Jump to content

drummindiver

Member
  • Posts

    2,304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by drummindiver

  1. Anyways, please refute the evidence about John Cook'spaper. You see, no matter how much you hate something facts don't change.
  2. Same as if they proved it.
  3. What a non argument that I never said. Regardless of who Alex Eastern writes for, the FACTS surrounding your so called 97% are bullshit.
  4. Money isn't the only motive. Unless you're AL Gore.
  5. I stated 2 posts ago what would convince me.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. An academic study has protocols which are followed. This isn't one of those.
  9. Hyperbolic in what sense? Admiration does not equate chasing investment.
  10. Can't wait for our our ally hating posters to blame it on the US. How far do you leather go?

    http://nationalpost.com/news/world/south-korea-says-north-has-fired-another-missile

  11. Are you saying CBC et al are not Libersl biased?
  12. 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 . .
  13. It does say consensus doesn't exist. It says he did not follow proper protocol. It does refute.
  14. "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/
  15. As reliable cite as Natural News. https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/
  16. 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. https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage.asp
  17. Another non Islamic Muslim attack.

  18. Can't wait for Trudeau to bring Rohingya home. 

    1. drummindiver
    2. DogOnPorch

      DogOnPorch

      Yes...I understand Islamic forces started this fight with the Burmese Army...and it's not being very PC in regards to its solution to Burma's Jihad problem.

      Canada needs more Islam...so why not, eh? 

       

  19. 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
  20. Great job growth if you want to work 2 jobs with no vacation/holidays.

    https://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170908/dq170908a-eng.htm?HPA=1

  21. 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.
  22. Pipelines still safetst and most environment friendly.
  23. No. Of his own volition? If not, why?. There has been far more lunacy allowed to go on before.
  24. Already got one Que sera
×
×
  • Create New...