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.
False dichotomy and I do not agree.
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.
The Cook study is not the only source provided in the NASA article.
Can you please provide me any legitimate source that actual has the raw data I can look over that shows any type of consensus?
False Dichotomy in what way?
If NASA is using that study as their main argument of a scientific consensus, they have NO consensus at all
Yes, it does.
Which has a direct reference to that study in the quote itself?
You just admitted that they were misrepresenting information based on that quote. How does it not invalidate it?
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
I was taken in by flawed science and a movie .
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.
The NASA article provides some. The studies I provided, more.
Where is the information that actually supports this claim?
I'm not claiming the science wasn't flawed. I'm noting that you were 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?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
BTW lateral thinking is superior to critical thinking.
I'm not claiming the science wasn't flawed. I'm noting that you were taken in by it...and a movie.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
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.
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.
I disagree.
we already know the parameters a critical thinker is thinking in.
I disagree
I also didn't realize that a polling group of 5% climate scientists represented an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.
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?
No as I stated I was unconcerned with the science in this thread I was dealing with the media hype .
My computer does not accept cookies.
You want a cookie don't you? Lol