Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

JohnLarue · May 17, 2018

Frankfooter said:
[As usual you can provide only insults.

It is brutally obvious that you lack any understanding of science and you tell me that I am scientifically illiterate.
Did you expect me to praise you?

Look, you've come out and said that you alone dispute the science on decay rates and carbon dating.

I am not disputing the science.
I am telling you that you do not understand it and that carbon dating has limitations with increasing levels of experimental error when attempting dating that exceed the half life

Try this in google & learn something
https://www.google.ca/search?q=what....69i57j0l5.14809j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Its just like your stance on climate change, where you refuse to accept the science based on your own personal 'feelings'.

No I am neutral on climate change
What I do not accept is a moron telling me my neutral position is not permitted
My "feelings" tell me that you are not honest or trustworthy & every statement you make has an odor about it.

For someone who claims to have a science education, you appear to only be able to argue only with insults.

No I proved you do not understand simple weighted averages, isotopes, carbon is an organic material (that one cracked me up) ,sources of experimental error, half lives, confidence levels, scientific mythology vs scientific consensus or what a scientific conclusion is.
I also proved you lack any morals and that you have no issues with accusing a scientist of "shoddy work" when you do not understand her work at all.
Yet you could/ would not explain any specifics about what was "shoddy' and instead attacked her character
That is just as wrong as wrong gets

You have an agenda, do not have a clue, you are using the word "science" as a propaganda tool and you have no shame.
That is is despicable

basketcase · May 17, 2018

JohnLarue said:
Then you must have some understanding of experimental error
...

Did you have to google that term?

You are simply being a conspiracy theorist, looking for reasons to reject the conclusions of a huge number of scientists.

JohnLarue · May 17, 2018

basketcase said:
Did you have to google that term?

You are simply being a conspiracy theorist, looking for reasons to reject the conclusions of a huge number of scientists.

You have no more false authority to tell me what my motivation is than you do to tell me that my neutral position is not permitted.
What is wrong with you?

Perhaps your false authority works on those intimidated by "science" or too naive to question anything presented as "absolute by consensus", but that is not going to work with me

Lets just say when the moron/ professional lair Frankfooter starts claiming 99.94% confidence on science which involves extrapolating across time , I know something is not right
That should be enough for anyone to say "Hold on just a minute."

Your application of false authority, refusal to accept anything but absolute capitulation and insistence on telling me what my motivation is just throws fuel onto the fire.
that is over and above the fact that such an arrogant stance is both absurd and morally repugnant

Unless you claim to know exactly what happened in the past and you know exactly what is going to happen in the future, then how can you possibly deem a opposing view or a neutral view to be invalid?

Frankfooter · May 17, 2018

JohnLarue said:
No I am neutral on climate change

Its about time you admit you are a climate change denier.
For 8 pages here you've been claiming you are neutral, finally you admit the truth.

And once again, your claims are all answered in detail here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

JohnLarue · May 18, 2018

Frankfooter said:
Its about time you admit you are a climate change denier.

It is about time you admit you understand nothing about science that you are a cut & paste propaganda machine.
That has been proven with a lot of confidence

I neither deny nor endorse climate change theories.

For 8 pages here you've been claiming you are neutral, finally you admit the truth.

I admit nothing
For eight pages you have spewed a lot of blatantly false statements about science, claiming 99.94% confidence, claiming carbon is different from organic materials, telling us isotopic half lifes are different for climate studies and describing a scientists work as "shoddy"
you have been exposed as a lying bullshit artist (again)

Yet you continue to try and brow beat me into believing you are absolutely correct
That just aint going to happen stupid

And once again, your claims are all answered in detail here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

I do not think so Groggy
That link does not address my claim that you could not pass a grade 10 science test or
my claim that you do not understand science and therefore should not speak of it, less you may miss-inform others (oh ya that is your objective!)

Frankfooter · May 18, 2018

JohnLarue said:
It is about time you admit you understand nothing about science that you are a cut & paste propaganda machine.
That has been proven with a lot of confidence

I neither deny nor endorse climate change theories.

You've been shown the legit climate change work that represents the work of 99% of scientists who study the climage.
www.ipcc.ch

And you have claimed you don't believe their work.
That makes you a climate change denier.

Its confirmed.

PornAddict · May 20, 2018

Frankfooter said:
You've been shown the legit climate change work that represents the work of 99% of scientists who study the climage.
www.ipcc.ch

And you have claimed you don't believe their work.
That makes you a climate change denier.

Its confirmed.

No one believes you groggy/ Frankfooter... Like usual you are so full of it! You lost on this argument and demonstrate your lack of knowledge in science!! Plus you can't even calculated a weight average!!
Even Moviefan says you can't even add! By the way what grade/ year did you dropped out of high school?

K Douglas · May 20, 2018

PornAddict said:
No one believes you groggy/ Frankfooter... Like usual you are so full of it! You lost on this argument and demonstrate your lack of knowledge in science!! Plus you can't even calculated a weight average!!
Even Moviefan says you can't even add! By the way what grade/ year did you dropped out of high school?

