Jump to content

YET ANOTHER STUDY HAMMERS ONE MORE NAIL INTO THE COFFIN CONTAINING THE MYTH OF "ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING"


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Olivaw said:


bullshit. you’ve offered no credible evidence that papers were mischaracterized.
 

 

I challenge you to link to a published peer reviewed paper that effectively counters Cook 2013. Quit dodging and find something. 

^^^ Flies into Appalachian-snake-handler-like rage when his religion is questioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigTex is gone for good !

 

He had a neural implosion  (call it a neurotic breakdown)  and now all he can compulsively do is yak gibberish no one understands !

 

Hey folks  .  .  .  I think we have another   Sole Result   here, on our site !

 

Jizz's Crisis  .  .  .  I sure hope it wasn't me who caused  him going insane !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Olivaw said:


bullshit. you’ve offered no credible evidence that papers were mischaracterized.
 

 

I challenge you to link to a published peer reviewed paper that effectively counters Cook 2013. Quit dodging and find something. 

 

No, not bullshit.  You really did just trash the sources that Cook used to create his 97% consensus bullshit.  I can see that you honestly don't understand what that means.

 

You seem to think that people are obligated to prove Cook a bullshitter after I've shown you that he misrepresented the Papers of scientists because it was expedient to a point he was wanting to make.  But you think the problem is with the scientists; you've basically called them liars. 

 

Concerning Cook, when someone in involved in deception, most people don't require a study to show that he is wrong about the very thing he was deceptive about.

 

But you are right about one thing.  I have not offered any evidence that those scientists' Papers were misrepresented by Mr. Cook.  I didn't have to.  The scientists whose Papers he misrepresented offered evidence that Cook did just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.  .  .  but I'm sure bumping up this bullshit thread of him will definitely give him a kick  .  .  .  or else he'll get butthurt !

 

Understanding your child's temper tantrum | Alethia Counseling

 

Relax, BigTex  .  .  .  you're in no way anything special  .  .  .  yer jussss yer  average asshole !

 

Get over it !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bard said:

 

No, not bullshit.  You really did just trash the sources that Cook used to create his 97% consensus bullshit.  I can see that you honestly don't understand what that means.

 

You seem to think that people are obligated to prove Cook a bullshitter after I've shown you that he misrepresented the Papers of scientists because it was expedient to a point he was wanting to make.  But you think the problem is with the scientists; you've basically called them liars. 

 

Concerning Cook, when someone in involved in deception, most people don't require a study to show that he is wrong about the very thing he was deceptive about.

 

But you are right about one thing.  I have not offered any evidence that those scientists' Papers were misrepresented by Mr. Cook.  I didn't have to.  The scientists whose Papers he misrepresented offered evidence that Cook did just that.

Do you ever grow weary of slicing, dicing, bludgeoning and bitch-slapping liberal idiots?

 

Mirabeau doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bard said:

 

No, not bullshit.  You really did just trash the sources that Cook used to create his 97% consensus bullshit.  I can see that you honestly don't understand what that means.

 


Science is published in peer reviewed academic journals. Other scientists and interested parties are free to verify or challenge the work through the peer reviewed publication process. That is how science is published. It is the ONLY way science is published. 
 

Published work on low rent blogs does not even meet the minimum standard of peer review. It’s irrelevant, no matter how much you want to agree with it. 


Do you need a video or link to explain this rudimentary principle? 


Cook 2013 was peer reviewed. It was sustained by numerous other studies and has not been refuted effectively. Some tried. All failed. It’s robust. 


AGAIN, you have been challenged to link to a published peer reviewed paper that effectively counters Cook 2013. Quit dodging. Quit hiding behind a low rent blog post. Find peer reviewed science to sustain your opinion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the peer review process works. 
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

 

  1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.

     

  2. The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

     

  3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

     

  4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.

     

  5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
     

Nothing on low rent blogs like WUWT and Popular Technology (not to be confused with Popular Mechanics and Popular Science) is peer reviewed science. Anybody can post there so long as they are willing to tow the anti-science climate change denier line. Quality control is non existent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

How the peer review process works. 
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

 

  1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.

     

  2. The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

     

  3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

     

  4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.

