]

I never said I shouldn't. But I would be believing the evidence, not believing it was true merely because a group of scientists said it was. Which was what Tassman argued.

Tassman argued correctly it is not just 'a group' of scientists. It is the over whelming majority of scientist and research based on the objective verifiable evidence.

[Sparko]

I never argued that we "should believe the evidence because they believed it". I almost always provided a link to NASA with the evidence of Climate Change and Global Warming given in some detail.

ahem,

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.

Do you think you can just keep ignoring what you actually said and gaslight me into thinking otherwise?

[Tassman]

ahem,



Do you think you can just keep ignoring what you actually said and gaslight me into thinking otherwise?

Context, dear boy, context! Did you not notice my links from scientific sources that support man-made global warming with considerable evidence.

Again, you have not explained why you are so skeptical of global warming given that if true, as is probable, the consequences for the planet and our families will be disastrous?

[Sparko]

Context, dear boy, context! Did you not notice my links from scientific sources that support man-made global warming with considerable evidence.

Again, you have not explained why you are so skeptical of global warming given that if true, as is probable, the consequences for the planet and our families will be disastrous?

Tassman, you didn't provide any evidence, you just keep arguing "consensus" - and this isn't the first time you have done so. It is a regular occurrence with you. That is why I called you on it.

In fact you did the very same thing to One Bad Pig:

Whatever biases some scientists may have, for whatever reason, are irrelevant in the face of undoubted fact that Earth's climate is warming.

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals 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”

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

Your argument is "Lookie at all the scientists who believe it is true! That means it must be true!"