His math knowledge indicates to me he never even made it to high school.

Frankfooter · May 20, 2018

PornAddict said:
No one believes you Frankfooter...

They don't need to believe me, they just need to understand the science.
www.ipcc.ch

As much as you may think otherwise, I didn't create that site or those reports.
But I don't expect you'd be able to ever understand it.

JohnLarue · May 21, 2018

Frankfooter said:
They don't need to believe me, they just need to understand the science.
www.ipcc.ch

too funny!
They do not need to believe you?
Lets just say "Mission Accomplished"

"They just need to understand the science"
But you do not understand it
yet you claim it is 99.94 % (almost) absolutely correct.
What is any ration person expected to believe when a claim of absolute is made by a a scientific no-nothing with a long history of exaggeration, lies and misrepresenting himself?
Perhaps be more skeptical than before?
Perhaps way consider containing information from a non Frankfooter / Groggy source ?

So your blatant lies just make the already muddy waters surrounding climate change that much mirker.
Do you not understand how much damage you do to your cause?

As much as you may think otherwise, I didn't create that site or those reports.

Oh we all know you did not create the site or the reports.
That would require some scientific understanding, which you clearly lack

But I don't expect you'd be able to ever understand it.

I will likely never understand your pathological need to miss-inform others

Frankfooter · May 21, 2018

PornAddict said:
No one believes you groggy/ Frankfooter... Like usual you are so full of it! You lost on this argument and demonstrate your lack of knowledge in science!! Plus you can't even calculated a weight average!!
Even Moviefan says you can't even add! By the way what grade/ year did you dropped out of high school?

Wow, what a devastating critique.
Mentioning moviefan, who still doesn't understand that 0.86 > 0.83 and therefore he lost a bet.
That really says something about your own math skills, doesn't it?

Frankfooter · May 21, 2018

JohnLarue said:
too funny!
They do not need to believe you?
Lets just say "Mission Accomplished"

"They just need to understand the science"
But you do not understand it
yet you claim it is 99.94 % (almost) absolutely correct.

You failed again.
The IPCC does not state that their findings are 99.94% correct, nor did I say that.
What other studies have found is that 99.94% of climatologists support the findings represented by the IPCC.

Your lack of understanding of this point is as clear as your lack of understanding of carbon dating and climate change itself.

JohnLarue · May 21, 2018

Frankfooter said:
You failed again.
The IPCC does not state that their findings are 99.94% correct, nor did I say that.
What other studies have found is that 99.94% of climatologists support the findings represented by the IPCC.

Click to expand...

Post 65

originally posted by Frankfooter
That's a statement that says you don't believe the findings of climatologists, where 99.94% of them support the IPCC reports.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/n...nsus-07042018/

Click to expand...

You are claiming you are 99.94% absolutely coorect

Your lack of understanding of this point is as clear as your lack of understanding of carbon dating and climate change itself.

Click to expand...

then please explain to us in detail how your understanding of carbon dating somehow allows you to use different half lives for carbon specifically for climate change studies ?
Also please explain to us in detail how your understanding of science somehow allows you to date objects older than recorded history without using extrapolation ?
Show us how to calculate the number of tons of carbon are produced from the theoretically complete combustion of a gallon of gasoline? Gotta show you work

Look stupid,
we have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand what you are talking about, so don't go down that road again
You will just embarrass yourself further and continue to verify my position that you are a lying bullshit artist.
It is too easy to tear apart your description of the details for a simple reason. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

So your blatant lies just make the already muddy waters surrounding climate change that much mirker.
Do you not understand how much damage you do to your cause?

Frankfooter · May 21, 2018

JohnLarue said:
Post 65

You are claiming you are 99.94% absolutely coorect

Read those quotes again, they both say the same thing. That 99.94% of climatologists support the findings of the IPCC reports.
That's not the same as saying that they are 99.94% correct, I'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand the difference.

then please explain to us in detail how your understanding of carbon dating somehow allows you to use different half lives for carbon specifically for climate change studies ?

Once again, this is your claim that climatologists use of carbon dating is wrong and that you know better then them.
Its up to you to prove that the carbon dating referenced in the IPCC reports are wrong, not me.
Its your claim that you know better then them.

JohnLarue · May 22, 2018

Frankfooter said:
Read those quotes again, they both say the same thing. That 99.94% of climatologists support the findings of the IPCC reports.
That's not the same as saying that they are 99.94% correct, I'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand the difference.

Really ?
why the two decimal places?
Were there 10,000 or 30,000 scientist polled?
Tell us exactly what the minimum number of scientists had to be pooled in order to justify that number of significant figures ?

you will not answer

Once again, this is your claim that climatologists use of carbon dating is wrong and that you know better then them.

Once again you are wrong
I make no such claims.
I am neutral, making such a claim would be different from my very explicit position.
Once again you resort to grade 4 level tactics (tell me what my position is) when your incompetence, ignorance and dishonesty are exposed.

