• 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!

Three Thousand Years of Climate Change in Europe

Lord of Planar said:
Believe as you wish with that solid confirmation bias of yours... I was given the actual numbers of actual responses by real scientists... Not the papers position... Tough the numbers are close.

Cook had something like a 14% response rate for the self rating purposes. Of those, 34.9% kept a neutral position. For you to say these people don't count is absolutely crazy.
Click to expand...

Good grief, can't you read? Those 34.9% rated the contents of their own papers as being AGW neutral, i.e. their papers made no assumptions either way about AGW. That's because the papers were about various specific effects of climate change where the cause of the change wasn't pertinent. The authors didn't claim to have a neutral opinion of AGW themselves!
 
Surface Detail said:
The authors didn't claim to have a neutral opinion of AGW themselves!
Click to expand...

Some did. Some responded they don't know.

Do you have a difficulty reading what others put in front of you?

Read 4a and 4b.
 
Surface Detail said:
Good grief, can't you read? Those 34.9% rated the contents of their own papers as being AGW neutral, i.e. their papers made no assumptions either way about AGW. That's because the papers were about various specific effects of climate change where the cause of the change wasn't pertinent. The authors didn't claim to have a neutral opinion of AGW themselves!
Click to expand...

More evidence that his "reading hundreds of dollars of journal subscriptions" means nothing when one hasn't the education, objectivity or critical thinking to understand them.
 
ecofarm said:
More evidence that his "reading hundreds of dollars of journal subscriptions" means nothing when one hasn't the education, objectivity or critical thinking to understand them.
Click to expand...

If you really believe that I pity you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If you really believe that I pity you.
Click to expand...

You spew BS about the subject all the time. Every article you present you misinterpret. You cheer-lead for climate CT blogs. It's pathetic. I have an MSc in International Environmental Science. Your ignorance and blind agenda is obvious to me. I pity people with CT blog educations.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Some did. Some responded they don't know.

Do you have a difficulty reading what others put in front of you?

Read 4a and 4b.
Click to expand...

No, you are the one with the comprehension problems. The authors were asked to rate their papers in terms of agreement with the AGW consensus, not whether they themselves agreed with the AGW consensus. Please learn to read.
 
ecofarm said:
You spew BS about the subject all the time. Every article you present you misinterpret. You cheer-lead for climate CT blogs. It's pathetic. I have an MSc in International Environmental Science. Your ignorance and blind agenda is obvious to me. I pity people with CT blog educations.
Click to expand...

If that's what you need to believe to sleep better at night.

I don't misrepresent the science. I expose how the science is misrepresented.

I'm sorry that it is above your comprehension skill set.

An MSc... Whoop-t-do... Do I see more arrogance than substance with you?

Maybe you can provide some substance for once, please?
 
Surface Detail said:
No, you are the one with the comprehension problems. The authors were asked to rate their papers in terms of agreement with the AGW consensus, not whether they themselves agreed with the AGW consensus. Please learn to read.
Click to expand...

So you are still ignore the inclusion of categories 2 and 3, when only category 1 should be used.

So be it...
 
Lord of Planar said:
If that's what you need to believe to sleep better at night.

I don't misrepresent the science. I expose how the science is misrepresented.

I'm sorry that it is above your comprehension skill set.

An MSc... Whoop-t-do... Do I see more arrogance than substance with you?

Maybe you can provide some substance for once, please?
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Lord of Planar said:
So you are still ignore the inclusion of categories 2 and 3, when only category 1 should be used.

So be it...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm fed up with playing whack-a-mole with your BS output now. Just go and read the paper and try to engage what cognitive abilities you may possess. Categories 1, 2 and 3 are all consistent with support for the AGW consensus.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sorry, but I'm fed up with playing whack-a-mole with your BS output now. Just go and read the paper and try to engage what cognitive abilities you may possess. Categories 1, 2 and 3 are all consistent with support for the AGW consensus.
Click to expand...

You should just admit defeat.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Oh yes... In the abstract it explains it for anyone with scientific competence and common sense.

Now check this out:


2. Methodology

This letter was conceived as a 'citizen science' project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website (Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined).
​

Now, when they did get responses back, this is the paper where I explained they added the top three results of seven together to get the 96%, when only the first of the seven responses indicates what Cook claims. They also had to remove the neutral responses out of the mix because these three categories only got 62.7%... Now if divided equally for the first thre endrcement levels, only 21% would claim mankind causes most the warming.
I have repeatedly pointed this fact out.
Click to expand...

First of all, your link is to the wrong study. Here is the one you're talking about:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

And secondly, you are mischaracterizing what the study states in the abstract. Here is the important line:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Click to expand...

So... naturally, the abstracts that don't express a position on AGW would be excluded. And since the consensus is that humans are causing global warming and not that humans are the primary cause of global warming then the first 3 categories should be included.

You are misstating what the study is claiming.

Lord of Planar said:
You guys are so easily duped...
Click to expand...

Maybe if we believed your BS... but we don't.
 
Buzz said:
First of all, your link is to the wrong study. Here is the one you're talking about:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

And secondly, you are mischaracterizing what the study states in the abstract. Here is the important line:



So... naturally, the abstracts that don't express a position on AGW would be excluded. And since the consensus is that humans are causing global warming and not that humans are the primary cause of global warming then the first 3 categories should be included.

You are misstating what the study is claiming.



Maybe if we believed your BS... but we don't.
Click to expand...

What I quoted is on page 2.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What I quoted is on page 2.
Click to expand...

Oh... I'm sorry.

So you didn't even bother to provide a link to the study you were quoting from. I guess you didn't want to make it too easy for anyone to debunk your mischaracterization of the study... huh?
 
Buzz said:
Oh... I'm sorry.

So you didn't even bother to provide a link to the study you were quoting from. I guess you didn't want to make it too easy for anyone to debunk your mischaracterization of the study... huh?
Click to expand...

Is that necessary when Surface Detail provided the link in post 19?

It should be obvious I was speaking about that.

Please keep up, instead of just attacking for no valid reason.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Is that necessary when Surface Detail provided the link in post 19?

It should be obvious I was speaking about that.

Please keep up, instead of just attacking for no valid reason.
Click to expand...

No valid reason? My God man, are you daft? I just pointed out that you are mischaracterizing the study.
 
Buzz said:
No valid reason? My God man, are you daft? I just pointed out that you are mischaracterizing the study.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is not fact. The first three choices do no constitute saying CO2 is the cause of most the warming. Only the first of the seven do.

I was pointing out that this was also done by pundits, of skeptical science.
 
I am not a scientist but I am smart enough to know that this earth we live on cools and warms as needed to survive.
When I read through these threads it has gotten to the point of annoying with all the tit for tat when most of it is behind a political agenda.
It is time for all to take a deep breath and let it go. Like cleansing your liver or purging your colon. It is time to get rid of the ****.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Your opinion is not fact. The first three choices do no constitute saying CO2 is the cause of most the warming. Only the first of the seven do.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am citing the facts. From the study:

...the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

The study is not saying that the consensus position they are using is that CO2 is the cause of most of the warming.

Lord of Planar said:
I was pointing out that this was also done by pundits, of skeptical science.
Click to expand...

So what? You are a pundit that says things that you can't even back up with any kind of real studies. This study from Skeptical Science was peer-reviewed and published. I think they have a hell of a lot more credability then you do.
 
Yes, we are causing warming. It doesn't say we are causing all the warming. That statement doesn't even say we are causing most the warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom