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

[Sparko]

The evidence speaks for itself and the consensus of scientists reinforces this evidence.

The consensus doesn't reinforce the evidence. At best it is a consequence of the evidence, but you would first have to prove the evidence and if you did that then the consensus becomes superfluous.

Not without detailed supporting evidence of the type we have regarding global warming.

See? You want evidence and don't care about the consensus.

[Tassman]

The consensus doesn't reinforce the evidence. At best it is a consequence of the evidence, but you would first have to prove the evidence and if you did that then the consensus becomes superfluous.

The scientists collect, test and collate the evidence, which is why we can rely of their consensus.

See? You want evidence and don't care about the consensus.

Ideally, we need both.

[Sparko]

The scientists collect, test and collate the evidence, which is why we can rely of their consensus.



Ideally, we need both.

No, if you want to convince someone all you need is the evidence. You already admitted that it doesn't matter to you how many people believe in God.

[Tassman]

No, if you want to convince someone all you need is the evidence. You already admitted that it doesn't matter to you how many people believe in God.

Unlike the scientific consensus re global warming, when it comes to 'religious belief' there is no verifiable way to collect, test and collate the evidence re the existence of god(s). Hence there is no way we can rely of the consensus of belief in the myriad religions that have beset humanity over the millennia.

[Sparko]

Unlike the scientific consensus re global warming, when it comes to 'religious belief' there is no verifiable way to collect, test and collate the evidence re the existence of god(s). Hence there is no way we can rely of the consensus of belief in the myriad religions that have beset humanity over the millennia.

You just admitted that the consensus doesn't matter. Only the actual evidence does.

[Tassman]

You just admitted that the consensus doesn't matter. Only the actual evidence does.

Nope! Read it again.

[carpedm9587]

Nope! Read it again.

That won't make ANY difference...

[Tassman]

That won't make ANY difference...

LOL. Too true!

[Sparko]

Nope! Read it again.

ok...

Tassman: Unlike the scientific consensus re global warming, when it comes to 'religious belief' there is no verifiable way to collect, test and collate the evidence re the existence of god(s). Hence there is no way we can rely of the consensus of belief in the myriad religions that have beset humanity over the millennia.

Your just said that you don't take the consensus of the entire world regarding God into consideration. The reason you don't believe in God is because there is no verifiable evidence. So you reject God because of the lack of evidence regardless of any consensus.
I said the same thing about global warming. I don't care about any consensus, I only care about the evidence and the evidence has not convinced me. So you arguing the consensus to me is useless just like me arguing the consensus of religious people is useless to you.

[shunyadragon]

ok...

Tassman: Unlike the scientific consensus re global warming, when it comes to 'religious belief' there is no verifiable way to collect, test and collate the evidence re the existence of god(s). Hence there is no way we can rely of the consensus of belief in the myriad religions that have beset humanity over the millennia.

Your just said that you don't take the consensus of the entire world regarding God into consideration. The reason you don't believe in God is because there is no verifiable evidence. So you reject God because of the lack of evidence regardless of any consensus.
I said the same thing about global warming. I don't care about any consensus, I only care about the evidence and the evidence has not convinced me. So you arguing the consensus to me is useless just like me arguing the consensus of religious people is useless to you.

Your ignoring the consistent objective verifiable evidence for global warming, and erroneously comparing it to the subjective anecdotal evidence for the claims of diversity of conflicting religious claims of the world where your arguing for the fallacy of the appeal to popularity. The consensus in science is based on the consistent evidence, and no such consistence exists in religious claims.

[Sparko]

Your ignoring the consistent objective verifiable evidence for global warming, and erroneously comparing it to the subjective anecdotal evidence for the claims of diversity of conflicting religious claims of the world where your arguing for the fallacy of the appeal to popularity. The consensus in science is based on the consistent evidence, and no such consistence exists in religious claims.

No. I am arguing with TASSMAN's initial post to me and OBP where HE ignored any verifiable evidence for global warming and merely argued for a consensus. Do I really need to quote the posts again?

If the evidence is good enough to cause a consensus, then the evidence should be all I need and I shouldn't care or even need to know about a consensus. Tassman keeps claiming he gave me evidence but he did not. He merely argued for the consensus and supplied links to show that there was a consensus.

------

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/

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.

[HMS_Beagle]

No. I am arguing with TASSMAN's initial post to me and OBP where HE ignored any verifiable evidence for global warming and merely argued for a consensus. Do I really need to quote the posts again?

If the evidence is good enough to cause a consensus, then the evidence should be all I need and I shouldn't care or even need to know about a consensus. Tassman keeps claiming he gave me evidence but he did not. He merely argued for the consensus and supplied links to show that there was a consensus.

The NASA page you have shown the link for repeatedly explaining the scientific consensus also has a big banner across the top of the page with the link EVIDENCE.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Apparently following the link and reading about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is just too much work for you.

[Sparko]

The NASA page you have shown the link for repeatedly explaining the scientific consensus also has a big banner across the top of the page with the link EVIDENCE.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Apparently following the link and reading about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is just too much work for you.

arguing via weblink isn't allowed in the first place. If he wanted to present actual evidence then he should have done so instead of merely arguing about the consensus and linking to support for the consensus.

[Tassman]

arguing via weblink isn't allowed in the first place. If he wanted to present actual evidence then he should have done so instead of merely arguing about the consensus and linking to support for the consensus.

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/

Read, mark, learn & inwardly digest The evidence is clear and you have yet to explain why you don't accept it. Or are you of the Evangelical school of denial and believe God Will Save Us no matter what damage we do to the planet?

"Last May, Congressman Tim Walberg told his constituents that, while the climate may be changing, they don’t need to be concerned. “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us, and I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, He can take care of it.” And Shazam! There you have it. No need to worry about climate change because God holds the world in the palm of his hand and there’s no way He will allow any harm to come to the world He created".

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.

[HMS_Beagle]

arguing via weblink isn't allowed in the first place. If he wanted to present actual evidence then he should have done so instead of merely arguing about the consensus and linking to support for the consensus.

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".