In order for ANY percentage of scientists to agree or not, ther must first be a list of who these scientists are.

No such list exists.  The ones speaking against CC are deemed to not be experts in whatever disciplines are needed to believe in CC.

If YOU have such a list, please post it.  Otherwise, to state 90%, 97% or even 50% of "scientists" is a made-up BS stat.

So i take it you don't believe in polls. Also trumps win was in the margin of error of the polls that gave Hillary that 90 something percent chance to win.

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

The site I linked has many other polls.  Including the NASA site I didn't link. Every scientist in the world doesn't need to write a formal paper to agree on something. 

So i take it you don't believe in polls. Also trumps win was in the margin of error of the polls that gave Hillary that 90 something percent chance to win.

I was under the impression we were talking about physics, Earth Science, meteorology and other hard sciences.  Since when does a poll equal a factual percentage of what scientists actually support?  Do you really think a statistical poll is valid using a sampling of who knows what respondents and what questions?

I've NEVER seen you say "90% with a margin of error 4%+/-.   

The site I linked has many other polls.  Including the NASA site I didn't link. Every scientist in the world doesn't need to write a formal paper to agree on something.

POLL ARE BULLSHIT : heres why
If polls were an accurate way to measure things then  Hillary would be in the white house.

Polls can be made to say whatever you want them to by how you structure the question.
Do you think the climate is changing VS Do you think that man is the significant reason climate is changing ?
Poll scientist in California VS Arkansas

there is several ways to manipulate numbers in a poll and again its the same thing they do with guns
Do you think we should tighten gun laws to prevent children getting killed VS do you think we should tighten gun laws.

I was under the impression we were talking about physics, Earth Science, meteorology and other hard sciences.  Since when does a poll equal a factual percentage of what scientists actually support?  Do you really think a statistical poll is valid using a sampling of who knows what respondents and what questions?

I've NEVER seen you say "90% with a margin of error 4%+/-.   

remember, he's only a scientist at heart...

remember, he's only a scientist at heart...

As a scientist (at heart), here's a truth ....

Polls are never about measuring public opinion.  They are about shaping public opinion.

We take a census for a reason .... counting noses and asking specific questions is more accurate that using less direct methods.  If you want to support a scientific theory, polls do nothing but undermine your goal.  The scientific community is a rather small group of experts in their fields.  Getting non-experts to sign on to the theory might increase numbers, but it's not science.

You all make me laugh.   Macsak ive said "around" which is an estimate.  I've also used 90% which is under many of the other polls and rounded down.  Polls are part of statistics, to ignore them is stupid and ignorant.  They might not be perfect but if done properly they are accurate.  Like everything they do contain a margin of error.  I literally said in your quote london.  Trumps victory was within the margin of error.  Yes polls can be made different by different structures of the question but in these surveys that's not the case.

Macsak ive said "around" which is an estimate.

I think ive had this argument before Its a doomed approach.  In the end i guess in 50 years.  I will get my I told you so moment.  Its not worth but i'll get that before I die.  When 90% of scientists agree on something 99.99% of the time they are correct.  Inb4 you believe vaccines cause autism.....
Modify message
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 04:36:34 PM by omnigun »

i don't see "around"

none of you did any "research"
All you did what Google or search for topics and regurgitated it to fit your message
Research is gathering the raw data, interpreting it, analyzing it  and making a conclusion

I think ive had this argument before Its a doomed approach.  In the end i guess in 50 years.  I will get my I told you so moment.  Its not worth but i'll get that before I die.  When 90% of scientists agree on something 99.99% of the time they are correct.  Inb4 you believe vaccines cause autism.....
Modify message
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 04:36:34 PM by omnigun »

i don't see "around"

Lol you are correct.  I think it was another argument on another chat that i used that word.

Lol you are correct.  I think it was another argument on another chat that i used that word.

saying i am correct is different than saying "i was wrong"

saying i am correct is different than saying "i was wrong"

Ok, I admit I was wrong on that statement.  I have no shame in admitting when I am wrong. 

Ok, I admit I was wrong on that statement.  I have no shame in admitting when I am wrong.

 

Trumps victory was within the margin of error. 

Please link to those polls. As I recall the "gold standard", Nate Silver, on election day had Clinton at 72% probability of winning (down from 90% a few days earlier).That's not within any margin of error. If you are referring to other polls of direct voter sentiment, please link to those. And if you watched any of the crestfallen gobsmacked "reporters" on mainstream media outlets on election night you're conclusion would have to be that they were either totally ignorant of all those polls that had Trump within the margin of error, or they ignorantly dismissed them. Please link.

Please link to those polls. As I recall the "gold standard", Nate Silver, on election day had Clinton at 72% probability of winning (down from 90% a few days earlier).That's not within any margin of error. If you are referring to other polls of direct voter sentiment, please link to those. And if you watched any of the crestfallen gobsmacked "reporters" on mainstream media outlets on election night you're conclusion would have to be that they were either totally ignorant of all those polls that had Trump within the margin of error, or they ignorantly dismissed them. Please link.

I haven't thoroughly read this but it appears to show some states were in the margin of error for being called
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

Also we forget that trump had lot of late conversions with the fbi showing how corrupt hillary was in the end.  And last minute leaks from wikileaks etc. 

appears to show some states were in the margin of error

very different from "Trumps victory was within the margin of error."

very different from "Trumps victory was within the margin of error."

Details. Details. Details. So they're two completely different things. You know what he meant. Same with what he says about anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

Details. Details. Details. So they're two completely different things. You know what he meant. Same with what he says about anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

Umm all you need is a few states to win the electoral vote?  Or atleast all he needed to do was turn some swing states over.

I haven't thoroughly read this but it appears to show some states were in the margin of error for being called
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

Also we forget that trump had lot of late conversions with the fbi showing how corrupt hillary was in the end.  And last minute leaks from wikileaks etc.

The only person to blame for the timing of the FBI investigation was Hillary, who destroyed government emails, wiped copies of those emails from all computers, stonewalled the investigation having the techs take the 5th, and ignoring the Congressional subpoena for a year.

WikiLeaks released the bulk of their Podesta emails earlier, not later.  The FBI and State Sept also dumped emails for public viewing, which again took too long because of the Clinton/State Dept reviewers taking forever.

I doubt the few WikiLeaks dumps near the election had that much impact on voters if the previous mountain of dumps did not.

Trump did not have a lot of last minute conversions, either, no more than Reagan did.  The polls then did the same thing.  They created a wide margin with the Democrat leading to manipulate voters .  Then as election week arrived, the polls magically stated to narrow.  That narrowing was to ensure the pollsters didn't get caught being too far off when the election doesn't end as they predicted/tried to influence it.

Umm all you need is a few states to win the electoral vote?  Or atleast all he needed to do was turn some swing states over.

No.  He needed to not lose any of the historically Republican-voting states and take away THE BIGGEST swing states that haven't gone Republican since Reagan.

Had he missed out on just 2 large states (PA and FL), he could not have achieved 270.  What he did showed he had the momentum all along, and the polls were either too simplistic to measure that, or their samples being so heavily Democrat didn't accurately measure reality.