[Hazaanko]

Hazaanko, since we are on the same "side" for the moment this feels a bit award but, at least those last two links are BS and if you are going to seriously try to argue this stuff you should recognize this. the first one doesn't work and the second one being a direct source from the IPCC could be used for a valid attack on them if they admit to something in it. but I could find 5000 people who could be accurately described as "qualified researchers" who would agree with just about anything I wanted, 500 is nothing and even if it's five billion people it could still be wrong.
the fourth one is just a mess. I really doubt 528 is a decent sample size for climate related papers, 'medical researcher' is hardly the sort of person who should be compiling these sorts of statistics professionally, neutral doesn't mean oppose, it means they were either on some topic completely unrelated or was worded as to not take sides, which scientific papers generally strive for. and once again it seems you are trying to make some sort of broken "everyone else is doing it" argument. if there is wide spread consensus on a subject is irrelevant to whether it's correct or not.
it's no wonder no one wants to read your links if this is there content.

but more importantly, you should make your arguments yourself, not offload them onto "experts" who present you with a fancy sounding statistic. you should look at the data behind what is being discussed and try to make your own conclusions from it, based on what's known and what can be accurately mathematically extrapolated.

Um, I already had made the arguments myself.  that was why people were asking me for sources.  They were ASKING to be offloaded onto experts, since they obviously don't consider me one.  I already have looked at the data, and made my conclusion..... long before I ever started this thread.  Those links were just what I could find in the five minutes I had.  The point was (whether the last two links were 'good sources' or not... to prove whether there were more than just 4 scientists that did not believe in global warming.  And I did.  In less than 5 minutes.  I wonder what looking around for a while longer would result?



***taps foot waiting for Kosh to chime in telling me I didn't prove anything...

[Kosh]

Who were these 4 scientists again?

[Hazaanko]

 

[Mefustae]

Who were these 4 scientists again?

Only two scientists, really. One of the "dissenting experts" in that video is a staunch supporter of Intelligent Design, and the other does believe in man-made Global Warming. If Hazaanko was wrong about those two scientists, one must wonder what else you could be incorrect about.

[Hazaanko]

What the.... how was -I- 'wrong' about those two scientists?!?!?  I never said anything in defense of them in the first place.      I never even brought them up.  Now you're just making stuff up.  If you were wrong about that aspect... I wonder what else you could be making up...?

[Mefustae]

What the.... how was -I- 'wrong' about those two scientists?!?!?  I never said anything in defense of them in the first place. I never even brought them up.  Now you're just making stuff up.  If you were wrong about that aspect... I wonder what else you could be making up...?

Yeah, sorry about that. Dick move on my part, must have been feeling a little abrasive when I wrote that.

But anyway, you've referenced the 4 scientists - which i'm assuming you took from that ABC report - a few times as "part of a far larger crowd" of scientists against Global Warming. I was just pointing out  that they were not all what they were made out to be, further emphasizing the worthlessness of that fluff-piece you posted. Again, sorry to sound so dickish before.

[Hazaanko]

What the.... how was -I- 'wrong' about those two scientists?!?!?  I never said anything in defense of them in the first place. I never even brought them up.  Now you're just making stuff up.  If you were wrong about that aspect... I wonder what else you could be making up...?

Yeah, sorry about that. Dick move on my part, must have been feeling a little abrasive when I wrote that.

But anyway, you've referenced the 4 scientists - which i'm assuming you took from that ABC report - a few times as "part of a far larger crowd" of scientists against Global Warming. I was just pointing out  that they were not all what they were made out to be, further emphasizing the worthlessness of that fluff-piece you posted. Again, sorry to sound so dickish before.

Fluff-piece or not, you seem to have gotten one of the points I was originally trying to make.  Not all scientists are what they seem or are made out to be.

[Kosh]

It doesn't help your arguement though when the scientists that aren't all they turn out to be happen to be the ones you cited




EDIT: Now it's my turn to offload on experts
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071027-new-un-environmental-report-paints-a-very-bleak-future-for-humanity.html

[Hazaanko]

It doesn't help your arguement though when the scientists that aren't all they turn out to be happen to be the ones you cited

EDIT: Now it's my turn to offload on experts
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071027-new-un-environmental-report-paints-a-very-bleak-future-for-humanity.html

It doesn't, however, make certain parts of their argument any less valid, as I've already shown.

[Kosh]

Not completely. Panel's like the IPCC do background checks to make sure that whomever they get doesn't end up being a total whacko. Their work is also fact checked and peer reviewed. Inquisitor does have first hand experience with how they system works, and a far better understanding of what the community really thinks than you or I. I would accept what he says anyday because a lot of people do trust him, including me. To say that most of those people "are not real scientists" without actually providing a list of those people with backgrounds (including possible "influences") is distorting and misleading.

[Hazaanko]

Not completely. Panel's like the IPCC do background checks to make sure that whomever they get doesn't end up being a total whacko. Their work is also fact checked and peer reviewed. Inquisitor does have first hand experience with how they system works, and a far better understanding of what the community really thinks than you or I. I would accept what he says anyday because a lot of people do trust him, including me. To say that most of those people "are not real scientists" without actually providing a list of those people with backgrounds (including possible "influences") is distorting and misleading.

How did pirates Greenpeace get in there with them then?  A total whacko = somebody who doesn't agree with them maybe?  All that fact-checking and peer reviewing means nothing if the science isn't correct or lacks critical context.
The video I posted did make a few good points - one of them being the makeup of the IPCC.

I'm totally hopped up on painkillers and can't really move my arms and I can't read so I hope any of that was understandable.  I should have time in the next few days to find some good supporting articles.   

[Kosh]

I wasn't able to watch the video since youtube recently got blocked in China, and the transfer rates really suck using proxies, so I'll have to pass the torch on that one.