Its up to you to prove that the carbon dating referenced in the IPCC reports are wrong, not me.

No I say that you do not understand it and you should show some understanding of something you so aggressively promote
We would not want you to mis-inform anyone

Its your claim that you know better then them.

No my claim is that you do not understand what you talk about & that you lie
Just so we are clear

Frankfooter · May 22, 2018

JohnLarue said:
Really ?
why the two decimal places?
Were there 10,000 or 30,000 scientist polled?
Tell us exactly what the minimum number of scientists had to be pooled in order to justify that number of significant figures ?

you will not answer

11,994 papers written by 29 083 authors.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

I make no such claims.
I am neutral, making such a claim would be different from my very explicit position.

Now that you have changed your position again on carbon dating, where you now say you are neutral, then it must be assumed that you accept their work.
Which once again means being neutral you do not deny the work of those 29 thousand scientists, correct?

JohnLarue · May 22, 2018

Frankfooter said:
11,994 papers written by 29 083 authors.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

You of all people should know that skipping two parts of a three part question gets you a grade of F.
Or does than bring back painful grade school memories for you?

why the two decimal places?

Tell us exactly what the minimum number of scientists had to be pooled in order to justify that number of significant figures ?

Your scientific understanding is being tested again stupid

Now that you have changed your position again on carbon dating, where you now say you are neutral, then it must be assumed that you accept their work.

I have not changed my position on any thing
My position on carbon dating is that you do not understand the first thing about carbon dating
I have always been neutral and nether accept or refute any conclusions other than any claim of absolute

Which once again means being neutral you do not deny the work of those 29 thousand scientists, correct?

not correct

No my claim is that you do not understand what you talk about & that you lie
Just so we are clear

Frankfooter · May 22, 2018

JohnLarue said:
You of all people should know that skipping two parts of a three part question gets you a grade of F.
Or does than bring back painful grade school memories for you?

why the two decimal places?

Tell us exactly what the minimum number of scientists had to be pooled in order to justify that number of significant figures ?

1) Estimation vs direct quote.
2) I'm not a statistician so won't bother to give you a minimum ratio for confidence levels. Instead I'll note that the study linked looked at all the peer assessed climate change papers they found published over 20 years.
So why don't we answer that this study was based on 'all' of those climatologists who publish works in that 20 year window and that only a total idiot would try to argue that these numbers are not statistically significant.
Its all there in the study, if you could read and understand it.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

(by the way, I made a mistake. the study linked above claims 97.1% consensus. The study claiming 99.94% consensus is this one:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079
That study looks at an even larger range of articles and is based on 54,195 articles.)

JohnLarue · May 23, 2018

Frankfooter said:
1) Estimation vs direct quote.

An estimation?
You do not provide an estimation to two significant figures
Not unless you are trying to imply precision, which is not appropriate unless you can prove the estimate data & calcs are that precise
99.94% implies extremely close to absolute, which we know is not correct
So another piece of false information from Frankfooter/ Groggy
Fail

2) I'm not a statistician so won't bother to give you a minimum ratio for confidence levels.

a) You are not a statistician. That was obvious long ago
b) The question was not about confidence levels, it was about precision
Fail again

Instead I'll note that the study linked looked at all the peer assessed climate change papers they found published over 20 years.

Peer assessed?
That is an opinion poll.

So why don't we answer that this study was based on 'all' of those climatologists who publish works in that 20 year window and that only a total idiot would try to argue that these numbers are not statistically significant.

As stated many times before
I am not arguing that these numbers are not statistically significant, nor am i arguing they are.

What part of "neutral" do you not understand?

Its all there in the study, if you could read and understand it.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

My ability to understand scientific papers is not the question
My claim is that you do not understand them

(by the way, I made a mistake. the study linked above claims 97.1% consensus. The study claiming 99.94% consensus is this one:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079
That study looks at an even larger range of articles and is based on 54,195 articles.)

you posted that mistake a number of times
You have also been mistaken about a number of things such as carbon dating ,extrapolation, carbon as an organic material (too funny), scientific consensus vs. scientific method

what mistake will you make next?

PornAddict · May 23, 2018

Frankfooter said:
(by the way, I made a mistake. the study linked above claims 97.1% consensus. The study claiming 99.94% consensus is this one:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079
That study looks at an even larger range of articles and is based on 54,195 articles.)

Your study is claiming 99.94% consensus is flaw and not current also. By James Powell is a geologist !! Not a climate scientist! A geologist doing a peer reviewed article on climates sciences.. The funding / grant from the government on climate science is flowing like crazy!!

A flaw peer reviewed article in the peer reviewed journal ..

Mine is the most current & correct one... It shows the majority of scientists are skeptical of global warming crisis!

http://www.academia.edu/18879451/97...re_skeptical_of_global_warming_crisis._FORBES

A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers

Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position

On Climate Alarm

By Kenneth Richard on 26. February 2018
The Science Unsettles

Image Source:
Robertson and Chilingar, 2017

In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob!
or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Active member

Half Man Half Amazing

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Active member