You know the rules. Post that B.S. again and you know what the punishment is.
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
p.s. the fact that you are happy to post a study where a clear majority disagree with you is amusing.
"Ignored"? I was the one who posted them.Are you really trying to say that two studies should be ignored because one had 97% support and the other 85% support amongst respondents.
No, I don't think we should ignore them. I think we should pay attention to the fact that the studies only showed 52% support and 66% support, respectively, for the AGW hypothesis. That is nowhere near a "consensus."
Furthermore, the people you're trying to separate out of the results were not non-respondents. They provided responses. Saying the percentage attributable to greenhouse gas emissions is "unknown" is an entirely legitimate response, and that appears to be the most correct of the options offered. The researchers who answered "unknown" or "I don't know" were respondents.
Why? Scientific discoveries aren't reached by a majority vote.p.s. the fact that you are happy to post a study where a clear majority disagree with you is amusing.
The studies confirm that the claims of a "consensus" are total bullshit.
As I said, the fact that you are arguing against the consensus by showing that the clear majority of opinion disagrees with you is amusing."Ignored"? I was the one who posted them.
No, I don't think we should ignore them. I think we should accept the fact that the studies only showed 52% support and 66% support, respectively, for the AGW hypothesis. That is nowhere near a "consensus."....
And your 52% is bullshit. Its like trying to include the opinions of cafeteria workers equal weight to that of CEOs when deciding the direction a business should take.
Another imaginary statement that Basketcase has crafted on my behalf.I did like your previous 'refutation' of the 97% study though. Complaining because they only asked for the opinions of people in the field is an ingenious distraction technique.
Try reading my comments again. What I actually said was that the survey never asked the researchers -- "in the field" or otherwise -- about their views on man-made emissions.
"Against the consensus"? There is no consensus.As I said, the fact that you are arguing against the consensus by showing that the clear majority of opinion disagrees with you is amusing.
And a majority is not the same thing as a consensus.
Some of the people you're dismissing as "cafeteria workers" have PhDs in the field. But no matter.And your 52% is bullshit. Its like trying to include the opinions of cafeteria workers equal weight to that of CEOs when deciding the direction a business should take.
Rewriting the methodology after you've seen the results is the ultimate in junk science. If it was felt that certain members of the AMS aren't qualified to hold opinions, then they shouldn't have been asked.
I didn't conduct the survey.
The results are what they are. Only 52% of respondents supported the hypothesis.
What, more copy and paste from you, troll?You know the rules. Post that B.S. again and you know what the punishment is.
Its just more bullshit from you.
You quoted a study that proved you are wrong.
How stupid is that?
The people who wrote the study said it:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2015/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responsesIt showed that there is widespread agreement regarding a dominant influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on recent global warming. This agreement is stronger among respondents with more peer-reviewed publications.
Let me know when you can follow simple logic,...and then we can discuss my point,...until then,...your mother is calling you.Holy stupid argument, batman!
You really think that scientists hired by the government all have to have the same opinion?
That's crazy as shit.
And lets see what that means.
Are you now arguing that all scientists hired while Harper was in power were hired to put out the same opinions as those researchers hired by Obama in the US, or by the Korean, Japanese, Saudi, Norway, Russian, Brazilian governments? That all government research in every country for the last 30 years has been hired to voice one and only one opinion?
You are really crazy.
That's just really, really crazy.
To help you out,...I did NOT state anything about individual tax funded agencies,...but about those individuals WITH IN each agency,...sorry I can't be of more help for ya.
When you have figured that point out,...we can talk about the motivation behind each of your tax funded agencies to agree with the Global Climate Chaos.
FAST
???Why? Scientific discoveries aren't reached by a majority vote.
The studies confirm that the claims of a "consensus" are total bullshit.
It sure isn't established when a clear majority of scientists disagree with your views. What percentage of scientists support your view that human CO2 is not a major player in global warming?
According to the study you posted, 11%. Is 11% better than 66%?
Really? Your argument was that the 97% only included people who published in the field. Do you really think people who don't actually work in the field are as knowledgeable as people who do?Some of the people you're dismissing as "cafeteria workers" have PhDs in the field. But no matter....
Maybe next time I need to hire an engineer I should look for a dated PhD or someone in a different field instead of someone with actual relevant experience.
This claim that you think everyone who works for a government department has to have the same view as the government, or in this case as Al Gore, is really entertainingly stupid. How about universities? Do you think everyone who teaches and does research at a university is mandated by their job to hold the same views as Al Gore?To help you out,...I did NOT state anything about individual tax funded agencies,...but about those individuals WITH IN each agency,...sorry I can't be of more help for ya.
And who is it that runs this conspiracy and makes it so?
Was it Stephen Harper in Canada?
This is really funny, give us more.
This time, I can't tell if you're making stuff up or if you're just confused.Really? Your argument was that the 97% only included people who published in the field.
The only paper I've seen on survey responses that managed to get the number to 97% was Zimmerman and Doran.
Some time back, when I analyzed that paper in detail, I did point out that the number of total respondents had been whittled down to a ridiculous number in order to fabricate the claim of a "consensus" (79 from more than 3,100 responses). In fact, those 79 respondents weren't the only ones who had been published on the topic.
Regardless, my principle objection to that paper was that the people surveyed -- including the final 79 -- were never asked about their views on man-made emissions.
If they weren't asked to express an opinion, then there couldn't possibly be a "consensus."
True enough. Science isn't about straw votes. You make scientific discoveries by conducting research to test hypotheses.It sure isn't established when a clear majority of scientists disagree with your views.
NASA lists 6 studies on their site:The only paper I've seen on survey responses that managed to get the number to 97% was Zimmerman and Doran.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
And there is also a new study by Cook:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus
There you go.
7 legit studies from the side backing science
0 from the troll team
You're down 7 - zip.
What is your hypotheses and what research did you do to back it up?You make scientific discoveries by conducting research to test hypotheses.
Oh, right, you didn't do any, haven't read any, can't find any and won't find any.
Add that to the tally.
Research:
Thousands of papers from the side of science
0 from the denier troll team
You're down for the count now.
If your study only has 11% of scientists supporting your views, does that mean you claims are backed by better evidence than the 66%?True enough. Science isn't about straw votes. You make scientific discoveries by conducting research to test hypotheses.
Exactly what I was saying. You want to ignore the survey because they 'whittled down' to only include people who actually published in the field instead of just random people in a scientific field....
Some time back, when I analyzed that paper in detail, I did point out that the number of total respondents had been whittled down to a ridiculous number in order to fabricate the claim of a "consensus" (79 from more than 3,100 responses). In fact, those 79 respondents weren't the only ones who had been published on the topic....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
