Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
robinessex said:
Keep digging the hole you're in !!!
You guys are in the hole, or (echo) chamber, Brainwashing.
“Brainwashing is the theory that a person’s core beliefs, ideas, affiliations and values can be replaced, so much so that they have no autonomy over themselves and cannot think critically or independently.”
What’shisname above came in here and changed all his views he’s now posting about turbobloke and following all his politics, including this nonsense in here.
Why on earth would anyone look at 2 groups of people, group A contains the majority of experts and institutions etc and B is you lot and then decide you lot are right and group A are all corrupt and dishonest and in on a scam. That’s clearly not logical.
I’m actually worried. What’s been going on in this dark corner of the forum. No wonder you’re all so hostile to outsiders with different views,
Are there any other aspects of science you all think are a scam?
Have you always thought it was a big scam too or did you once have your own views?
When you’re outside the thread and you read about global warming in the paper or a scientific magazine or on the TV etc are you constantly thinking it’s all lies and they’re all wrong?
You must wonder a bit why everyone else is on the other side? Not even a little? Must be great to apparently not have much of a scientific background and think you know more than all these boffins and institutions.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 12:55
turbobloke said:
It's a pleasure to help fence-sitters and true believers with references for the above to assist with detailed checking, including many citations from the peer-reviewed literature with several courtesy of Jo Nova.
Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010) Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073
Just picking the very first paper listed by TB and having a quick read shows this supports El stovey’s point about relative credibilities of climate change experts. It said:Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010) Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
and
“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group.”
El stovey said:
That’s classic brainwashing. You came in here with your own views based on science, then you got brainwashed by turbobloke and his politics (which presumably you also follow) now you find yourself at odds with the scientific community based on the postings of turbobloke.
Extraordinary.
Seriously, you need to stop posting in here.
ffs , you really do have a reading comprehension problem. my current views were formed before i joined this forum. i think you may just be trolling now.Extraordinary.
Seriously, you need to stop posting in here.
to add, i also notice the massive swerve again of the points i raised. stomach ulcers ? consensus ?
TwoLeadFeet said:
turbobloke said:
It's a pleasure to help fence-sitters and true believers with references for the above to assist with detailed checking, including many citations from the peer-reviewed literature with several courtesy of Jo Nova.
Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010) Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073
Just picking the very first paper listed by TB and having a quick read shows this supports El stovey’s point about relative credibilities of climate change experts. It said:Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010) Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
and
“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group.”
Some probably aren’t even about climate change and consensus.
Now you’ll get snowed under with posts about how consensus or even expertise, doesn’t matter anyway.
Did you get the impression there was subliminal messages in there that might make people fall in love with him? Just trying to understand how the cult recruits new members really.
TwoLeadFeet said:
Just picking the very first paper listed by TB and having a quick read shows this supports El stovey’s point about relative credibilities of climate change experts. It said:
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
and
“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group.”
for me the only paragraph that matters in that paper is the last one.“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
and
“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group.”
"Ultimately, of course, scientific confidence is earned by the winnowing process of peer review and replication of studies over time. In the meanwhile, given the immediacy attendant to the state of debate over perception of climate science, we must seek estimates while confidence builds. Based on the arguments presented here, we believe our findings capture the differential climate science credentials of the two groups."
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
That’s classic brainwashing. You came in here with your own views based on science, then you got brainwashed by turbobloke and his politics (which presumably you also follow) now you find yourself at odds with the scientific community based on the postings of turbobloke.
Extraordinary.
Seriously, you need to stop posting in here.
ffs , you really do have a reading comprehension problem. my current views were formed before i joined this forum. i think you may just be trolling now.Extraordinary.
Seriously, you need to stop posting in here.
to add, i also notice the massive swerve again of the points i raised. stomach ulcers ? consensus ?
So where did you form your current views? Every science article I’ve ever read seems to contradict what you say.
Can I ask if there’s other aspects of science that you think are a scam or is it just climate science?
zygalski said:
That's great!
So 'spam is copy/pasting publications that actually support AGW.
To keep the tin foil hat (the de rigueur the item of clothing for this thread) firmly in place, perhaps someone in mainstream media, science, or a research fellow at a Uni has hacked his account?
Political agents infiltrating scientific bodies So 'spam is copy/pasting publications that actually support AGW.
To keep the tin foil hat (the de rigueur the item of clothing for this thread) firmly in place, perhaps someone in mainstream media, science, or a research fellow at a Uni has hacked his account?
Scientists following money
Governments bent on taxation and wealth redistribution
It could be anyone.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
That's great!
So 'spam is copy/pasting publications that actually support AGW.
To keep the tin foil hat (the de rigueur the item of clothing for this thread) firmly in place, perhaps someone in mainstream media, science, or a research fellow at a Uni has hacked his account?
Political agents infiltrating scientific bodies So 'spam is copy/pasting publications that actually support AGW.
To keep the tin foil hat (the de rigueur the item of clothing for this thread) firmly in place, perhaps someone in mainstream media, science, or a research fellow at a Uni has hacked his account?
Scientists following money
Governments bent on taxation and wealth redistribution
It could be anyone.
Ali G said:
One more for the list - activist cranks
Ali, seriously, what’s going on with your profile? It says “nothing here” still. I’ve never seen that before. Is it supposed to say that? Not sure if you saw it but in website feedback some other bloke was complaining that his has vanished too.
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
One more for the list - activist cranks
Ali, seriously, what’s going on with your profile? It says “nothing here” still. I’ve never seen that before. Is it supposed to say that? Not sure if you saw it but in website feedback some other bloke was complaining that his has vanished too.
Ali G said:
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
One more for the list - activist cranks
Ali, seriously, what’s going on with your profile? It says “nothing here” still. I’ve never seen that before. Is it supposed to say that? Not sure if you saw it but in website feedback some other bloke was complaining that his has vanished too.
Even so, take care. There are certain climate people who can see invisible things
And others who believe them, truly.
El stovey said:
Oh sorry, I thought you said you came in here believing in mainstream science and turbobloke convinced you it was all a scam?
So where did you form your current views? Every science article I’ve ever read seems to contradict what you say.
Can I ask if there’s other aspects of science that you think are a scam or is it just climate science?
when having a look at oceanic cycles in relation to fish populations. the climate shift associated with the pdo cycle was what first peaked my interest.So where did you form your current views? Every science article I’ve ever read seems to contradict what you say.
Can I ask if there’s other aspects of science that you think are a scam or is it just climate science?
scam ? again a reading comprehension problem. where have i ever said it was a scam perpetrated by all involved ? i already gave you an example of where scientific consensus was wrong on a modern day issue, stomach ulcers. i have yet to see a response from you to that.
ps i can also give some examples of individual climate scientists carrying out scams and other nefarious activities. i don't see what bearing that has on the facts surrounding the debate. talking of facts, did you ever look into the missing tropospheric hotspot ? any thoughts on the lack of the basic tenet of the hypothesis ?
Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 25th April 16:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff