|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:let me ask a direct question of the alarmist fanatics here...
what is this 97% figure I keep hearing about? can you explain to me what this means in simple terms? Strop trolling. You know the answer. Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:well obviously evidence and proof are missing however I understand this cult requires a deal of faith
can you point me in the right direction such that I may be a born again climate alarmist? Here is the link regarding my previous posts: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/articleThere has been lots of articles and papers presented in this thread that take a stance on anthropogenic climate change, the vast majority endorse anthropogenic climate change; as shown in the study I have posted above. You just seem to ignore ALL RESEARCH on climate change, whether it does or doesn't endorse anthropogenic climate change. 97% of research that takes a position on climate change endorses anthropogenic climate change - you ignore, the other 2% that doesn't endorse anthropogenic climate change - you ignore, the 1% that are uncertain on anthropogenic climate change - you ignore. so they 'endorse' it but dont prove it hmm so if 97% endorse (preach) then I should just take that in good faith? In layman's terms, the research papers that take a stance on anthropogenic climate change (state for/against/uncertain on humans are causing climate change) - 97% of those scientific peer reviewed research papers are happy that the evidence is strong enough to state anthropogenic climate change is real (endorsing anthropogenic climate change) i.e. humans are causing climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:this is from John Cook's paper. I've added my comments in red to explain it better. Quote:We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that • 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, • 32.6% endorsed AGW, • 0.7% rejected AGW and • 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [size=8](31.7% of total)[/size] (29286 authors included in above abstracts)In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. (which authors did you invite? Which authors responded?)  (So 2142 out of the original 11944 abstracts or 17.9% of abstracts included in phase 2)
(And 1189 of the original 29286 authors responded to rate their own papers, or [size=8]4% of the original authors[/size])Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article in short, its really 31.7% not 97% then in phase two they attempted to get a direct consensus of authors commenting on their own papers and only 4% responded AGW 'Consensus' destroyed Edited by ricecrackers: 4/8/2014 05:18:24 PM 31.7% > 0.7% The papers that don't take a position on AGW are probably papers looking at the various factors that make up the climate, such as how much heat is trapped by clouds at the same time how much is reflected. 
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
internet memes arent proof of anything
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:internet memes arent proof of anything 
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
kids will be kids :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:kids will be kids :roll: Explain the blue pie chart for us kiddies then genius.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:kids will be kids :roll: Explain the blue pie chart for us kiddies then genius. 
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:kids will be kids :roll: Explain the blue pie chart for us kiddies then genius. its a pretty picture designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator in society (eg you) you see if you alarmist cultists were actually right, you wouldnt need to be spending billions of dollars in advertising propaganda to try to convince everyone. you'd only need evidence. unfortunately for you that is in short supply. look at this, they've even written a paper on how to convince idiots... http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/how-to-communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-changean excerpt stay tuned for more pie charts morons Edited by ricecrackers: 6/8/2014 08:14:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Right. So no explanation then?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:Right.
So no explanation then? you have no explanation you have no evidence you have a picture of a pie chart its absolutely useless i'd like to know what convinced you of this AGW, what was it that got you to subscribe to the cult? what was the turning point for you?
|
|
|
|
|
Roar #1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Right.
So no explanation then? you have no explanation you have no evidence you have a picture of a pie chart its absolutely useless i'd like to know what convinced you of this AGW, what was it that got you to subscribe to the cult? w hat was the turning point for you? I'll answer that after you tell me when you decided to be straight.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
So in the past 6 pages there have been some 18 linked articles, images and quotes.
Ricecrackers has produced precisely 1 of these, which didn't even agree with his contention.
But everyone else is wrong.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
yawn
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Right.
So no explanation then? you have no explanation you have no evidence you have a picture of a pie chart its absolutely useless i'd like to know what convinced you of this AGW, what was it that got you to subscribe to the cult? what was the turning point for you? The picture is a representation of the data not a pretty blue circle. If it helps you get away from your obsession with circles and pies (mmmmm...pies) pretend it's a bar graph. Now you've wrapped your tiny mind around that would you care to explain the data?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Right.
So no explanation then? you have no explanation you have no evidence you have a picture of a pie chart its absolutely useless i'd like to know what convinced you of this AGW, what was it that got you to subscribe to the cult? what was the turning point for you? The picture is a representation of the data not a pretty blue circle. If it helps you get away from your obsession with circles and pies (mmmmm...pies) pretend it's a bar graph. Now you've wrapped your tiny mind around that would you care to explain the data? so you cant answer my question then.... figures one can only assume the very myth i've destroyed is the one that you based your world view on hence your painful denials Edited by ricecrackers: 7/8/2014 01:31:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Right.
