• 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!

NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ – Bel

Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Threegoofs said:
As opposed to the real scientists with no formal education and who 'analyze' other peoples data from their armchairs?
Click to expand...

Yet you still refuse to produce a link to a paper I disagree with.

Why is that so hard, if your claim that I disagree with the scientists is true?
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Lord of Planar said:
That is not a paper.

It's so funny watching you think you think.
Click to expand...

It's actually many papers.

You think it's not a paper, eh Mr Never Wrote a Paper in His Life?

Tell us why this doesn't meet your editorial standard of a 'paper'?
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Threegoofs said:
It's actually many papers.

You think it's not a paper, eh Mr Never Wrote a Paper in His Life?

Tell us why this doesn't meet your editorial standard of a 'paper'?
Click to expand...

It is cherry picked material from papers ignoring other pertinent aspects of the same papers.

Also cherry picking from a small few select papers instead of averaging the results of many.

I see you haven't read very many of the source papers the IPCC uses, if any.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It is cherry picked material from papers ignoring other pertinent aspects of the same papers.

Also cherry picking from a small few select papers instead of averaging the results of many.

I see you haven't read very many of the source papers the IPCC uses, if any.
Click to expand...

They literally use thousands.

And it's a comprehensive, thorough, peer reviewed review of ALL the literature.

In other words, a paper.

One you disagree with.

And ironically, referencing many papers you also disagree with!
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Threegoofs said:
They literally use thousands.

And it's a comprehensive, thorough, peer reviewed review of ALL the literature.

In other words, a paper.

One you disagree with.

And ironically, referencing many papers you also disagree with!
Click to expand...
It is not a paper. It is pal reviewed, not peer reviewed. Besides, the lead author can still ignore what his pals may say!
 
Re: NOAA Tornado data: 2016 ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ –

Lord of Planar said:
It is not a paper. It is pal reviewed, not peer reviewed. Besides, the lead author can still ignore what his pals may say!
Click to expand...

Sure. Whatever you have to tell yourself, armchair scientist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom