Skip to comments.
Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change
Popular Science ^
| 1/10/2014
| Emily Gertz
Posted on 01/13/2014 1:40:30 PM PST by llevrok
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
To: llevrok
I am reminded of Einstein’s comment when he was told that a pamphlet critiquing his theory of relativity had been published under the title “100 Authors Against Einstein”: “If I had been wrong, one would have been enough.”
21
posted on
01/13/2014 1:58:20 PM PST
by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
To: llevrok; Revolting cat!; GeronL
Popular Science made an art of popularizing fantasy.
22
posted on
01/13/2014 1:58:59 PM PST
by
a fool in paradise
("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
To: llevrok
Let's flip this around on them....
Consensus doesn't necessarily equal "settled science"
23
posted on
01/13/2014 2:00:39 PM PST
by
GraceG
To: llevrok
Neither scientific fact nor religious truth is determined by majority vote, no matter how overwhelming said vote may be.
At the beginning of the 16th century, a Polish scientist named Nicolaus Copernicus stood alone in his thesis that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe around which all other planets revolved. Not a single scientist, religious or political leader would stand by him.
Guess who turned out to be correct.
24
posted on
01/13/2014 2:00:57 PM PST
by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: a fool in paradise
25
posted on
01/13/2014 2:02:22 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
To: VanDeKoik
It looks like the chart from the early 20th century of scientists that thought that the Milky Way was the whole universe.
The one sliver would have been Edwin Hubble. Glad that we dont do things based on pie charts.
Consensus doesn’t always equal “settled science” it usually means “this is the best guess we have so far with the measurements we have taken with our flawed measurement devices as of now”....
Sadly the measurements have been disagreeing with them for the last 10 years and they have been ignoring or dismissing the data due to the “orthodoxy of science” and the “preservation of ingrained science doctrine”...
26
posted on
01/13/2014 2:03:18 PM PST
by
GraceG
To: VanDeKoik
I think Galileo would also have been in that very small slice.
27
posted on
01/13/2014 2:05:10 PM PST
by
henkster
(Communists never negotiate.)
To: llevrok
This is the ultimate in stupidity. It is certainly true that most climate scientists agree that human activity results in some degree of global warming. The question is NOT if humans contribute to global warming. The real question is the extent to which human activity affects the climate. A further question is whether the resulting warming is catastrophic.
One of the major meteorological societies recently conducted a poll and found that just over 50% thought anthropogenic global warming was a problem.
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: Bob
They openly commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. And either they’re too stupid to realize it, or they think we’re too stupid to realize it.
Then again, with the idiotic feminized sheeple, it’s all about conforming to the consensus. Majority rules, to them, in science, and don’t try to confuse them with the facts.
30
posted on
01/13/2014 2:09:53 PM PST
by
afsnco
To: llevrok
31
posted on
01/13/2014 2:13:11 PM PST
by
Mechanicos
(When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
To: llevrok
Somebody posted that chart at ZDNet, and my response was:
First off, "consensus" is NOT science. Consensus is pretty easy to attain when the proponents and backers of an idea are all predisposed to believing what is "preached" to them.
How many of those in the consensus chart represent the opposite "science" (and I do mean "science" and not opinion).
Real science NEVER works with consensus. Real science works with facts, and not opinion, nor with agendas.
One could easily gather up 3000 real scientists, and those scientists would easily dispute the "consensus science" from the consensus "scientists". Consensus is something that works in the realm of opinion, and is used very often when making political decisions. With science, the precision factor invalidates any science which doesn't conform to being based on just the facts.
BTW, here's that discussion:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/eu-mulls-over-scrapping-2030-energy-environmental-targets/?tag=nl.e660&s_cid=e660&ttag=e660&ftag=TRE4eb29b5
32
posted on
01/13/2014 2:13:39 PM PST
by
adorno
(Y)
To: llevrok
Who funded the pro side research?
33
posted on
01/13/2014 2:18:25 PM PST
by
Axenolith
(Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
To: adorno
CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. It’s political science
34
posted on
01/13/2014 2:19:23 PM PST
by
spawn44
( moo)
To: a fool in paradise
I was thinking the same thing.
PS has been promoting Popular Fantasy for a long time.
35
posted on
01/13/2014 2:24:05 PM PST
by
Zathras
To: spawn44
CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. Its political science
That's basically what I said in my response.
36
posted on
01/13/2014 2:24:51 PM PST
by
adorno
(Y)
To: llevrok
I don’t read PS anymore. They tend to echo the party line too much.
To: llevrok
38
posted on
01/13/2014 2:31:58 PM PST
by
Southack
(The one thing preppers need from the 1st World? http://tinyurl.com/ktfwljc .)
To: llevrok
Since all the scientists agree, why not stop funding climate change research?
To: llevrok
The dishonesty of the Warmists is breath-taking.
40
posted on
01/13/2014 2:40:19 PM PST
by
Amadeo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson