NCN.
It’s been mentioned before, but this is asinine.
The number of papers that didn’t say one way or the other if they support AGW isn’t meaningful. What is meaningful is the number that specifically support and detract from AGW. Notice that you have the number that take a stance one way or the other, and of them 97 plus percent are for.
Please think about this for awhile before responding.
So, you are unconvinced by me, yet cannot point to what you claim I was trying to convince you of. Okay.
And what team do you think I’m on. As it turns out, there is very little that GIGO and I disagree on with this issue.
Lying? No. I do seem to recall that they thought Pluto was a planet at one time though. I don’t think that was a lie either.
What do you mean by “in my favor”? What position do you think I hold on this subject?
Now, someone went through the numbers as yo how they reached 97%, which makes them MUCH less impressive. But even if they were, the point is that there are a bunch of people who are experts who know WAY more than you who disagree. So the subject is not settled, is it? People can be wrong. Even a majority. There was a point when almost all the leading scientists in the world who had an a good (for the day) understanding of electricity thought that Direct Current was the superior method. AC was scoffed at. What happened? The leading scientists of the day, including one of the best scientists of all time, Edison, was proven wrong by a young Tesla.[
Your stance is identical to an anti-vaxxers stance. You suggest that money is why tens of thousands of working scientists from around the world publish lies.
Your classes mean you’re a amateur with zero grounding in the specialty at hand. Do you think that a nurse can do brain surgery? Why even have specialties, if some guy who took a few classes can evaluate the data better than the experts? Your position is utter nonsense.
The debate should be, “What should we do about it”. Not “3% of the experts disagree, each side is equal!!1”
My opinion, like yours, would be meaningless on the science. If you just decide that with your feeble science training that you’re the equal of thousands of PhD level experts, your opinion on your own competence is worth very little.
Horseshit. You haven’t published in the field, and aren’t a climate scientist. You expect me to believe that your level of knowledge is anywhere near comparable to what an expert knows?
You may know how to fix a car engine, but that doesn’t mean you have any idea how to repair the space shuttle.
You don’t have the training or degrees that the experts in the field have, so yes, you are untrained. I’m sure you’re a smart guy, but unless you’re working in the field, you probably don’t know what you don’t know. Dunning-Kruger again.
Since the font on that other page must have made you not read it, here it is presented differently: http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/938
The takeaway: 12000 some papers. 66 percent or so don’t mention a cause. They are just pure science papers on some facet of global warming. The ones that do endorse a cause, 97% pro, 3 percent con.
Where are the papers that support your stance? It isn’t there, because they people that know what they’re talking about on this subject, agree. 3% don’t.
So who cares what some message boarder says? We have the science and the consensus.
You were trying to convince me that Aji’s contention that I accept the expert’s consensus of the issue was a bad thing. Which, I think you’d admit, I’ve at the least argued against intelligently.
Aji said, “Why do you think you, being untrained and ignorant of the science can speak about and defend something you cannot understand and only repeat other people opinions on the subject?” And you came out like the second string Kobra Kai guy from Karate Kid and screamed, “Get 'em a body bag!”
I paraphrase. 
I think because you view AGW denial as a conservative issue, you want to defend AGW deniers because otherwise it makes American 21st Century Conservatism look stupid and backward.
So you think in the future they’ll decide that 97% isn’t a compelling consensus?
See above.
You can find 3% of people who think Obama is the antichrist. You can find 3% of people who think that shape changing lizards run the stock exchange. You’re pointing at the 3% and screaming, “See! See!”. You need to look at the 97%. And as I said above, the 97% applies to the published work on climate science that says humans are, or are not responsible. If Joe the Climate scientist published a report about ice cores and didn’t take a stance on human culpability, that article isn’t relevant, right?
Do you think that’s a trick? Do you think that’s dishonest? Think for a second before responding please.
I don’t think you can count Edison as one of the best scientists of all time. But in any case, if AGW is wrong, you need to have evidence for it.
It is a fact, that the experts who have reviewed the evidence find the case very compelling. That is a fact, and you can’t just pretend that because 3% of the journal articles go against, that the fight is equal. One side is Muhammad Ali strutting, the other is a pile of blood, pain and mucus trying to stand.
You’re wrong about a lot here. I don’t think I disagree with the science or the scientists. And I have no problem calling conservatives who flat-out deny the science a bunch of idiots. My problem is with people like GIGO who jump from the science and the scientific consensus and then try to quash ANY dissent or even questioning like a rabid pit bull who got into Barry Bond’s secret storage of juice. Or, as I’ve stated before, like the most aggressive religious evangelist. It’s simply not helpful. I’m probably a proponent of the vast majority of steps his side want us to take, and I’d like others to get on the same page, but is tactics are off-putting to say the least. Fuck, he makes me want to stop recycling, sell my bikes, by a Hummer, and have huge daily parties with nothing but styrofoam, plates and cups, with the AC on and all the windows open. I think he loses less of the already converted than he gains. That’s why I suggested he start that thread. In science, skepticism is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Does three percent of peer-reviewed MMI research take an anti-vaccination position? Because that would surprise me very much.
This kind of credentiallism has no place on a debate board whose modus operandi is exchanges between and among anonymous posters.
And now you demean not only your opponent, but the board itself. Why should moderators let this kind of rhetoric go unchallenged?
Because it’s only a general discussion message board, where any idiot (I’m speaking of myself!) can post with perfect equality with people who really know stuff. There are a few rules here, but “Knowing what you’re talking about” isn’t one of them, and most especially not “Knowing what you’re talking about at a Ph. D. level.”
We all hold forth here on what we believe. Sometimes, it’s actually educational.
I’m asking why a statement like “who cares what some message boarder says?” should be within the rules. It strikes me as a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy of the board, and if anything is against the rules, that ought to be, IMO.
Seriously? The unofficial motto of this board is, “Cite!”
You can tell me that you’ve uncovered a flaw in evolution, but you better fucking well cite actual experts that agree with you.
Few on the anti GW side ever offer legitimate cites. They claim, like Clothahump to simply know that the Sun is the cause because they read about it, or scoff about how it’s big money distorting the market.
You (assuming you’re not a climate scientist), or Aji, or anyone else that isn’t a climate scientist, or at least who is in an associated field and has a strong grounding in the data and particulars simply doesn’t have the time, knowledge or education to talk about the actual science intelligently.
I’m saying, having an opinion on climate science, as a layperson, is like having an opinion on vaccinations, or having an opinion about how homeopathic medicine is real.
So, with all due respect, cite some actual science. Domo.
As it was demonstrated many times, it is the contrarians the ones that use religion to tell others to not look at the evidence.
One again, you are not able to distinguish between skeptics and deniers and between experts and proponents of AGW.
And there is plenty of past post history from you to report that you never would approve of any related environmentalist solution just because there are mostly liberals talking about it; as it was shown before, most of the conservative climate scientists continue to tell you that you are wrong on this one.
Remember, one of the main reasons why Skeptical Science got that name was to make a very important point: You need to be skeptical of the skeptics and deniers of this also. Specially when the evidence is overwhelming that there is an agenda behind their contrariarism, that is mostly conservative religious in nature and also with connections to the fossil fuel industry.
Whoops, you know what they say about assuming. Actually, I am a climate scientist, one of the premier figures in my field. It would not be appropriate for me to post under my real name, of course; so I just hang out here anonymously. 
I doubt it. But the case for vaccination is much better than for AGW, because it is fairly simple. And doesn’t have RW media lying to people about it daily.
See the above post.
Because I’m right?
Post the specific papers you think make the best case for your cause. Also, explain in detail, if you would, why the other 97% of the papers are wrong, and you are right. Thanks in advance!
Okay, so the parallel was not apt. That’s what I thought.
ETA:
Who says I’m on the side of the 3%? As for the rest, I don’t think it would be fair to take the discussion past a layman level. You understand.
Two things can be the same in principle without being the same in degree.
I notice that you simply cut snippits out instead of honestly answering things that make your argument look silly. Do you think that’s a legitimate way to debate on a message board?
Well, if you were telling the truth, you’d be actually qualified to talk about it. Unlike Aji and myself.
Yes. You are free to differ, of course. There is ample precedent for quoting someone a sentence or paragraph at a time. It’s not like I use a million ellipses to portray them as saying the opposite of what they really mean.
Yeah, you claim this again and again. But—newsflash—it doesn’t make it true. Drowning this silly claim is the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Namely, countless posts advertising your zealotry, attitude, and desparate-to-save-the-world missionary-grade need to quash any dissent and ridicule it speaks for itself. Understandable though, I guess, as you are the one who has been called to save the world. :rolleyes:
Oh, now you choose to spew complete bullshit. I’m unsurprised.
One overall comment, thanks for proving my point.
Can I get an AMEN, Gigs!?
So GIGO, why not start that thread I suggested? Seems like it would be the perfect vehicle for you to offer an airtight super-convincing case that would do a good job of bringing fence-sitters and denialists alike to see the light.
Or do you prefer to continue with your riverdance. Keep those feet, uh, I mean cites flying!