Jophiel wrote:
The scientists who say that it's true are ones actually in related fields who are publishing papers about it. Not random names on a mail-in petition including people who are dead and complete joke names. Sh*t, out of ten random names, I found a so-called PhD who was someone submitting the name of a school as a scientist. Maybe I just got real lucky to find the one joke name out of 31,000 but I kind of doubt it.
Wonderful Joph. Now apply the same criteria to the scientists involved in the IPCC's consensus regarding global warming. How many of those have PhDs? How many of those PhDs work in relevant fields?
I'm simply asking that you judge both by the same criteria. If you reject this consensus on some grounds, you should also reject the IPCC consensus on the same grounds, or at least assess it in the same way. I seem to recall the last several times we debated this, that the basic argument was that since a whole bunch of scientists said Global Warming was true, it must be true...
Quote:
When I mention scientific concensus, I'm referring to people actively in the fields related to climatology and anthropogenic climate change who have published studies and works regarding it.
And how many of those people were amount the 3k or so the IPCC used to generate their consensus? That's all I'm asking Joph. Judge both sides by the same criteria...