There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.

I enjoyed some of our other debates, Didymos. Like that one on ethics. I sense some hostility. I hope the marijuana thing didn't cause that.

Even if there was a consensus, since when is that a valid argument?

Heck no! No hostility at all, friend.

When a group of laymen discuss an issue which relies on the work of experts. If, for example, we discuss whether or not alcoholism is destructive to the human body, as laypeople, we have no option but to rely on the word of experts. When the vast majority of experts agree that alcoholism is destructive to the human body, we laypeople have no option but to agree with those experts. To deny that alcoholism is destructive to the human body in the face of this expert support, based on a few detractors, is nonsensical.

There is no claim of consensus that alcoholism is destructive to the human body.

The claim of consensus is entirely unscientific, it is a political tool.

And I ask you why it would be needed if not for justifying policies.

Is all this propaganda purely to save the earth from getting warmer?

Why isn't that peddle as a "environmentalism package" together with not poisoning lakes and saving the rain forest? Because saving the world isn't the goal.

There is no doubt in my mind that the science is phony.

I enjoyed some of our other debates, Didymos. Like that one on ethics. I sense some hostility. I hope the marijuana thing didn't cause that.

Even if there was a consensus, since when is that a valid argument?
Say, at what percentage does a badly covered combination of appeal to majority belief and appeal to authority stop being a fallacy? 30% 51% 85%


ABD - Green myths on global warming

Actually, there is. Medical practitioners universally agree that alcohol is destructive to the human body.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

Did you answer my question?

Sorry, there was no question. You made a statement and I disagree. I think it is impossible to prove either side, so I didn't comment.

No it aint that easy..are scientists lying? come on dont be frightened.

In that phrasing, no. I don't think a large number of scientists are really supporting the global warming theory.
As for those who do support it, I wouldn't say they are lying, but being forced by todays financial reality of being a scientist to emphasize what their bosses want to hear (and leave out the rest).

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

xris, you always say that greed is the reason that moral obligations are forgotten in the pursuit of income, why is that different with global warming scientists? They are trying to make a living.

________________

answer the question are those scientists lying???? its a simple question??????

No. I don't think they are lying.
And even scientists are humans, they can mistake.

It was in that quote. I don't think there really is a consensus.

The ones who advocate global warming are not exactly lying.
Knowing that a certain result of their studies is what will get them ahead, they intentionally or unintentionally make that result happen.

How would your studies end up if you know that one outcome will get you a grant and the opposite will get you no grant and a smaller office with no daylight.

So they are not lying but they are lying to get grants..oh my oh my ...So now we have it ..the scientists are all lying to get grants from government departments.
This is the intention of the scientific world to manipulate their figures to satisfy those who give them grants....

Pretty much. Are you saying there intentions are the noble seeking of the truth, and they don't care about their careers? Weren't you the one saying that people are greedy and forget morales?

Not at all. I said a few times that many scientists don't agree with global warming. Maybe not even half. Those who do don't all lie. They bend results a little. And results that support global warming are emphasized by media and politicians, those that are no, are buried.
It's actually pretty straight forward, if you think about it.

the world is warming more and faster than any other time in the earths history and the cause is mans excessive use of fossil fuels.