So no explanation then? you have no explanation you have no evidence you have a picture of a pie chart its absolutely useless i'd like to know what convinced you of this AGW, what was it that got you to subscribe to the cult? what was the turning point for you? The picture is a representation of the data not a pretty blue circle. If it helps you get away from your obsession with circles and pies (mmmmm...pies) pretend it's a bar graph. Now you've wrapped your tiny mind around that would you care to explain the data? so you cant answer my question then.... figures one can only assume the very myth i've destroyed is the one that you based your world view on hence your painful denials Edited by ricecrackers: 7/8/2014 01:31:54 PM Quality rebuttal x 2
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
you drones have nothing left, not even your pride
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:you drones have nothing left, not even your pride Keep telling yourself that.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:you drones have nothing left, not even your pride So you can't even answer my question then? You know the one about the pretty blue circle and the data contained therein.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:you drones have nothing left, not even your pride So you can't even answer my question then? You know the one about the pretty blue circle and the data contained therein. He's got nothing. So in order to distract from this he tells us that we have nothing in order to save him from having to produce some non-existent piece of evidence to actually back up his claims (because we all know that ricecrackers doesn't adhere to the same burden of proof he holds the rest of the world to). Additionally, he can't produce another piece of evidence to 'support' his claims and attempt to shoehorn it to his argument like he just did, lest it be pointed out that it doesn't say anything close to what he claims it does once again.
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:He's got nothing. So in order to distract from this he tells us that we have nothing in order to save him from having to produce some non-existent piece of evidence to actually back up his claims (because we all know that ricecrackers doesn't adhere to the same burden of proof he holds the rest of the world to). Additionally, he can't produce another piece of evidence to 'support' his claims and attempt to shoehorn it to his argument like he just did, lest it be pointed out that it doesn't say anything close to what he claims it does once again. You are legitimately so fucking retarded that I want to scream into a pillow. He doesn't need evidence, he doesn't need to back up his claims. The fact that you morons keep replying to him and displaying your butthurt to the world gives him what he wants and what he needs. Quite literally, you are feeding the troll his favourite meal over and over and over. You, and other idiots that keep this farce going, are responsible for the ongoing argument.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:He's got nothing. So in order to distract from this he tells us that we have nothing in order to save him from having to produce some non-existent piece of evidence to actually back up his claims (because we all know that ricecrackers doesn't adhere to the same burden of proof he holds the rest of the world to). Additionally, he can't produce another piece of evidence to 'support' his claims and attempt to shoehorn it to his argument like he just did, lest it be pointed out that it doesn't say anything close to what he claims it does once again. You are legitimately so fucking retarded that I want to scream into a pillow. He doesn't need evidence, he doesn't need to back up his claims. The fact that you morons keep replying to him and displaying your butthurt to the world gives him what he wants and what he needs. Quite literally, you are feeding the troll his favourite meal over and over and over. You, and other idiots that keep this farce going, are responsible for the ongoing argument. I agree with Notor ricecrackers be nom, nom, nom, nom.
|
|
|
|
|
marconi101
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
mk0825 is having a field day
He was a man of specific quirks. He believed that all meals should be earned through physical effort. He also contended, zealously like a drunk with a political point, that the third dimension would not be possible if it werent for the existence of water.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Calm down. It's one and two line replies. (I've long given up researching and posting huge arguments and rebuttals to Crackers.)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:He's got nothing. So in order to distract from this he tells us that we have nothing in order to save him from having to produce some non-existent piece of evidence to actually back up his claims (because we all know that ricecrackers doesn't adhere to the same burden of proof he holds the rest of the world to). Additionally, he can't produce another piece of evidence to 'support' his claims and attempt to shoehorn it to his argument like he just did, lest it be pointed out that it doesn't say anything close to what he claims it does once again. You are legitimately so fucking retarded that I want to scream into a pillow. He doesn't need evidence, he doesn't need to back up his claims. The fact that you morons keep replying to him and displaying your butthurt to the world gives him what he wants and what he needs. Quite literally, you are feeding the troll his favourite meal over and over and over. You, and other idiots that keep this farce going, are responsible for the ongoing argument. What a surprise that as usual you've got nothing constructive to say so you resort to playing the man and hanging shit on people. But your post serves a great deal to prove the point that when you, or ricecrackers, or other idiot trolls in ET are ignored again and again they resort to attacking users and generally turning this into an unappealing environment.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:Calm down. It's one and two line replies. (I've long given up researching and posting huge arguments and rebuttals to Crackers.) since your MH370 embarrassment where you were so sure the doppler effect would find the plane and you still cant admit you were duped by charlatans there as you have been on the climate alarmist agenda
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Calm down. It's one and two line replies. (I've long given up researching and posting huge arguments and rebuttals to Crackers.) since your MH370 embarrassment where you were so sure the doppler effect would find the plane and you still cant admit you were duped by charlatans there as you have been on the climate alarmist agenda Remind me again where you think it is Tin (foil hat) Man? Over in world events though. Try to stay on message here.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:
What a surprise that as usual you've got nothing constructive to say so you resort to playing the man and hanging shit on people.
:lol: Irony.....
|
|
|
|