It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate change the coming Ice Age .

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

If NASA is using that study as their main argument of a scientific consensus, they have NO consensus at all and I am sure you can agree with me on that.
False dichotomy and I do not agree.


Can you please provide me any legitimate source that actual has the raw data I can look over that shows any type of consensus?
The Cook study is not the only source provided in the NASA article.

www.sciencemag.org...
tigger.uic.edu...
www.pnas.org...

edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I didn't say it was the only source, it was the first one referenced however. It was also the one they used to form the false narrative of a 97% consensus.

False Dichotomy in what way?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

False Dichotomy in what way?


In this way.


If NASA is using that study as their main argument of a scientific consensus, they have NO consensus at all

There is no connection between what the article says about the study and whether or not there is consensus.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So the title of the article is literally "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree".

Yet somehow there is no connection between that and when they say "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 very likely due to human activities."

Which has a direct reference to that study in the quote itself?

Wow Phage.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3


Which has a direct reference to that study in the quote itself?
Yes, it does.
How does that invalidate the claim of consensus? You said that there is no consensus at all.

edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You just admitted that they were misrepresenting information based on that quote. How does it not invalidate it?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3




You just admitted that they were misrepresenting information based on that quote. How does it not invalidate it?

Because what the article says about the study has no bearing on findings of the study. I've seen plenty of examples of articles about studies which misrepresent those studies to varying degrees (often much more so than in this case). Those articles have no bearing on the accuracy of those studies.

The study itself (not what the article says about it) says there is consensus. The other sources show there is consensus. The studies I provided show there is consensus.

edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greathouse



One of your first replies even said it was the media and not the scientist ?

Your OP:

Here's a newspaper clipping from that era does anyone notice anything similar to today's scenarios ?


I was taken in by flawed science and a movie .





Here's a newspaper clipping from that era does anyone notice anything


Yep that's exactly what I said. In case you didn't know it was a newspaper clipping from the 70s exploiting the hype just like I said .


I was taken in by flawed science and a movie .


I'm puzzled as to why you would quote that are you claiming the science wasn't flawed then?

And again the movie refers to the hype .



BTW lateral thinking is superior to critical thinking.

edit on 6-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The findings of the study are 100% BS. Which I will get into in a minute here.

We are talking about NASA and a consensus. According to them a 97% consensus.

The fact that NASA leads their consensus argument with a study so false and misleading discredits them and this "consensus".

You are stating a fact here. That there is a consensus. That the debate is over. When you make such claims you need to have information that backs it up.

So lets get into that. Where is the information that actually supports this claim?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3




You are stating a fact here. That there is a consensus. That the debate is over. When you make such claims you need to have information that backs it up.

Read again. I said that I think the vast majority of climate scientists agree with AGW. I said that I think the debate is over. I also said that I think that the science supports their position.


Where is the information that actually supports this claim?
The NASA article provides some. The studies I provided, more.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I'm puzzled as to why you would quote that are you claiming the science wasn't flawed then?
I'm not claiming the science wasn't flawed. I'm noting that you were taken in by flawed science...and a movie.

I also noted your inaccurate comparison to the current state of affairs, btw.



BTW lateral thinking is superior to critical thinking.
The two are not mutually exclusive.


edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I know all of those studies and have analyzed them as well. They provide no evidence of any type of consensus. When you apply logic and reasoning to their flawed and biased findings, they fail completely in proving any type of consensus.

The NASA article provides misleading information, nothing to support their claim. Your studies don't do any better.

For instance, from the study you linked here, the polling group was 90% US residents, and 5% climate scientists. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the US was the consensus for the world scientists. I also didn't realize that a polling group of 5% climate scientists represented an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. Last but not least, only 82% answered yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

tigger.uic.edu...



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I'm not claiming the science wasn't flawed. I'm noting that you were taken in by it...and a movie.


Which is why I compared it to the current media hype . Which is the basis of this whole thread as I've said repeatedly after you turned it to the scientist.


The two are not mutually exclusive.


Um..,, yes they are . Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, we already know the parameters a critical thinker is thinking in. We are just misunderstood because we naturally assume everybody else also knows them .


edit on 6-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
Ok.
You don't think there is a consensus. You've made that clear.
I've tried to make it clear that I think there is. And that I think the science supports it.

edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Which is why I compared it to the current media hype . Which is the basis of this whole thread as I've said repeatedly after you turned it to the scientist.
But you failed to note the constancy of the science which puts a monkey wrench to the basis of your premise that it's the same now as it was then.


we already know the parameters a critical thinker is thinking in.
I disagree.



edit on 6/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No as I stated I was unconcerned with the science in this thread I was dealing with the media hype .


I disagree


I already knew you were going to say that I also assumed everybody else did !


I think I know what you're up to now.


You want a cookie don't you? Lol
edit on 7-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3




I also didn't realize that a polling group of 5% climate scientists represented an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.

Then I guess you don't understand the basic concepts of scientific polling.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes Phage, we already established that.

When someone makes a claim of something like an overall consensus, there needs to be evidence to support this claim. I was asking you for actual evidence in which you gave me links to studies that show nothing of the sort. It is all misleading and agenda driven.

You can't say the debate is over before you have the debate. It doesn't work that way.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ahh okay...I didn't realize that the basic underlying concepts of scientific polling was for creating misleading propaganda.

My bad.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

No as I stated I was unconcerned with the science in this thread I was dealing with the media hype .
Well, no. You clearly stated you were taken in by bad science and media, you further mentioned your lack of conviction about the science. Does media take advantage of such ambivalence? No doubt. Who's fault is that?

I posit that by selecting this particular topic upon which to focus your (justified) distrust of the media, you have also chosen a topic which would inevitably introduce the manufactured controversy about AGW.


You want a cookie don't you? Lol
My computer does not accept cookies.
edit on 6/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join