COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
leftie said:
97% agreement in about 7,500 research papers:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Click to expand...

Oh, dear christ, more of that very tired mantra.



Seventeen (17) years of no warming. Zero. Nil. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.




Dr. Lindzen: ...we agree that man should have some effect. And I think we agree that climate changes. And these are the areas that people point to when they say there is consensus. But none of this tells us there is a problem.

Yeo (M.P.): Do you go further and say we shouldn’t do anything about it?

Dr. Lindzen: I’m saying that not only we don’t know what to do about it but that almost everything proposed would have very certain consequences for people – and very uncertain consequences for the environment . . . It is clear that there is no policy that is better than doing nothing.”


-Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences




​
 
sigh said:
I can't believe nobody else thinks this is cool. It may not be relevant, but it's still cool.

*Foot Stamp* (for Vat)
Click to expand...


I never said it wasn't cool :)

Just that it's way too short to indicate anything. If they keep it up for a few centuries it will be useful.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
As no one has answers other than...


But the consensus says!!!!! ( Followed by big foot stamp)

I suggest you look in to that 97% consensus and the history of John Cook.


The real number is closer to .05%....but, hey don't believe me. try doing some research. This "97% paper and John cook have been torn apart by more credible sources than me.

Better yet, read the actual fucking paper. You can pick up where he skewed the data in about 5 minutes if you are not retarded.
Click to expand...

So many credible sources that you can't even be bothered to link one of them, eh? I love how you've gone from fundamentally misunderstanding the claim to being an expert on the author and its "debunking." Particularly hilarious considering you were accusing me of relying on my Google-Fu earlier.

But here's the thing: I posted two sets of data. The first regarding published research that agreed with AWG, and the second regarding the opinions of the scientific community at large (several thousand sampled, including those not actively publishing and those who do not specialize in climate sciences), and the consensus was still 82%.

Keep calling people retarded, though, as you accuse me of "attacking" you. That will surely lead to victory.

sigh said:
I can't believe nobody else thinks this is cool. It may not be relevant, but it's still cool.

*Foot Stamp* (for Vat)
Click to expand...

I saw it, and I thought it was really cool! And terrifying. Zipman (I think) posted it, too. But it really doesn't matter, because Vat has a CHART.
 
Phelia said:
So many credible sources that you can't even be bothered to link one of them, eh? I love how you've gone from fundamentally misunderstanding the claim to being an expert on the author and its "debunking." Particularly hilarious considering you were accusing me of relying on my Google-Fu earlier.

But here's the thing: I posted two sets of data. The first regarding published research that agreed with AWG, and the second regarding the opinions of the scientific community at large (several thousand sampled, including those not actively publishing and those who do not specialize in climate sciences), and the consensus was still 82%.

Keep calling people retarded, though, as you accuse me of "attacking" you. That will surely lead to victory.



I saw it, and I thought it was really cool! And terrifying. Zipman (I think) posted it, too. But it really doesn't matter, because Vat has a CHART.
Click to expand...


Ok. I belive you may be smart enough to read it and get what's wrong.

But I will give you a few hints.

He picked the papers
He excluded papers he didn't like
He drew conclusions of the parts statements contrary to what the paper said.
Hundreds of scientists wrote him to tell him him misrepresented their paper/belief.
He has been know as a fraud for years

You can get all that from actually reading the paper. If you don't try doing some research. I'm on a phone and won't do it for you.


You can apologize later.
 
VatAss said:
The real number is closer to .05%....but, hey don't believe me. try doing some research. This "97% paper and John cook have been torn apart by more credible sources than me.
Click to expand...

Prove it. You're bluffing.

I'm thinking you can't, since you didn't link to anything.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Ok. I belive you may be smart enough to read it and get what's wrong.

But I will give you a few hints.

He picked the papers
He excluded papers he didn't like
He drew conclusions of the parts statements contrary to what the paper said.
Hundreds of scientists wrote him to tell him him misrepresented their paper/belief.
He has been know as a fraud for years

You can get all that from actually reading the paper. If you don't try doing some research. I'm on a phone and won't do it for you.


You can apologize later.
Click to expand...

So, you didn't read my last post, did you? That's okay. I know you're on the phone.

Anyway, since he was so wrong, and so many scientists were misrepresented (which is odd, considering a huge part of his methodology was relying on the scientists for self-reporting), I imagine you have a link to a robust revised study that re-quantifies the findings in a fair and balanced way? Surely it exists, considering that the evidence is so clearly contrary to his conclusions.

