• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Kerry: Bar Global Warming Skeptics From Elected Office

ludin said:
cooks right because cook says he is right can anyone say circular logic fallacy for the win.
Click to expand...

Or you could try reading his argument. It's not like it says, "I am right because **** You." Authors respond to criticisms of their articles all the time.
 
MrT said:
Or you could try reading his argument. It's not like it says, "I am right because **** You." Authors respond to criticisms of their articles all the time.
Click to expand...

How many times over the years do you think I can read his horsepucky, and leave with a different idea?

I pointed out some major fallacies, and you ignore the facts.

you are a denier of scientific fact.
 
MrT said:
Here is Cook's reply to the criticism of his study. You will note that many of the scientists that were supposedly misclassified by Cook were not, in fact.

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

I would also note that one phase of Cook's study was to do a survey of the scientists and ask them whether the classification by Cook's team was accurate. The agreement rate was 98%.

So, basically, out of the thousands of scientists surveyed - yes, roughly 2% disagreed with the classification made by Cook. Those 2% were accounted for in the 97% conclusion.
Click to expand...
Oh fercrissake.
That website, Skeptical Science, is Cook's own website and he confirms his work is solid.
That's good enough for you?

The problem is that Cook started with a base of scientists who had already reached a conclusion and ignored everybody else.
On top of that he himself decided what was an implicit and explicit endorsement.
And tell me, of the papers Cook reviewed, how many were written by the same people?
Oh well, at least thanks to that to link to his own website we know where you came up with Andergregg and Doran, already noted as using Cook's flawed methodology.
 
Deuce said:
I saw the headline and thought "bet five bucks it's an inaccurate presentation of his statement."

What do you know. I was right.
Click to expand...

" ... they disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements."
dis•qual•i•fy (dɪsˈkwɒl əˌfaɪ)

Disqualify - declare unfit, pronounce, label, judge - pronounce judgment on;
recuse - disqualify oneself (as a judge) in a particular case
disbar - remove from the bar; expel from the practice of law by official action;
Bar - nix, prohibit, proscribe, disallow, forbid, interdict, veto, block, restrict, hold up, restrain, hamper, thwart, hinder, obstruct, impede, shut off,
exclude, ban, forbid, prohibit, keep out of, disallow, shut out of, ostracize, debar, blackball, interdict,

Hard to tell when one ends and the other begins, huh.
So what's the big distinction that won you 5 bucks from yourself?
Or is it merely Kerry's mindless meanderings on a subject guaranteed he knows little about but uses for political purposes that you're defending?
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh fercrissake.
That website, Skeptical Science, is Cook's own website and he confirms his work is solid.
That's good enough for you?

The problem is that Cook started with a base of scientists who had already reached a conclusion and ignored everybody else.
On top of that he himself decided what was an implicit and explicit endorsement.
And tell me, of the papers Cook reviewed, how many were written by the same people?
Oh well, at least thanks to that to link to his own website we know where you came up with Andergregg and Doran, already noted as using Cook's flawed methodology.
Click to expand...

Do me a favor and take your issues up with NASA. I am sure that they would love to hear it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 
MrT said:
Do me a favor and take your issues up with NASA. I am sure that they would love to hear it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Click to expand...

Laura Tenenbaum of NASA also used Cook for that website.
And it it appears THAT website may also be where you came up with Andergregg & Doran.
Seems everywhere you go to defend Cook you end up with those 2 also.
You've got to get around more.

Lemme help ... from HuffPo, no less, even though they issued a disclaimer after catching hell from the faithful.

"Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts."

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change - Business Insider

But that's okay. I don't mind. If I don't bring you down to earth on this stuff who will.
 
bubbabgone said:
It would streamline these debates, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

It would. I'm kinda tired of the bloviation already, and Hillary hasn't even gotten started yet. Before it's over with, the Obama administration and global warming will be entirely Bush's fault. Unless they can come up with a comprehensive list of "right thinking", I'm afraid I'm gonna get bored - resort to video games, or sumthin.
 
bubbabgone said:
" ... they disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements."
dis•qual•i•fy (dɪsˈkwɒl əˌfaɪ)

Disqualify - declare unfit, pronounce, label, judge - pronounce judgment on;
recuse - disqualify oneself (as a judge) in a particular case
disbar - remove from the bar; expel from the practice of law by official action;
Bar - nix, prohibit, proscribe, disallow, forbid, interdict, veto, block, restrict, hold up, restrain, hamper, thwart, hinder, obstruct, impede, shut off,
exclude, ban, forbid, prohibit, keep out of, disallow, shut out of, ostracize, debar, blackball, interdict,

Hard to tell when one ends and the other begins, huh.
So what's the big distinction that won you 5 bucks from yourself?
Or is it merely Kerry's mindless meanderings on a subject guaranteed he knows little about but uses for political purposes that you're defending?
Click to expand...

He thinks they shouldn't be elected because they aren't qualified, not that electing them should be against the law. The headline implies the second, not the first.

There is a distinction. You can get mad and defend it all you want, but the headline is misleading.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Look at who signed that page.

Any idea how many interns and regular unqualified people write those NASA pages.

Again, who signed that page?
Click to expand...

Signatures are typically found on paper.
 
LowDown said:
None of which CAGW advocates understand. They just wave their hands and intone, "billions and billions of data points", sort of like a priest waving his hands over an alter and muttering in Latin, which nobody in the congregation understands.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean the climate scientists don't understand.
 
RAMOSS said:
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean the climate scientists don't understand.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the climate scientists do understand. The point is that advocates of CAGW don't understand.

I can agree with everything that the IPCC report says about climate science and yet still be deemed a skeptic. Do you understand how that is possible?
 
Deuce said:
He thinks they shouldn't be elected because they aren't qualified, not that electing them should be against the law. The headline implies the second, not the first.

There is a distinction. You can get mad and defend it all you want, but the headline is misleading.
Click to expand...

So if Kerry had said "...they disallow themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements." you would have said ... what?
 
ObamacareFail said:
I think it's time for Kerry to retire to the funny farm.
Click to expand...

yeah ... following on his theme, I'm afraid the Kerry level of self-importance bars him from holding elected or appointed office.
 
bubbabgone said:
So if Kerry had said "...they disallow themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements." you would have said ... what?
Click to expand...

I would have scratched my head at the bizarre wording.

If Kerry had said what the headline claims I wouldn't have objected to the headline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom