It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming Stop the Superstitious Nonsense

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42



You and your bs methods are mentioned in the conclusion of the cook report! Let that sink in for a moment


You mean this line from the 'scientific paper'? Sounds real scientific to me. Look, call me what you want, a denier, a skeptic, a heretic, a warmist. Use all of the tacticss you can to avoid debating the empirical evidence and data.

...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'


You know that the guv is setting up a red team vs blue team don't ya? This is all gonna be out in the open soon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Pick another one?
What do you think this is? Some kind of quiz?

Avoid debating the emperical evidence and data?
Dude, I just exposed you for the data manipulating fraud that you are. And you are still taking swings at this?



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
Pick another one?
What do you think this is? Some kind of quiz?

Avoid debating the emperical evidence and data?
Dude, I just exposed you for the data manipulating fraud that you are. And you are still taking swings at this?


Really, I don't think that you exposed me, but that is up to the readers of the thread to decide.
Now, pick another consensus paper, link to it, and lets discuss. If you dare..



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I think I'll wait for some third party input, thanks
Very curious how this is going to pan out



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
1. There has been no appreciable warming in 18 year unless you cherry pick an el nino year.
2. Sea levels are rising no faster now than they have been for 150 years.
3. There has been no statistically significant increase in Hurricanes or Cyclones.
4. Crop yields are up all over the planet partially due to the C02 fertilization effect.
5. The scientific consensus is manufactured, it's not real and the studies themselves show this.
6. There is finally going to be debate allowed into the global warming forum. This is welcomed by skeptics and feared by alarmists, why?


edit on 8-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42




You took the data from the papers and made up some nonsense 'quantify' 'minimize' subdivision to manipulate the data so it can fit you rhetoric.
LMFAO. I didn't do that. The authors of the paper did that. Your argument isn't just invalid, it supports my position. I have done nothing but shown their data and read beyond the title.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You can't use a sample where 66.4% has no position on the subject you're researching. You're deliberately diluting the numbers to make your point.

11,944 - 7,930 = 4,014 papers have a position on AGW
Of those 4014 papers 78 reject AGW, 40 are uncertain and 3896 endorse AGW

You can't even get the basic math right, let alone make scientific sound conclusions.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

The math is just fine.


The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

I'm bored of debunking Cook, dig up another paper, they're all much the same. Lets move onto another one.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Jubei42

LMFAO. I didn't do that. The authors of the paper did that. Your argument isn't just invalid, it supports my position. I have done nothing but shown their data and read beyond the title.


You didn't make up the categories sure, but you did make up the numbers corresponding to those categories.
Show me where is says in the cook paper that "64 papers or 0.5% explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" or "922 papers endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

You can't, cause it's made up. Total bs



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Jubei42

I'm bored of debunking Cook, dig up another paper, they're all much the same. Lets move onto another one.


Well, if they are all the same we might aswell stick to this one.
Love to hear from you where you got the numbers corresponding to the levels of endorsements



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

Numbers come from Cook's website.

link



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

No, in the Cook paper. Remember? If it's not in the paper it's bs and you're a fraud or a frauds parrot.
Either way it's not looking good for the skeptics or the climate



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

Why do you keep assuming what others watching the thread are thinking? Leave me out of your little mind games, I'm not buying. The supplementary data for Cooks paper is at Cooks own website which I have provided a link too. You are confrontational and not prepared to debate openly or honestly. Typical with you alarmists.



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You've provided jack. And you know it
I'll pick confrontational over fraudulent any day of the week



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: D8Tee

You've provided jack. And you know it
I'll pick confrontational over fraudulent any day of the week

Were you born stupid, or do you have to try hard at it?

What part of 'thats Cooks own Data' don't you get?



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: D8Tee

You've provided jack. And you know it
I'll pick confrontational over fraudulent any day of the week

Were you born stupid, or do you have to try hard at it?

What part of 'thats Cooks own Data' don't you get?


The part that was made up



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: D8Tee

You've provided jack. And you know it
I'll pick confrontational over fraudulent any day of the week

Were you born stupid, or do you have to try hard at it?

What part of 'thats Cooks own Data' don't you get?


The part that was made up
Nothing was made up.

If it was, some brainwashed alarmist like you would point it out to me instead of making baseless accusations in an attempt to libel and slander someone lol. You got nothing, cuz all the data was Cooks.


edit on 8-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Please, I invite you to continue the discussion in the thread you started because of this issue
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9-6-2017 by Jubei42 because: added link



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Skepticism is healthy, except when in comes to the authenticity and sincerity of scientists pushing an agenda where taxes are raised and government is over-reaching.

Good thing government and scientists are never wrong.


If you want be skeptical of scientists simply because you disagree with them ideologically, please get off the internet/smartphone/electricity/etc and forsake modern technology entirely.

After all, all of it might be pushing an agenda.

I'm sure everyone will be happier on either side for it.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join