@metal-brain saidYou're saying you want a poll of climate scientists who cannot get funded to study climate science or get manuscripts through peer review?
No it doesn't. It tells you who gets the most funding, not what a majority of climate scientist's opinions are.
Why don't you support a poll of the majority of climate scientists? What are you afraid of?
12 Aug 19
@humy said"I don't need to show such a poll because the way nearly all valid polls work is nearly always not to poll the majority of individuals within the target population (else that would usually make them totally impractical if not impossible) but to, randomly as is practical, poll some arbitrarily large number (say, 500) of individuals within of the target population so that there is an arbitrary high probably that the answers they give will reflect the opinions of the whole of the target population within some arbitrary margin of error (such as, say, correct within just 2% )."
You evading my question only shows all of us here you have no answer; and we all know why. But I won't evade yours; We have been here before; I don't need to show such a poll because the way nearly all valid polls work is nearly always not to poll the majority of individuals within the target population (else that would usually make them totally impractical if not impossible) bu ...[text shortened]... ate scientists do NOT think there is man made global warming?
-We all know why you will not answer.
What is your source of information?
13 Aug 19
@wildgrass saidNo. You know that assertion is absolutely ridiculous. That is a pathetic tactic to avoid my question.
You're saying you want a poll of climate scientists who cannot get funded to study climate science or get manuscripts through peer review?
Why don't you support a poll of the majority of climate scientists? What are you afraid of?
@metal-brain saidNot ridiculous. You said that the existing body of peer-reviewed literature only represents the scientists who get funded to study things they are experts in. Are you saying their consensus opinion is an inaccurate means for establishing a consensus on man-made climate change?
No. You know that assertion is absolutely ridiculous. That is a pathetic tactic to avoid my question.
Why don't you support a poll of the majority of climate scientists? What are you afraid of?
THe consensus exists in the peer-reviewed literature, not a multiple choice questionnaire. If opposing viewpoints existed that were adequately credentialed, you'd see the papers in press. When prompted, though, skeptics point to fringe websites and conspiracy theories.
14 Aug 19
@wildgrass saidYou mean like the consensus project? Opinion = fact? Just what did the consensus project prove?
Not ridiculous. You said that the existing body of peer-reviewed literature only represents the scientists who get funded to study things they are experts in. Are you saying their consensus opinion is an inaccurate means for establishing a consensus on man-made climate change?
THe consensus exists in the peer-reviewed literature, not a multiple choice questionnaire. If o ...[text shortened]... e papers in press. When prompted, though, skeptics point to fringe websites and conspiracy theories.
Many climate scientists protested that their papers were interpreted in the wrong way because biased people decided to make skeptics alarmists without real cause. That is what you are doing.
You are lying about an interpretation because of a clear bias. Skeptics get less funding because of that same bias and therefore have less literature. Alarmists get more funding and therefore more literature that is alarmist biased.
Bunk. Pure bunk!
@metal-brain saidI don't understand what you're talking about without references.
You mean like the consensus project? Opinion = fact? Just what did the consensus project prove?
Many climate scientists protested that their papers were interpreted in the wrong way because biased people decided to make skeptics alarmists without real cause. That is what you are doing.
You are lying about an interpretation because of a clear bias. Skeptics get less ...[text shortened]... larmists get more funding and therefore more literature that is alarmist biased.
Bunk. Pure bunk!
You allege lying without clearly saying what's been lied about or why it's a lie. Skeptics get less funding because their position is not defensible, not because of bias.
Look at the peer-reviewed literature. There are hundreds every year. When you're asked to provide references contradicting the consensus, it's crickets. Obviously there are a few, but the overwhelming majority of scientific literature documents the specific influence of humans on climate. It's fact not fiction.
@wildgrass saidWhat peer-reviewed literature? Many climate scientists have objected to their literature being interpreted wrong by alarmists. That is a fact and not fiction.
I don't understand what you're talking about without references.
You allege lying without clearly saying what's been lied about or why it's a lie. Skeptics get less funding because their position is not defensible, not because of bias.
Look at the peer-reviewed literature. There are hundreds every year. When you're asked to provide references contradicting the consens ...[text shortened]... scientific literature documents the specific influence of humans on climate. It's fact not fiction.
You are asserting a consensus based on literature interpretation. That is what the consensus project has resorted to. It is a lie.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#282a31c33f9f
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
14 Aug 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidLet's look at the literature you're referring to to make your claims, not Forbes. I'm looking for the articles that are written by climate scientists and peer reviewed by climate scientists, so (at least according to climate scientists) it's not wrong. Can we look at the published articles showing that CO2 cools our climate and humans have a negligible effect on warming?
What peer-reviewed literature? Many climate scientists have objected to their literature being interpreted wrong by alarmists. That is a fact and not fiction.
You are asserting a consensus based on literature interpretation. That is what the consensus project has resorted to. It is a lie.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-ag ...[text shortened]... 282a31c33f9f
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
What's a lie again? I'm still confused even after reading your Forbes article. We're talking about a consensus not a specific percent value. We've already agreed that's a dubious number, but Craig Idso is a lobbyist and Richard Tol is an economist so I don't know why they're quoted in this article.
14 Aug 19
@wildgrass saidYou said this:
Let's look at the literature you're referring to to make your claims, not Forbes. I'm looking for the articles that are written by climate scientists and peer reviewed by climate scientists, so (at least according to climate scientists) it's not wrong. Can we look at the published articles showing that CO2 cools our climate and humans have a negligible effect on warming?
...[text shortened]... o is a lobbyist and Richard Tol is an economist so I don't know why they're quoted in this article.
"the overwhelming majority of scientific literature documents the specific influence of humans on climate. It's fact not fiction."
That is a lie.
@Metal-Brain
Then YOU show us the overwhelming version of that NOT happening.
Put your money where your moose is.....
14 Aug 19
@sonhouse saidProve a negative? No, you prove a positive.
@Metal-Brain
Then YOU show us the overwhelming version of that NOT happening.
Put your money where your moose is.....
@Metal-Brain
We already know the issue, you don't so it is on you to show us where we are wrong and not from media posts but from actual peer reviewed papers.
15 Aug 19
@sonhouse saidDid you forget I created this thread so anybody can attempt to prove their case using sea level rise? I already proved my case using the long term NASA data. You all had a chance to make yours as well and failed.
@Metal-Brain
We already know the issue, you don't so it is on you to show us where we are wrong and not from media posts but from actual peer reviewed papers.
Your assertion peer reviewed papers prove what you claim are false. As if you read every peer reviewed paper on the subject ever written. You and wildgrass are resorting to yet another lie.
Why do you liars think you are not losing the debate and looking silly?
15 Aug 19
@sonhouse saidI already answered that previously on this thread. I divided the long term graph in half and it still was no more than 50% acceleration and that was a kind estimate. You had nothing in return.
@Metal-Brain
I ask you the same question.
You refused to make your own estimate based on the NASA long term graph and so did everyone else. I explained my methodology and invited all to use their own as they saw fit as long as they explained why they used a different methodology.
In short, I was very reasonable and accommodating and you all digressed into everything but sea level. That is what sore losers do. You lost and now you are lying to me and yourself. You are in denial.