drummindiver
-
Posts
2,304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by drummindiver
-
-
1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:
Holy crap. How far down the sewers will you people go? Just let it go already. "Your argument doesn't stand.."
The article is by Alex Epstein who writes pro-fossil articles for the fossil industry in exchange for money.
He wrote a funny book called, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels. Seriously. This guy is a full-time advocate for burning of oil, coal, and petroleum gas. He’s sponsored by the now-infamous petrochemical billionaires the Koch brothers.
He claims to be an energy policy expert, but his pedigree is that of an ideologue. After graduating in philosophy, he eventually founded his own Center for Industrial Progress, which provides a superficially appealing spin on the beliefs of the most regressive quarters of the energy industry.
Anyways, please refute the evidence about John Cook'spaper. You see, no matter how much you hate something facts don't change.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
In fact, if a scientist disproved AGW, fame, reputation and wealth would be his/hers.
Same as if they proved it.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
But scientists are paid, you see, therefore you can't trust scientists. Or anyone who is paid, I guess.
What a non argument that I never said.
Regardless of who Alex Eastern writes for, the FACTS surrounding your so called 97% are bullshit.
-
42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
There is definitely a consensus that AGW is real. Calling motives into question is something anybody can do. "Scientists make money" therefore all science is bullshit.
Money isn't the only motive.
Unless you're AL Gore.
-
41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
If there is anything that would convince you that there's a consensus, state what that is. Common sense doesn't cut it.
I stated 2 posts ago what would convince me.
-
38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
There is definitely a consensus that AGW is real. Calling motives into question is something anybody can do. "Scientists make money" therefore all science is bullshit.
If there is anything that would convince you that there's a consensus, state what that is. Common sense doesn't cut it.
I've showed you where the "consensus"came from.
Show me facts where this comes from....all relates to this bullshit paper.
People who don't read and research may have this consensus...those who follow facts don't.
-
27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Agreed - it's a magazine article, and in that it's less rigorous. It still doesn't make a good case against consensus, though. And when you think of it, that makes sense. Who would argue that a consensus of scientists should be ignored, which is not to say that their economic advice should be heeded.
Again, there is no consensus.
Skeptical Science is a blog utilized to promote an agenda for personal gain.
That is unconscionable. Like All Gore owning carbon credits.
If there was a consensus..ie proper scientific protocols were used to show a certain set of data...we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Fair enough - there was a page 2 that I missed. If the author had asked anyone, there was an academic study of climate science papers to find out how many refuted human-caused global warming. That's likely where it came from.
An academic study has protocols which are followed. This isn't one of those.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
I think that statement is hyperbolic. Trudeau, Harper et al. chased investment money from all quarters because, well, we have to live in the world.
Hyperbolic in what sense? Admiration does not equate chasing investment.
-
12 hours ago, dre said:
"The liberal press"
ROFLMAO
Are you saying CBC et al are not Libersl biased?
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
It says that even consensus doesn't mean that economic/energy policy should change in the way environmentalists recommend, and I have always agreed with that.
I.6% of 97% sure as hell isn't consensus.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . .
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
Ok, so you don't believe in consensus. Check. Your article doesn't refuse that the consensus exists, and doesn't refute that it's absolutely correct.
It says that even consensus doesn't mean that economic/energy policy should change in the way environmentalists recommend, and I have always agreed with that.
It does say consensus doesn't exist.
It says he did not follow proper protocol.
It does refute.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
If we're going to use consensus as a measure, then we're not quite there yet on storms. But people arguing that AGW doesn't even exist can't really argue consensus on the topic of storms since they don't believe in consensus anyway.
"Explicit Endorsement by quantification".
Your argument doesn't stand as there are hard facts showing the number of storms that have happened and at what regularity/force. Consensus has nothing to do with it.
John Cook is the fella that coined the 97% agree phrase, and he is reliable as David Wolfe or Food Babe. There is no consensus unless you want to use his science the same as anti GMOers used Serallini's.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
-
On 09/09/2017 at 1:09 PM, Omni said:
Here is the science for you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
As reliable cite as Natural News.
https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/
-
1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:
The good old, "I'm still in denial" response.
It's the type of storms we are getting. It's the destruction they are leaving behind. It's also the drought we're seeing, where lakes are disappearing at an alarming rate. Things are changing, but you still have your head in the sand.
Really? What kind of storms are those? The ones that hit a mile or two either way cause the most damage. Two category fives and one in top ten. A tropical storm caused more damage for crying out loud than the other one.
-
She found it intriguing an NDP wanted to run....but had no part in the mechanism to make it happen. Oy vei
http://m.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/premier-kathleen-wynne-testifies-at-bribery-trial
-
25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Nuclear power ( either uranium or thorium) is far safer and more environmentally friendly.
Are you strictly talking about power?
Hard to get your car to go on nuclear (yet).
Did he specify AGW?
How does your house get built? Trains, cars, tvs etc? Using nuclear? While you and I agree, NIMBYism excludes NP on as large a scale as you would like.
Dr Suzuki is a multimillionaire hypocrite. I can provide cites if requested.
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Part of the resistance to pipelines is the possibility of a spill such as the Husky spill. Another source of concern is climate change. I read your view and then I read what Stephen Hawking has to say. Obviously, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I am smart enough to believe Hawking.
Pipelines still safetst and most environment friendly.
-
1 hour ago, Argus said:
You realize he's gone, right?
No.
Of his own volition?
If not, why?. There has been far more lunacy allowed to go on before.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, scribblet said:
I'm thinking of risking a warning point, or worse and giving him a graphic of a finger - or worse :)-
Already got one
Que sera
-
3 hours ago, Argus said:
Can we all agree that people who come out of nowhere identifying themselves as ethnic and making outrageously racist and stupid postings in big, bright blue letters are trolls and should be deleted?
How do we identify trolling Muslims as opposed to non trolling muslims?
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Argus said:
Also, the immigrants we're taking in now are much more conservative and religious than back then. If you went back to Iran or Egypt or Lebanon in 1971 or 1981 you'd find very few women wearing Hijabs, let alone covering their faces. Now the great majority of women do, and the numbers increase each year - as they do in Canada. The Saudi influence has been growing in the Muslim world for decades.
Also the embracing of Sayd Qtbah's Milestones.
-
On 10/09/2017 at 5:07 PM, dialamah said:
While Islam may offer the worst examples of misogyny and oppressive practices in the Middle East, it's also true that many of those practices are shared by non-Muslims. This is why I, personally, prefer to consider them cultural and not specifically Islamic.
"Islam may offer the worst example".
How is this then "not specifically Islamic" ?
-
1 minute ago, Altai said:
Surah 9:28 says Mushriks are filth. So here the word "filth" would be more suitable because the word can mean real or metaphor. Its like calling someone "you are disgusting". Seem like its used in the verse in both meaning.
Mushrik: The persons who claims of being Muslim but perform actions non-Islamic.
The Arabic word which is falsely translated (as usual) is "necesun". Can be used in real sense or hypothetical sense. Can mean unclean, filth, impure."Non-Muslims are disgusting"
I feel much better now.
-
1
-
Disaster in Texas
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Also @Michael Hardner
Here is the actual paper. Please refute anything Epstein wrote.
Use my proper handle Hudson Jones.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta