Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:47 PM
 
105 posts, read 84,113 times
Reputation: 106

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You've posted that same propaganda link a dozen times.....Good grief....How childish can you get?
Typical response from the believer crowd--
Translation: It doesn't conform to my preconceived, inflexible opinion on the matter, therefore it must be propaganda.

The 97% figure that you sheep keep regurgitating like it's the gospel came from a paper cited in that link. They emailed a sample of the scientists who were part of the so called 97% and the results were most of them felt misrepresented into being classified as endorsing AGW!

Pretty damning evidence I'd say. You can't SPIN that. These same climate scientists who you respect so highly when they are supposedly part of this false consensus are saying in their own words that they are being misrepresented. So now what? Where they all paid off by big oil?

You insult the intelligence of skeptics for being gullible yet you blindly accept it as the gospel truth when the media tells you there is a 97% consensus

 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,275,313 times
Reputation: 1072
Yeah, it's still unrefereed garbage put out by a known crank. Please keep failing like this, it makes me laugh.
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:49 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,413,512 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by illwalkthanks View Post
Typical response from the believer crowd--
Translation: It doesn't conform to my preconceived, inflexible opinion on the matter, therefore it must be propaganda.

The 97% figure that you sheep keep regurgitating like it's the gospel came from a paper cited in that link. They emailed a sample of the scientists who were part of the so called 97% and the results were most of them felt misrepresented into being classified as endorsing AGW!

Pretty damning evidence I'd say. You can't SPIN that. These same climate scientists who you respect so highly when they are supposedly part of this false consensus are saying in their own words that they are being misrepresented. So now what? Where they all paid off by big oil?

You insult the intelligence of skeptics for being gullible yet you blindly accept it as the gospel truth when the media tells you there is a 97% consensus
That is precisely why I keep posting it. Thanks!
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:50 PM
 
105 posts, read 84,113 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Urefereed article with a known crank's name attached to it. Science, please. Not the garbage your right-wing friends send you. Another right-wing fail.
Nah.. it just contains the very climate scientists who were part of the so called consensus openly admitting in their own words that they were being misrepresented into supporting AGW.
Nothing to see here, move along folks, it must be right wing propaganda
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:50 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,413,512 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Yeah, it's still unrefereed garbage put out by a known crank. Please keep failing like this, it makes me laugh.
Laugh away.....
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:52 PM
 
105 posts, read 84,113 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
That is precisely why I keep posting it. Thanks!
Thanks for sharing it. Pretty staggering to those with an open mind. Pretty funny to watch the PRETZEL SHAPES that people will bend themselves into to dismiss it if it doesn't fit their beliefs.
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:53 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,413,512 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by illwalkthanks View Post
Thanks for sharing it. Pretty staggering to those with an open mind. Pretty funny to watch the PRETZEL SHAPES that people will bend themselves into to dismiss it if it doesn't fit their beliefs.
couldn't rep you again. Yes it is amusing to watch that's for sure.
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,501 posts, read 37,016,233 times
Reputation: 13972
Quote:
Originally Posted by illwalkthanks View Post
Typical response from the believer crowd--
Translation: It doesn't conform to my preconceived, inflexible opinion on the matter, therefore it must be propaganda.

The 97% figure that you sheep keep regurgitating like it's the gospel came from a paper cited in that link. They emailed a sample of the scientists who were part of the so called 97% and the results were most of them felt misrepresented into being classified as endorsing AGW!

Pretty damning evidence I'd say. You can't SPIN that. These same climate scientists who you respect so highly when they are supposedly part of this false consensus are saying in their own words that they are being misrepresented. So now what? Where they all paid off by big oil?

You insult the intelligence of skeptics for being gullible yet you blindly accept it as the gospel truth when the media tells you there is a 97% consensus
I pay no attention to the media, as I read the peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals....I have proven that that page is utter garbage....Use the handy dandy search feature to find my rebuttal.
 
Old 04-04-2014, 02:59 PM
 
105 posts, read 84,113 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I pay no attention to the media, as I read the peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals....I have proven that that page is utter garbage....Use the handy dandy search feature to find my rebuttal.
Yeah? How about the scientists who publish peer reviewed papers in scientific journals being quoted that they are being misrepresented as part of this false consensus?
 
Old 04-04-2014, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,275,313 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by illwalkthanks View Post
Typical response from the believer crowd--
Translation: It doesn't conform to my preconceived, inflexible opinion on the matter, therefore it must be propaganda.
That wasn't my response. My response was it was an unrefereed article by a known crank. It has no more scientific credibility than a post from any random denialist. And I hear another author is a dowser.

Quote:
The 97% figure that you sheep keep regurgitating like it's the gospel came from a paper cited in that link. They emailed a sample of the scientists who were part of the so called 97% and the results were most of them felt misrepresented into being classified as endorsing AGW!

Pretty damning evidence I'd say.
Oh. Worthless garbage spewed by cranks I'd say.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top