-
-
That sounds pretty scientific and evidence-driven.
-
Actually, it is. A study of scientific studies (in general) shows half are not valid. If AGW is true or false, about half of the claims are probably wrong. And the "wrong" side would be at least half wrong no matter what. All that wrongness is evident when you dig in.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think any scientist I have read or heard who has ever said they were '100%' accurate on the AGW side. They talk about confidence levels, which is a range. Talking about accuracy, how do you know it is '50%'? Why not 30% vs 70%. Where did you get 50%? Link?
-
Re: "I don't think any scientist I have read or heard who has ever said they were '100%' accurate on the AGW side" Adams is busy erecting a straw man, so he can tear it down. I'm long beyond the point where I think he's ever going to rationally evaluate the evidence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
In 1950 97% of scientist believed touching your child in a caring way was detrimental to healthy emotional growth... In 1960 97% of scientist believed the climate catastrophe would occur before 2015...
-
Presumably you have rigorous sources for those numbers?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That comic was funny because climate science has nothing to do with economy, so yes it is possible that the world's economy crashes, or WW3 starts, and we have no idea what it will do to ghg emissions ... But that does not change what happens if we keep on increasing emissions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
