Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[bodhi]

LoonyTunes said:

Oh please do...<kneels down and prays>

Meanwhile, I've just done a background check - something I'm sure you'll have absolutely no idea about - and come up with yet another seat of science where the consensus is that AGW is true. Bet you can't wait Sadly I'm afraid you'll have to as one-a-day is the rule and I'm due elsewhere shortly.

To save you the bother of coming up with another list, there's another organisation below that agrees with you, Not sure I'd be too smug about it.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/09/07/the-f...

Makes sense, believing the Earth is flat is about as sensible as believing temperatures are being controlled by 0.04% of the atmosphere, rather than the massive ball of fire in the sky that is the source of all of our energy.

[LoonyTunes]

With This Staff said:

Richard Feynman is on the 'right side' of the debate.

I agree

[LoonyTunes]

bodhi said:

Makes sense, believing the Earth is flat is about as sensible as believing temperatures are being controlled by 0.04% of the atmosphere, rather than the massive ball of fire in the sky that is the source of all of our energy.

That's brilliant insight! What a revelation...nobodies thought of that before - what a stupid/corrupt bunch those 10,000 scientists are.

Now, quickly fire off an email to https://www.nobelprize.org/ and I'm sure you'll hear back very soon.

Don't waste any time with peer review, it's all crooked anyway, and certainly don't bother writing a paper on it - hell, what good are they???

[dickymint]

Due elsewhere shortly...........but still can't resist posting - must have installed a wifi extender under that bridge?

[bodhi]

LoonyTunes said:

That's brilliant insight! What a revelation...nobodies thought of that before - what a stupid/corrupt bunch those 10,000 scientists are.

Now, quickly fire off an email to https://www.nobelprize.org/ and I'm sure you'll hear back very soon.

Don't waste any time with peer review, it's all crooked anyway, and certainly don't bother writing a paper on it - hell, what good are they???

Well considering those 10,000 scientists have such a fine record of making doom-filled predictions that spectacularly fail to materialise, forgive me if I am a little sceptical about the theory behind it all. That to me always used to be how science worked, back in the days when it was robust enough to allow debate.

Now it just seems to be lists and personal attacks. Quite sad, but that what happens when political activists take over a field.

[jshell]

bodhi said:

Well considering those 10,000 scientists have such a fine record of making doom-filled predictions that spectacularly fail to materialise, forgive me if I am a little sceptical about the theory behind it all. That to me always used to be how science worked, back in the days when it was robust enough to allow debate.

Now it just seems to be lists and personal attacks. Quite sad, but that what happens when political activists take over a field.

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

[gadgetmac]

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

You don’t appear to be contributing much yourself just a continual noise about another poster.

[jshell]

gadgetmac said:

jshell said:

The more you engage with it, the more you encourage it... It's not here to debate or listen, it's here to mock and stifle debate. It has added zero to this thread.

You don’t appear to be contributing much yourself just a continual noise about another poster.

Noise about noise, huh?

[zygalski]

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

[gadgetmac]

Here’s a paper on the 97% consensus.

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Here is another

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

Feel free to try and pull those apart.

[LoonyTunes]

zygalski said:

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

Exactly.

Dont tell them that though, they get all fighty.

[voyds9]

At least there is a job for Sturgeon when she leaves politics

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/scottis...

Nowhere does it mention how much of 2700 megawatts they produce on average

[jshell]

zygalski said:

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

Actually, this thread has a history of good old fashioned debates and some really interesting information. However, there are posters like you who drop in from time to time and add utterly nothing to it. You regurgitate fallacies, you won't debate, you won't consider alternative opinions. In essence, what's the point in you? I've tried to engage with you in the dim and distant past, but you can't do it.

I drop in from time to time, comment when I feel it may add something. I've got ther things on my mind right now. But LT and you, as 'nett zero' contributors drop in and add nothing, I wonder why you feel the need... LT has a strong agenda and works hard. Hopefully people see that now. You're just, well, nothing.

Perhaps LT 'tagged' you...

[Vanden Saab]

gadgetmac said:

Here’s a paper on the 97% consensus.

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Here is another

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

Feel free to try and pull those apart.

Interesting paper here... http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50582/2/A%20Reply%... concerning consensus.....

[With This Staff]

Cook and Oreskes has been so dismembered that it is worthy of no further discussion, other than how bad it was.

[gadgetmac]

jshell said:

zygalski said:

Those of us who go along with the 97% scientific consensus (or should that be 100% scientific organisation consensus?) should leave this thread to the deniers. It's always amusing when the confirmation bias kicks in within this echo chamber.
Ideas bounced off various man-in-the-pub layman conspiracy theorists.

Just remember - keep calm - the deniers are harmless. They have no voice outside this little corner of a car enthusiast's forum.

Actually, this thread has a history of good old fashioned debates and some really interesting information. However, there are posters like you who drop in from time to time and add utterly nothing to it. You regurgitate fallacies, you won't debate, you won't consider alternative opinions. In essence, what's the point in you? I've tried to engage with you in the dim and distant past, but you can't do it.

I drop in from time to time, comment when I feel it may add something. I've got ther things on my mind right now. But LT and you, as 'nett zero' contributors drop in and add nothing, I wonder why you feel the need... LT has a strong agenda and works hard. Hopefully people see that now. You're just, well, nothing.

Perhaps LT 'tagged' you...

Again, a post about other posters and yet you think you bring something. You are an oddball.

[gadgetmac]

With This Staff said:

Cook and Oreskes has been so dismembered that it is worthy of no further discussion, other than how bad it was.

Has it newbie? When was that?

[gadgetmac]

Vanden Saab said:

Interesting paper here... http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/50582/2/A%20Reply%... concerning consensus.....

Another one here

https://cliscep.com/2017/11/19/cook-and-oreskes-ar...

[With This Staff]

Let me help you with the 'newbie'

Not a 'newbie'

[gadgetmac]

With This Staff said:

Let me help you with the 'newbie'

Not a 'newbie'

So who are were you not-newbie?