CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:16
Arguments:17
Total Votes:17
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 How did Climate Change become a "Liberal Hoax" when 97% of Climate Scientists are Alarmist (9)

Debate Creator

14giraffes(87) pic



How did Climate Change become a "Liberal Hoax" when 97% of Climate Scientists are Alarmist

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


This information is taken from NASA.GOV (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

Add New Argument
3 points

it's obvious 97% of the Climate Scientists are filthy Liberals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 point

I guess the bottom line is its difficult to be absolutely certain which is correct

1 Is climate change a natural phenomenon

2 Is climate change due to human activity

Second guess is that it is because they may well both be correct

The problem here is are we hastening change through human activity and for that we need enough research to be really sure we know the answer otherwise people and organisations etc will simply beat on their own drum and that leads nowhere except a lot of noise, chaos, confusion and general inactivity.

Jace(5222) Disputed
2 points

It is impossible to be absolutely certain of anything, but the present body of research is a more than adequate basis from which to assume a stance on the matter. Perhaps you did not read closely, but 97% of professionals in the field of climate science hold the view not only that climate change occurs naturally but that present climate change is significantly attributable to human activity. To hold another stance is to contradict the overwhelming consensus majority of professionals in the field. Tell me truly, which position seems least likely to be true?

All we can know for sure is that Democrats who push this environmental hogwash, are corrupt liars who will say and do anything to get their agendas passed. This is nothing new. They do it with gun control, they do it with any issue dear to their corrupt hearts.

Amarel(5669) Clarified
4 points

How can we know for sure that they are corrupt liars? How do we know they don't believe what they say?

PhilboydStud(79) Clarified
2 points

Because that's what Fox News says. No need to question anything they say.

FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

They have been proven wrong so many times that either the person admits his data is wrong or he has an agenda and is a liar.

4 points

What evidence do you have for this? You are claiming that every Democrat who recognizes this issue is "corrupt" and that requires quite a huge amount of evidence to back up.

Jace(5222) Clarified
3 points

By referencing the matter as "environmental hogwash" you are effectively indicating that you think that 97% of climate scientists who are professionals on the matter are incorrect. The basis for that claim would be... the remaining 3% and your assertion. Somehow, I suspect you are empirically incorrect on this issue. But here I am trying to present a rationale argument to someone who clearly lacks any appreciation for either that or science...

FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

Do you understand the concept of fool me once, fool me twice?

97% of those scientists called it "GLOBAL WARMING" until it was no longer global warming. Then 97% of those so called experts changed the name to climate change.

Tell me what kind of fool believes a bunch of liars or inept people whose models mostly were completely wrong. The only fools who would believe these people are ideologs who could care less about facts and want to force more intrusive environmental laws.

1 point

Hi Jace

I have to be the devils advocate on your argument because the one thing that my studies of statistics at uni taught me is that and without substantiation of how figures are obtained and what and how questions are asked we can turn black into white and make 2+2 equal 5

97% means absolutely nothing without corroboration

Jace(5222) Disputed
2 points

Right, except here is the thing: that figure is corroborated (the citation having been provided by the debate creator above). Even were the specific figure incorrect there is more than ample basis from which to conclude that there is scientific consensus on the matter (again, see the citations that have already been provided).

P.S. Please select one of the response options highlighted in hyperlink blue (support, dispute, clarify) on this post in order to directly reply to me. Otherwise I may very well miss your response since I do not receive notification when you make a new post outside this thread.