<p>It did crack me up when they changed the phrase “global warming” to “climate change.” That way they can cover whatever might happen. It also cracks me up that “97% of climate scientists” agree, as opposed to, “1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenants of the ACC…”</p>
<p>So let’s state that almost all climate scientists agree, as opposed to saying that those who are most actively publishing agree. Hey, let’s just speak for all scientists and say they all agree.</p>
<p>The problem is, people start to question this when there is so much money involved. Give us more money for our grants, research, billions to pay out to other countries (without making the “developing countries” who are really putting out a lot of greenhouse gasses change their ways. Let’s give money to our donors, who want to produce costly, money losing “green energy” projects and line their pockets. Let’s start a carbon exchange, where those in the know can make wads of cash. Of course, the all knowing elite can keep their private jets and 20K sq ft houses, it’s you little people who have to cut back and just GIVE US MORE of your tax money.</p>
<p>So sure, even if humans are responsible for a tiny percentage of the “climate change” that is going on…which I do personally believe, it can be hard to convince people of this when there are so many with their hands out, looking for the cash grab.</p>
<p>Interesting how romani’s link is far more current than the earlier ones.</p>
<p>I like the appeal-to-authority argument given here. Ever heard of a logical fallacy?</p>
<p>you gave a statistic that you haven’t been willing to back with a source. which is unusual for a scientist.</p>
<p>why would you say you’re a scientist then refuse to say what are of scientific study you engage in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m all for it. Every time the weather is unseasonably warm all the deniers scoff and say “see? there’s no global warming” as if it is a perfectly consistent and linear change.</p>
<p>riprorin, most posters on this site who use their professional qualifications as support for the validity of their opinions are happy to say what their general field of study is, at least. How about it?</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t give two hoots about the climate change debate. I think it’s important but it’s not one I get involved in because I personally prioritize other issues. </p>
<p>What really irks me though is when people throw around clearly skewed statistics or those from a clearly biased source. It negatively impacts debates and spreads faulty knowledge. </p>
<p>What’s really ironic is that it comes from somewhere who seems so keen on making sure people “know” x, y, or z facts.</p>
<p>^ yes exactly romani. </p>
<p>RIP–for someone who repeatedly baits others on threads it’s also ironic for you to say you don’t want to have a link war. just sayin…</p>
<p>I’m not a climatologist, if that’s what you are after. Of course, IPCC includes many non-climatologists. Should we disbelieve what they say because they are not genuine climatologists?</p>
<p>There was once a consensus among scientists that the earth was flat. Would you have been right to accept that view based on consensus?</p>
<p>There are plenty of scientists that reject global warming. In fact, some believe that we are entering a period of global cooling and we will have a little ice age. If I post links, is that going to change your mind? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>I strongly agree with romani.
I’m going to add on to this. I find it ironic when people start a debate and throw out x, y, and z facts that are in no relation to each other and feel the need not to even “try” to tie in together. </p>
<p>Maybe ironic isn’t the right word…</p>
<p>okay you’re not a climatologist. not what I was after. I simply want to know what kind of scientist you ARE. ya know since you claimed you are a scientist.</p>
<p>Are you an engineer or geoscientist?</p>
<p>Eagerly looking forward to the eventual “super civil” climate change thread :)</p>
<p>@Niquii77 and mathmomvt
Admittedly, I was hasty in my generalizing about people in general. In my experience, there are few people in my everyday life who would just know that sort of thing.</p>
<p>Why care about the global warming debate? Here’s why:</p>
<p>Conclusion
The Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation analyzed a proposal to cut CO2 emissions by 70 percent. Such a cut would have little impact on global temperatures. At best, the trade-off is trillions of dollars in lost income and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs versus a fraction of a degree change in average world temperature 85 years from now.</p>
<p>[The</a> Economic Impact of Cap and Trade](<a href=“http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-economic-impact-of-cap-and-trade]The”>http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-economic-impact-of-cap-and-trade)</p>
<p>riprorin, I am going to guess that you are a computer scientist or an electrical engineer.</p>
<p>No, but how does it matter in this discussion?</p>
<p>
Some posters were inquiring about what kind of “scientist” you were. I guess previously you said you were a scientist.</p>