[size=9]HEY GUIS, IS THIS THE BATTLETOADS THREAD?[/size]

Edited by notorganic: 6/8/2014 02:48:38 AM

I couldnt give a damn about the subjectivity of the author
i've focused on the facts and figures. you seem to want to ignore them and focus on subjectivity that agrees with your fantasy

you're supporting this AGW like a football team, or worse a religion
there is no objectivity on your part at all, none

expressed no position = dont agree with an expressed position because they dont have the required evidence

you're unbelievable to fall for this crap

if i lodge an informal vote it doesnt mean i've voted for Liberal or the ALP
in your world you seem to think that means a vote for the ALP

Crackers you're crackering me up.

All of this hoohaa started when you linked an article to support your position regards the 97% figure not being fair dinkum. Surprisingly, or not given your cherry-picking history, your linked article clearly and UNEQUIVOCALLY stating that the figure is robust and reproducible.

I'm surprised you provided a link because that's not normally your go but I'm thinking that to get some much needed forum cred after the pizzling you've been copping you thought you'd better, finally, post up some corroborating evidence.

I'm guessing that since the article doesn't agree with you and more damningly makes you look like an arse you were hoping no one would read the full thing.

From the website you linked.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

-----------------------------------------------------8<---------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion

[excerpt]

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW 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.

-------------------------------------8<----------------------------------------------------------



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 5/8/2014 10:59:16 PM

Expressed no position. Not 'found no evidence' or 'do not believe in global warming'.

Edited by afromanGT: 5/8/2014 08:11:57 PM

you do appear quite stubborn and stupid about this and demonstrate a total lack of regard for how scientists think (unsurprising)

the 1% arent saying "no evidence", they're categorically saying humans arent doing it... which is almost as outrageous as the 32.6% who are saying that humans are

the 67.4% or more specifically the 66.4% are saying there is no evidence either way, and they are right

many know the truth
thousands, millions even, however the money is with the lie

The 67.4% figure you keep quoting have 'no opinion'. Saying there is no evidence to support humans causing climate change isn't 'no opinion'. That is the 1%.

It's one thing to quote these figures, it's another thing to be completely incapable of understanding them the way you are. The more you try and twist and turn the more you reaffirm your status as the village idiot.

So why aren't you taking your findings to the greater international audience, surely they deserve to know the truth as much as we do on here ( it seems we are the lucky few) stop being so selfish and share the gift of knowledge you have.

erm no, you cant tell me what i think, because only i know that
i'm saying there is no evidence to support humans causing climate change

i'm with the 67.4%

you're in the minority which by your way of measuring everything means you lose

Great flick

No, 67.4% of scientists said they had no opinion. You clearly don't have 'no opinion'.

You are aligned with the 1% of scientists who say that there's no such thing as climate change. Just 1% of scientists agree with you.

Edited by afromanGT: 5/8/2014 07:07:42 PM

actually 67.4% of the scientists in this particular case study agree with me.
that is there is no evidence to support humans causing climate change.

you're in the minority here, not me

hows it feel to be a stooge?

Hot Rod <3

You're using this as a strawman to detract from the fact that 1% of scientists agree with you.

what if we held an election and all informal voters (abstainers) votes were counted as votes for 1 party and not the other

thats tantamount to what has occurred here with this 97% myth

erm no, agreeing would put them in the 32.6%

67.4% are not agreeing with them

1% are taking a different position

No. 1% don't agree with them. 67.4% have no opinion. You said so yourself.

97.3% of rational human beings agree that anyone arguing a point with ricecrackers is a fucking retard.

67.4% dont agree with them

32.6 times less of a minority than those saying it doesn't exist.

no it hasnt. you're just lying now.

Edited by ricecrackers: 5/8/2014 04:13:30 PM

The 97% has been confirmed by other studies. Do some reading and try again.

It's all there on the previous page.

its not 32.6% of scientists
its 32.6% of papers on the subject of AGW say man is influencing the climate

that by my reckoning is "A MINORITY" even by those with a vested interest in the topic

the second survey was taken from a small selection of authors of some of those papers

so your entire consensus fantasy is a myth

Ok, so even if 32.6% of scientists state that global warming does exist, and 66.4% of scientists sit on the fence holding no position, that means that this is all just a gigantic straw man hiding the fact that you believe there's no such thing as Global Warming and just ONE PERCENTILE of scientists in the survey agree with you.

So that's 32.6 times more people disagree with you than agree.

But obviously they're wrong. Because you're the world's greatest know-it-all.

obviously its not yours since you cannot explain where my figures are wrong
you seem to be living in perennial denial of the truth which is ironic given that is what you accuse others of



Edited by ricecrackers: 5/8/2014 01:51:23 PM

Obviously comprehension is not your strong suit.

phase 2 is only a sample size of [size=8]4% of the original authors[/size] and we dont know which authors they are and how they were selected

this is what was covered up by UQ