'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% WrongEnvironmental | 206888 hits | Jan 08 12:15 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Opinions are not news.
"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
Opinions are not news.
If it was supporting the other side of the debate, it would be for sure
"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
Opinions are not news.
If it was supporting the other side of the debate, it would be for sure
Nope. And I didn't say I disagreed, it's editorial policy at CKA that opinion columns and blogs are not 'news'.
"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
Opinions are not news.
If it was supporting the other side of the debate, it would be for sure
Nope. And I didn't say I disagreed, it's editorial policy at CKA that opinion columns and blogs are not 'news'.
Yes, because 'editorial policy' at CKA is of paramount importance.
If it was supporting the other side of the debate, it would be for sure
Nope. And I didn't say I disagreed, it's editorial policy at CKA that opinion columns and blogs are not 'news'.
Yes, because 'editorial policy' at CKA is of paramount importance.
In the day and age where editors are getting shot for their editorial policies, I would say it's not a laughing matter. When the topic is of utmost importance to our species survival, I'd also say it wasn't a laughing matter.
That said, the number of deniers is undoubtedly shrinking. Event he heavyweight "skeptics" are't deniers--Lindzen, Dyson, Spencer, etc. Spencer is quickly running out of patience with the electric universe and the "back radiation" crowd on his website.
"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
Opinions are not news.
Nor do opinions in the form of popularity polls constitute science.
"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
Opinions are not news.
Nor do opinions in the form of popularity polls constitute science.
......and message boards.
"Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
Opinions are not news.
Nor do opinions in the form of popularity polls constitute science.
......and message boards.
I agree. But I'm not claiming that a 'consensus' is scientific proof of anything.
I agree. But I'm not claiming that a 'consensus' is scientific proof of anything.
and 97% would agree with you.
I agree. But I'm not claiming that a 'consensus' is scientific proof of anything.
Proof is for logic and alcohol. Not science.
I agree. But I'm not claiming that a 'consensus' is scientific proof of anything.
Proof is for logic and alcohol. Not science.
When you propose to end Western industrial civilization in order to maybe reduce the rate of warming that might or might not be happening then you goddam better have proof for the idea.
When you propose to end Western industrial civilization in order to maybe reduce the rate of warming that might or might not be happening then you goddam better have proof for the idea.
There's plenty of evidence. Just no proof. Even if there was such a thing, it still wouldn't convince the deniers. Ideology trumps facts for most people.