     

  5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
     

Nothing on low rent blogs like WUWT and Popular Technology (not to be confused with Popular Mechanics and Popular Science) is peer reviewed science. Anybody can post there so long as they are willing to tow the anti-science climate change denier line. Quality control is non existent. 

STOP YOUR FUCKING LYING

  • Haha 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

How the peer review process works. 
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

 

  1. A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.

     

  2. The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

     

  3. Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

     

  4. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.

     

  5. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
     

Nothing on low rent blogs like WUWT and Popular Technology (not to be confused with Popular Mechanics and Popular Science) is peer reviewed science. Anybody can post there so long as they are willing to tow the anti-science climate change denier line. Quality control is non existent. 

^^^ STILL doesn't have a clue that there are DOZENS of peer-reviewed papers which refute all or portions of MMGWR (Man-made Global Warming Religion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mirabeau said:

^^^ STILL doesn't have a clue that there are DOZENS of peer-reviewed papers which refute all or portions of MMGWR (Man-made Global Warming Religion).

^still doesn’t get that less than 3% of peer reviewed papers refute all or part of the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. 97%+  support it. 


Link one peer reviewed paper that refutes Cook et al. 2013. (A couple do exist but they failed under scrutiny.)

 

comic-boom-oops-icon-simple-black-style-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

^still doesn’t get that less than 3% of peer reviewed papers refute all or part of the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. 97%+  support it. 


Link one peer reviewed paper that refutes Cook et al. 2013. (A couple do exist but they failed under scrutiny.)

 

comic-boom-oops-icon-simple-black-style-

Let's START with this one, snake-handler.

 

Oh, yes . . . there are more.

 

Make it easy on yourself before you go bloviating some more, snake-handler.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mirabeau said:

Let's START with this one, snake-handler.

 

Oh, yes . . . there are more.

 

Make it easy on yourself before you go bloviating some more, snake-handler.

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x


Nothing to do with Cook 2013, poser. 
 

You probably should read the stuff you link. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Olivaw said:


Nothing to do with Cook 2013, poser. 
 

You probably should read the stuff you link. 

It REFUTES some of the religion known as "Man-made Global Warming"

 

You should probably read the articles Mirabeau provides links for.

 

You want more, by the way?

 

(Watch this, folks!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mirabeau said:

It REFUTES some of the religion known as "Man-made Global Warming"

 

You should probably read the articles Mirabeau provides links for.

 

You want more, by the way?

 

(Watch this, folks!)


As stated earlier. Cook found that less than 3% of the peer reviewed climate papers disagreed with the theory of AGW. 3% is non zero. Ergo, the existence of a paper in the 3% does not contradict Cook 2013 in any way. 

 

What part of this confuses booboo? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bard said:

Well, what's actually happened here is that you were just shown the sentiment of the actual scientists whose Papers Cook used dishonestly to help create his 97% consensus bullshit, and you've decided to try to make it disappear by whining about the source.  But the scientists have spoken.

 

But for the record, I want to hear you say that those scientists and their assessment of Cook's interpretation of their Papers--which I've brought to your attention--are not real. 

Not a good tack. Face it. Experts are against us. You're quibbling over numbers.

 

Let me tell you a little story. The reason it was easy for me to see global warming as a hoax was because I had been reading a lot about nutrition science, and anyone not familiar with nutrition science would never believe how derelict it is. We all know you can go to the book store and see 20 different diet books each backed by their own set of facts. But it probably doesn't dawn on us that it's the experts who are to blame. Surely it's just a bunch of celebrities hoping to create the next big trend, right? Well it's not. Scientists have always been the real propaganda mouthpieces, peddling respectability. Every horrible corporate idea from margarine to psychiatric drugs comes to us through scientists. I think the way to open up people to the idea of a massive scientific fraud to find that one issue, usually a health problem, where the person experience personal frustration until they did their own research.

 

What you need is a good story about why the experts are always wrong, not a mealy-mouthed retort about your experts being better than their experts, because the big money will always be on the side in favor of the scam.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BornRetarded said:

You're quibbling over numbers.

 

This isn't about numbers; it's about science fraud.   To create his 97% consensus bullshit, Cook used the Papers of scientists who've said that he misrepresented their stand on anthropogenic global warming.  So yeah, I'm going to quibble over that number because Cook committed fraud, and every Chicken Little here is willing to overlook his dishonesty even when they hear right from the horses' mouths that Cook misrepresented their Papers.  And to add insult to injury, rather than turning a critical eye to Cook, they're condemning those scientists instead of the guy who dishonestly misrepresented them.  Just a few posts above this one, a poster is still spewing Cooks 97% consensus bullshit even in the face of proof that he lied.  Perhaps a discussion on cognitive dissonance is in order. 

 

They're trying to protect their belief.  I'm not going to assist them in that endeavor.  You may remain as quiet as you like.  But please don't bother me while I do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bard said:

 

This isn't about numbers; it's about science fraud.   To create his 97% consensus bullshit, Cook used the Papers of scientists who've said that he misrepresented their stand on anthropogenic global warming.  So yeah, I'm going to quibble over that number because Cook committed fraud, and every Chicken Little here is willing to overlook his dishonesty even when they hear right from the horses' mouths that Cook misrepresented their Papers.  And to add insult to injury, rather than turning a critical eye to Cook, they're condemning those scientists instead of the guy who dishonestly misrepresented them.

 

They're trying to protect their belief.  I'm not going to assist them in that endeavor.  You can remain as quiet as you like.  But please don't bother me while I do this.

I agree with you that Cook is a fraud, and that most scientists don't agree with global warming, or at least don't have an opinion on it, and certainly not the alarmist opinion that New York City was killed by a tidal wave in 2008 like the head of NASA claims. That's the real misrepresentation by Cook. But what I'm saying is that this isn't relevant or persuasive, to anyone. Unfortunately, individual scientists simply don't matter, because they don't have a voice. They are employed by large organizations where they do compartmentalized work, and can be fired easily. These large organizations speak on their behalf. Exposing Cook doesn't clarify this situation, and you should notice you're up against a brick wall with people in this thread. They will defend Cook the way people defend something as objectively untrue as the "fine people hoax", because directionally they still feel that Cook was right, experts and consensus and whatnot. Tell me, what sort of "study" 

could possibly exist that "debunks" "global warming"? It's not 97%. It's 100%. The whole thing is a rhetorical game. Don't feed the trolls. Do 97% of Democrat party members believe the party line that white males are evil? Obviously they do or they wouldn't be in the party. This is too easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Olivaw said:


As stated earlier. Cook found that less than 3% of the peer reviewed climate papers disagreed with the theory of AGW. 3% is non zero. Ergo, the existence of a paper in the 3% does not contradict Cook 2013 in any way. 

 

What part of this confuses booboo? 

And, Cook was WRONG!

 

What is it about COOK'S LIE that YOU don't understand?

 

Mirabeau has more studies.

 

It's not difficult to find them.

 

MANY PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES WHICH DISPUTE OR DENY ALL OR SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING RELIGION ARE READILY AVAILABLE.

 

But YOU are such a tragic VICTIM of religious indoctrination that you are no different from an Appalachian snake handler. 

 

Ray Charles had one massive advantage over you.

 

He was not NEARLY AS BLIND as you are.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Bard said:

 

This isn't about numbers; it's about science fraud.   To create his 97% consensus bullshit, Cook used the Papers of scientists who've said that he misrepresented their stand on anthropogenic global warming.  So yeah, I'm going to quibble over that number because Cook committed fraud, and every Chicken Little here is willing to overlook his dishonesty even when they hear right from the horses' mouths that Cook misrepresented their Papers.  And to add insult to injury, rather than turning a critical eye to Cook, they're condemning those scientists instead of the guy who dishonestly misrepresented them.  Just a few posts above this one, a poster is still spewing Cooks 97% consensus bullshit even in the face of proof that he lied.  Perhaps a discussion on cognitive dissonance is in order. 

 

They're trying to protect their belief.  I'm not going to assist them in that endeavor.  You may remain as quiet as you like.  But please don't bother me while I do this.

Olivawful doesn't see the fraud, just as a psychopath never sees right from wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BornRetarded said:

 Unfortunately, individual scientists simply don't matter, because they don't have a voice.

Fortunately, Cook created a situation in which those individual scientists were given a voice.  And what they said was that they were misrepresented by Cook.  I like chipping away at the images people have in their minds of "trusted officials".  Some people might wake up.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...