• 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!

the naive notion that peer review leads to sound studies.

This for me is key. I was recently attacked for saying "if we assume" for a number in a calculation, when these PHD's writing papers do that exact thing regularly. Then the pundits take such assumptions as fact, and these alarmists don't understand that it all started with an assumption that likely has no reality.

To me it they are begging the question.

They are making the assumptions to try and prove their conclusion which they have already formed.
they have formed these conclusions before looking and seeing if the evidence supports it.

that is not science.

as for warming it is supposed to happen. They are trying to predict what takes hundreds to thousands of years to develop
in a 40 year window. that isn't going to happen very well.
 
To me it they are begging the question.

They are making the assumptions to try and prove their conclusion which they have already formed.
they have formed these conclusions before looking and seeing if the evidence supports it.

that is not science.

as for warming it is supposed to happen. They are trying to predict what takes hundreds to thousands of years to develop
in a 40 year window. that isn't going to happen very well.

Already did, dude.

3f0fb497321c417d1653f698eb1e34e9.jpg
 
:roll:

Are you really so desperate to discredit climatology that you cite problems with peer review in completely unrelated disciplines?

Do you really not know that Climategate was a Nothingburger?

YEa, I'm sure it's soooooooooooooooo much better in climate science because no scientists in this field are liberal Democrats who let theer politics influence their work {smirk}
I guess inside the liberal bubble, the above sentence is not viewed as extreme sacrcasm and Climategate was a nothing burger.Hey Phil Jones, Mike Mann ,Gavin Schmidt and Keving Trenberth all said so,right? { LAFF }
 
Any answer that falls within the range of uncertainty is true.
Since we are talking about a supposed amplified system, even the input forcing, (the warming form 2XCO2),
has quite a bit of uncertainty, which is amplified!

Request permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Granted.

Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge?
 
Request permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Granted.

Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge?

Give an example of a statement by an individual!
 
Give an example of a statement by an individual!

Your honor please direct the witness to answer the question. The defense may aske question on redirect.

Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge?
 
Your honor please direct the witness to answer the question. The defense may aske question on redirect.

Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge?
The question was, "Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge?"
Which specific statement is the question in reference to?
 
For a report entitled,
"Climate change assessments
Review of the processes and
procedures of the IPCC"

One would expect to fine you know assessments.
Showing one of the findings, is not cherry picking.
lol

Yes, it is. It's the very definition of it. You ignore their actual opinion of the IPCC, and the purpose of the paper, in order to try and depict the IAC as against the IPCC.
 
YEa, I'm sure it's soooooooooooooooo much better in climate science because no scientists in this field are liberal Democrats who let theer politics influence their work {smirk}
I guess inside the liberal bubble, the above sentence is not viewed as extreme sacrcasm and Climategate was a nothing burger.Hey Phil Jones, Mike Mann ,Gavin Schmidt and Keving Trenberth all said so,right? { LAFF }
Your desperation is sufficiently displayed. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
 
The question was, "Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge?"
Which specific statement is the question in reference to?

Its ok buddy. The witness is excused.
 
lol

Yes, it is. It's the very definition of it. You ignore their actual opinion of the IPCC, and the purpose of the paper, in order to try and depict the IAC as against the IPCC.
No, the title says what it is,
"Climate change assessments
Review of the processes and
procedures of the IPCC"
A review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC.
If the review found something to be critical of (and they did),
my pointing it out is not cherry picking.
 
Its ok buddy. The witness is excused.
Your Honor, counsel has asked a partial question, please instruct counsel, that in order for
questions to be answered, it must be asked in a form that minimizes ambiguity.
Again, Which specific statement is the question in reference to?
Are you beginning to understand why the AGW scientist want to stay out of an actual courtroom?
 
Your Honor, counsel has asked a partial question, please instruct counsel, that in order for
questions to be answered, it must be asked in a form that minimizes ambiguity.
Again, Which specific statement is the question in reference to?
Are you beginning to understand why the AGW scientist want to stay out of an actual courtroom?
Lets start with these. Last chance

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
 
Lets start with these. Last chance

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

And to which individual would perjury charges apply, were any of the above statement untrue?
 
And to which individual would perjury charges apply, were any of the above statement untrue?
I will be happy to answer that. After you answer
 
". . . Mr. Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars. Mr. Randall is the NAS’s director of research and a co-author of its new report, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science.
A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology. Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs. Many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations. . . . "

What, can't actually make your own argument? Why so lazy? Why not answer the tons of arguments that destroy your idiocy? Stop trolling and make an argument. Copy and repeating nonsense does not make it true.

If science doesn't work, how does all this technology work? Do you ever take medicine? What, you think it works by magic?

[h=1]Global Warming: a case study in groupthink[/h]Posted on 21 Feb 18 by PAUL MATTHEWS 28 Comments
Video above, written report here, Josh cartoon below. Take your pick or enjoy all three.



What's your argument, copy a dumb diagram and not defend your position? Thanks, you are doing your part in making people realize global warming is real and people that oppose are ignorant and have no argument

What, should we go with the idiotic right wing version of global warming

"Global warming is not real because I've been told that its a lie by the oil companies and therefore it must be true"
 
Last edited:
So, those trying to claim science doesn't work, what do you prefer? Should we just vote on facts? Is what true what you want to believe? LOL. Why are we even bothering with such stupidity
 
Back
Top Bottom