RobDownSouth said:
Prove it. You're bluffing.

I'm thinking you can't, since you didn't link to anything.
Click to expand...

Hey! He is busy! He's on the phone!!

Here's the background on what he's talking about, and why it's garbage.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Lazy and stupid...

here is the peer-reviewed study which is a reply to John Cook's fraudulent paper in which he claims a 97.3% consensus.
Using Cooks own criteria and referenced papers, this new study shows that the true consensus figure is actually just 0.3%,
See; http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/s.../files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology[1].pdf
Click to expand...

Compelling...

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-01-31 at 6.55.35 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2014-01-31 at 6.55.35 PM.jpg
    23.4 KB · Views: 96
I've read it three times already and I still don't understand how "Page Not Found" proves that I'm stupid and lazy?

Anyway, I don't think I'm gonna hang around for the revised link. I'm sure it will be full of very convincing "facts" that were researched with funding by Exxon Mobil's Department of Totally Not Biased Because We Do Not Have a Dog In This Race We Are Just Really Into Science and this will dissolve into an even more pointless piece of lit theatre where we both walk away feeling equally right (even though only I am, because you are sooooooo wronnnnnng), but I want to go get my TGIF on.

So yes, I am very stupid and climate change is a giant conspiracy and let's chop down all of the trees. Fuck trees. You win!
 
Phelia said:
I've read it three times already and I still don't understand how "Page Not Found" proves that I'm stupid and lazy?

Anyway, I don't think I'm gonna hang around for the revised link. I'm sure it will be full of very convincing "facts" that were researched with funding by Exxon Mobil's Department of Totally Not Biased Because We Do Not Have a Dog In This Race We Are Just Really Into Science and this will dissolve into an even more pointless piece of lit theatre where we both walk away feeling equally right (even though only I am, because you are sooooooo wronnnnnng), but I want to go get my TGIF on.

So yes, I am very stupid and climate change is a giant conspiracy and let's chop down all of the trees. Fuck trees. You win!
Click to expand...

Yep. Works perfect for me.
So I will just Agee with you and move on.
 
Phelia said:
I've read it three times already and I still don't understand how "Page Not Found" proves that I'm stupid and lazy?

Anyway, I don't think I'm gonna hang around for the revised link. I'm sure it will be full of very convincing "facts" that were researched with funding by Exxon Mobil's Department of Totally Not Biased Because We Do Not Have a Dog In This Race We Are Just Really Into Science and this will dissolve into an even more pointless piece of lit theatre where we both walk away feeling equally right (even though only I am, because you are sooooooo wronnnnnng), but I want to go get my TGIF on.

So yes, I am very stupid and climate change is a giant conspiracy and let's chop down all of the trees. Fuck trees. You win!
Click to expand...

I'm certain he meant to give you the following link, but he was on the phone. And, I might be wrong.

Linkage
 
thør said:
I'm certain he meant to give you the following link, but he was on the phone. And, I might be wrong.

Linkage
Click to expand...

Interesting read. Granted it comes right out and admits it's terribly biased but without reading 12000 reports one by one to see what each one of them said specifically there is no way for me to know. the .3% however is so unbelievably low that I have a hard time believing anybody buys that.
 
Global warming all man made and this I know, becuase my party told me so!


And now my brothers and sisters we will pass the plate. Please give freely.
 
Ish's whelp on science is like Garbage Can on seduction.
 
VaticanAssassin said:
Global warming all man made and this I know, becuase my party told me so!


And now my brothers and sisters we will pass the plate. Please give freely.
Click to expand...

Smart people don't say that. They say it's a combination of various things, but then you've never been accused of being smart.
 
Disgustipated said:
Smart people don't say that. They say it's a combination of various things, but then you've never been accused of being smart.
Click to expand...

So tell me what I say.

You know, besides the 97% thing is BS and there have been 4 historic warming periods prior to humans even being here.

From that you belive I think what...

Do I hate trees?

Think humans have no impact?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
126
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
Rightguide
About Our Current Heat Wave
4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
2K
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Counselor706
Environment Canada airbrushes 100 years of inconvenient climate data out of history
Replies
0
Views
204
Counselor706
Counselor706
Rightguide
96% Of U.S. Climate Data Is Corrupted
5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
2K
schism666
schism666
Back
Top