Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I forgot to add: If you had read Cook's study (which you clearly didn't) you should have recognised that the numbers at the end meant the '3' categorised the paper under the 'mitigation' category and the '4' rated it as stating "no position" on AGW in the abstract. It's obvious you hadn't read that paper either or you would know it wasn't just about sewage recycling.
Yes, I'm familiar with Cooks disingenuous system of classification, and yes, I did scan the papers I selected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
The 4 categories it under 'methods' and the 5 rates it as "5, Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW"
None of the papers were supposed to 'prove global warming'. The review of extracts was only meant to see if there was a position taken on AGW and if so, what it was.
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of you building lame straw man arguments to attack so you can feel 'superior' to all those 1000's of climate scientists who clearly have it all wrong?
You're missing the point.
Science by consensus is not science, rather it is politics.
The mere fact that Cook and others have to resort to grasping at straws in order to claim support exists for their position, is evidence that their position is weak and cannot withstand real debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
It's childlike to suggest it's JUST the sun, which many AGW deniers do.
Too bad you're so parochial and narrow-minded that you cannot consider the possibility that there are multiple causal factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
I guess you didn't understand the purpose of the Cook study did you?
Yes, the position of global warming supporters is weak, and so they resort to grasping at straws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
It really would help if you actually read Cook's study to find out what it was about. It wasn't about 'proving' Global Warming, it was about looking at the trends of scientists' acceptance of AGW in published papers.
Once again for the small-minded and the hard of hearing, consensus is not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Of course the sun is involved. It was your simplistic view of climate change that I was criticising.
Um, we are in an Inter-Glacial Period....of course the climate is changing.
Do you understand that if temperatures do not get warmer, then you cannot have an Inter-Glacial Period?
In other words, warmer temperatures and Inter-Glacial Periods are not mutually exclusive.
Put another way.....you cannot have an Inter-Glacial Period unless the climate changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
But... you claim "that's not the point"? Really? The point is that you are intellectually dishonest. You hadn't even read Cook's study, or looked at their data file. Yet you trashed it. Your credibility is less than zero.
The entire idea and concept of Cook's useless study is intellectually dishonest.
The process of nuclear fission was not based on reading abstracts of peer-reviewed papers to see if anyone mentions nuclear fission.
Why is it so hard for you to discern the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
No. That would be you - as you have proven beyond a doubt. Not that you would ever admit you trash studies without reading them and made a false claim about that list of papers you dug up from a blog comment.
That is a Left-Wing blog.....which you have still refused to condemn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Um... surely if you had actually read Cook's study and knew the rating method, you would have noticed it's one of the few studies that does NOT endorse AGW? Seriously, do some research before making silly mistakes like that. It makes you look intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Or at the very least incompetent.
Again, the entire idea of Cook's study is abhorrent since it has no basis in science; and it is not science.
According to you, if a micro-biologist were to mention cold fusion in an abstract in a particular way, that is science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
So you have one poster who trashes studies he hasn't read, lies about what's in them, has a very simplistic view of climate change and ignores all the evidence that doesn't support his simplistic views (probably because he hasn't read it).
And you it is you who are in total fear and continually engage in....
The fallacy of avoiding the question is a type of fallacy of avoiding the issue that occurs when the issue is how to answer some question. The fallacy occurs when someone’s answer doesn’t really respond to the question asked.
Everyone can see you are avoiding this NOAA data from the NOAA website...
You have to be the Gish gallop queen, and I'm not impressed....If you are trying to overwhelm me with your cherry picked data, it's not going to work.
You have become in every way, shape and form exactly like the religious fundamentalists you so despise and ridicule.
How ironic.
You really are scared, aren't you? Yes, you are.
The fact that you are making excuses claiming to "overwhelmed" with "cherry-picked data" is prima facie evidence that you're frightened to death.
You made these comments.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
If you just read and believe whatever the right wing bloggers feed you you are nothing but a parrot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
You forget that I have examined your site....Are you claiming that there are no ad hominems or dishonesty there?
....and I called you out here....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Are you prepared to level the same criticisms on this left-wing blog?
If not, why not?
...and now you claimed to be "overwhelmed."
The 2nd Question posed was....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How much longer will you continue to deny the reality that for the last 14 Million years, Earth looks just like this 90% of the time?
If the question "overwhelmed" you, then you lack the scientific literacy and requisite intelligence to form an opinion on global warming that is without prejudice or bigotry.
If you have an issue with Rice University then perhaps we should consult with the NOAA from your own government....
Quote:
Large, continental ice-sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. Times with large ice-sheets are known as glacial periods (or ice ages) and times without large ice-sheets are interglacial periods. The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, the Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene (Figure 2). Glacial periods are colder, dustier and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial-interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world.
The 3rd Question I posed to you was in response to this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Regarding the graph you posted...It is meaningless as far as climate change is concerned...It is only for five years. If it covered 30 years it might mean something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How much longer are you going to deny this NOAA data?...
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
You people are the cherry-pickers....you live in total fear that people will see the entire temperature record for the last 350,000 years as presented by your own government.
Every person with half a brain is looking at that government graph from the NOAA and saying, "WTF? This is thecoldest Inter-Glacial Period....the last 3 Inter-Glacial Periods were warmer than it is now."
Smart people who know how to think would be wondering why this Inter-Glacial Period is 10.8°F colderthan the last one.
Why aren't you asking that question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Explain to us why the last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.8°F warmer than today.
You do have an explanation, right?.....
Nope. A 'very small handful' (out of 8547 emailed by the study's authors) preferred to respond to an email request to have a whinge and some self-promotion on an AGW denialist blog instead of responding to the 2 email requests from the study's authors for them to self-rate their own papers to correct any miscategorizations of their abstracts.
"poo flinging". You think that is what you call an "intelligent discussion"? LOL. Nuff said ceist. Now go hang yourself so as not to pump more co2 into the atmosphere from your body. Save the planet one little bit at a time. Hey if all you global warmers offed yourselves we may buy a little more time. lol
Already explained. A 'very small handful' (out of 8547 emailed by the study's authors) preferred to respond to an email request to have a whinge and some self-promotion on an AGW denialist blog instead of responding to the 2 email requests from the study's authors for them to self-rate their own papers to correct any miscategorizations of their abstracts.
I see your hypocrisy has no bounds as you are still here. Not a shock. You want others to do what you say needs to be done yet you won't take the first step to save the old girl mother earth. Me thinks you are a hypocrite. Prove me wrong.........please.
Already explained. A 'very small handful' (out of more than 20,000 authors of papers) preferred to respond to an email request to have a whinge on an AGW denialst blog instead of responding to the 2 email requests from the study's authors for them to self-rate their own papers to correct any miscategorizations of their abstracts.
Try to keep up.
Maybe you should call your 20K "authors of papers" and tell them to shut off their power and go live in caves to save the old earth. She needs help according to you and your scientists. So do your duty. Hypocrites never do though for some reason they expect others to do what they are told. Tyrants is all you are. Put up or shut up hero. I know you won't do either so carry on. Hypocrite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
