There is no point in me trying to replicate the scrutiny that trained scientists can do and have done with regards this issue. Is it really credible that I could come up with an opposing conclusion? Would it then be reasonable to expect public policy to be revised to meet my conclusions? Not likely.
I donât think I would have a great deal of faith in âtrained scientistsâ - although I believe you are right, that is exactly what they seem to be - trained and indoctrinated. In my day scientists were supposed to be able to think for themselves - They were also perfectly happy to explain their hypotheses to anyone interested enough to listen without patronising dogma and mantra like chanting from propaganda based websites.
In fact I did put up a link - as I said, to an interesting discussion between two extremely well qualified and knowledgeable Real Climate scientists ;
Which neither you nor my other heckler bothered to waste an hour watching.
They discuss the various âNASAâ propaganda (They donât call it Propaganda - just âOver-simplifiedâ) But they also both refuse to say âHow many scientists agreeâ - although there seems to be some evidence that around 38% definitely do not, presented in the programme.
However BOTH give certain sets of evidence which would lead them to reconsider their positions. AS I said Both are in that frudulently claimed 97% (and you know it is - We demonstrated that on that other thread )
I think the real point is that it is remarkable just how little difference there is between the two participants and how very close to Neutral Both positions are - effectively - they donât really know !
There is certainly none of the AL Gore certainty and the main body of opinion seems to Far less than my two personal Zealots seem to want to believe.
As to that âChartâ which is from 1880 to 2020 displayed so large on a post you liked from your compatriot - (That âchart has been Adjustedâ by the way to make it âmore helpful to the causeâ - But what exactly does it show ?
It shows that in 140 years the AVerage Temperature has RISEN 
by less than a single degree - in fact itâs total variation over a 140 year period is only about a degree. in 140 years!
Lets put it like this - As a âTraderâ youâre used to looking at charts - so the first thing to look at is the SCALE - The whole damn chart only covers a couple of degrees (And I cansee no real logic or explanation of the âZeroâ line.
IF that "Chart was "The price of Gold " and it had risen 0.8 cents over 140 years - would you be âpanicking about raging inflationâ ? Or would you be thinking âNo point in trading Gold - itâs going nowhereâ ?
Why donât you just watch the programme ?
Like I said before, I will go with the majority of scientists, I donât need unanimity.
Maybe I am a heckler, as I suggest this is a pointless discussion about which scientists two non-scientists should believe. There isnât an answer.
2 Likes
That is about as close to the real truth as we have got so far. The sides are so close that the real difference is Political - However we do not have any workable solution as yet - even if it was true ! so why are we winding our children up and setting them off on their ricketty lurching towards adulthood - already indoctrinated and close to mental breakdown, when the evidence is so weak as to be close to even money ?
why in 2019 ? - are we taxing by subsidy our people so hard that 2700 of them in the UK alone die every winter because they cannot afford to keep themselves warm enough to still be alive in the morning ?
I agree with you. Both governments and citizens should pay attention to all global problems that we are facing nowadays. However, unfortunately, it seems impossible
I fully agree with Tommor. I also dont think too much about issues that I do not understand well, and are not part of my educational background. For these questions, I will just follow what majority of scientist are saying and especially concluding based on scientific observations and research
1 Like
Well youâre right - That is the view of a good many of those who are not prepared to make the effort to think about things.
Well I think if you apply the same logic and the same methods - you will find that the large majority of Religious âexpertsâ agree with these people too
Perhaps we are in the process of developing true understanding - "Know thy place plebs ! "
Like this you mean ?
I also think that global warming is only a general topic that serves for people to move their eyes from real problems. Anyway, global warming really exists, but really, how feasible is today to do anything about it. It is not an country issue- it is global one
Ok lads hereâs proof that âMost scientists agreeâ (97%) is over stated by a huge amount and many of the âDisagreeing papersâ never even got into the faked calculations in the first place (minute 16 - 21 - the actual "Agree figure is TINY - but listen on to hear the âreduction programmeâ feasibility assessement !
In fact - listen to the whole thing and learn the TRUTH ! 
I guess youâll be willing to change your mind too then when you learn the truth
Stop this whole thing Falstaff. Come back when you can show the majority of scientists come round to your point of view.
1 Like
falstaff is a perfect example of a filter bubble (also called information bubble).
there is no use arguing against him in any way. there is little chance he could find any of the evidence you present to him as usefull, as it only takes a few clicks for him to find information which says the exact opposite.
if he ever comes up with the idea of buying a new computer, not link it to his social medias (and google accounts) and use a public wifi, and then perhaps does a new âresearchâ as a unknown customer to google and other social medias (basically as a âwhite paper userâ), he might will find out that the majority of ânewsâ and scientific differ strongly from his old views.
same goes for brexit as well as global warming.
filter bubbles are bad. on one side thou they are good, they keep the âspecial casesâ busy with their own world and distract them from annoying other people.
sorry for me being so direct.
2 Likes
I just showed you that the majority of Scientists do not wholeheartedly support the proposion that âAnthropogenic Carbon dioxide is directly resposible for Global Warmingâ - But I expect you didnât bother to look at the spoonfeed I gave you 
If you are unable to answer my points in an intelligent manner, Please do not try to classify me as a member of a group - I am an individual and have real opinions which I am always prepared to back up.
Your defamatory characterisation of me as someone who is unable or unwilling to consider both sides of an argument before forming an opinion says far more about your cognitive ability than it does about me.
That seems to be far more applicable to some other members than it is to me. As for your good self I have seen a number of your posts but yet to see a positive contribution - perhaps you could link me to a few ?
Give it up Falstaff.
The majority of scientists say that 1) global warming is occurring, and 2) that this is mostly due to human activities.
Its not important to the issue of global warming whether I watch your video clips or not, as I am not the majority of scientists and the majority of scientists are certainly not going to consult me on this issue. Send your clips to them not me. When theyâre convinced, I think I remember I already promised to accept what they say.
i could say the same about your posts, just contrary to my believe about my post, you think your posts are positive contribution and hold some sort of value or information 
Well if you and all the others who spout this 97% figure actually took the five minutes required to understand just how UNTRUE that figure is - That may well make a difference to thy 2700 people who die in the uk every winter because of exhorbitant and skyrocketting heating costs.
NASA own Figures (You have seen the chart - submitted if I remember right by Eddie !) 0.8 degrees Centigrade over the last 140 years - Multiple tens of Trillions of dollars wasted on âReduction of emissionsâ Could possibly reduce the temperature in 2100 by a few hundredths of One degree !
But China, India and soon to be AFrica and the rest of Asia are ALL Increasing their industralisation - They (and Russia) all think we are stupid. However if we wish to cripple ourselves from a competitive poit of view - who are they to complain.
Nowadays they call it âClimate changeâ mate - since we are overdue the rapid descent into the naxt ice age which will once again see a mile of ice over London.
Credit http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
But check it out anywhere you like - WArming is not a killer of whole populations - cooling IS ! 
Stop it Falstaff, youâre wasting your time. As you do not have the majority of scientists backing you up on this scientific question, I would have to be an idiot to accept what you say.
@MrDE I note you left the âPerhaps you could link me to a fewâ out of your quote
Perhaps not then ?
Perhaps, as far as YOU are concerned, I might be - Cognitive dissonance can be a powerful force - but I may be able to place a seed of enquiry into some less dogmatic readers
It is after all the younger ones who matter and it is a shame to watch them wasting their future resouces and opportunities