97% consensus fake news

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31613
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Gord » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:46 pm

Archer17 wrote:I feel the sum of human causation in our current climate change is not something that can be whittled down to an all or nothing proposition, which does leave some room for debate. In fact most of the AGW debates I’ve come across wasn’t about “yes” or “no.”

I've never seen an actual debate where anyone proposed that human contribution was the only thing causing global warming. I've seen some people make single statements that humans alone are causing global warming, but single statements aren't debates, and taking those statements seriously never really entered my mind.

On the other hand, I have had arguments with people who claimed human activities played no part whatsoever in global warming, and some people have even denied global warming is happening at all (in fact, quite a lot of people with whom I've exchanged comments have denied it outright -- see such claims as "no warming in 20 years", etc.).
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Bad Jimbo: is there a debate about evolution or the age of Earth? Why not? After all..... the "wisdom" of a single doubter is equal to the life long study of experts.

Idiot.



ROTFLMAO

Translation of Boobo's words salad: If there is no debate about the law of gravity then there should be no debate a hypothesis that CO2 drives climate change

ROTFLMAO

Boobo supports his acknowledgement that he does not read or understand science.

When the CO2 hypothesis of climate change is elevated to a "law" of science then we can argue there is no room for debate!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:53 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I should not dismiss it simply because Jimbo never answers a direct question and confuses climate with weather and only presents data that is cherrypicked to support is view of any issue........but still..



ROTFLMAO

Indeed the Fake News of the 97% consensus is because I don't follow boobo down every rabbit hole he fabricates.

The math is simple

Every survey of actual scientists that I have read says very similar things. Only 20 to 30% percent of the scientists ever respond. Of those who do respond at most only 40 to 60% endorse the meme that CO2 is causing more than 50% of the temperature change.

The math reveals that no more than 20% of scientists surveyed have actually endorsed the CO2 meme.

Every survey based on abstracts, includes papers whose very nature would never endorse or refute CO2 warming.

Every critical analysis of any claims proclaiming a 97% consensus can be revealed as pure BS.

FAKE NEWS
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:43 am

No link=======no response. This is meant to reveal you just make stuff up like above when there is no link, or as with your OP when you do provide a link, you exaggerate miscellaneous facts and fabricate the others when not simply stating the OPPOSITE of what your own link says.

Hence: Bad Jimbo.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:59 am

Archer17 wrote:I like your last sentence here but when it comes to AGW and “debate” you miss the mark, with me anyway. I feel the sum of human causation in our current climate change is not something that can be whittled down to an all or nothing proposition, which does leave some room for debate. In fact most of the AGW debates I’ve come across wasn’t about “yes” or “no.


You "feel?" What FACTS/THEORY do you propose on any element of the issue? I assume by whittled down to an all or nothing proposition you mean whether or not the climate change is man made or not? You really do need to be more clear as often as you have the time to work on your first draft. Well...the IPCC says exactly that. ITS WHAT THE ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT. Its the consensus. Now.....not every detail about CC is known and errors get corrected all the time....the whittling is down to HOW WHEN AND WHERE CLIMATE/WEATHER is going to change and its effects. Where is it going to get drier vs wetter? Endless points of contention: but AGW is as well established as any other "theory" we have going. Again....don't know what you mean by "yes" or "no." Be more clear. In fact: be clear.



Archer17 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
World Powers?---don't mix a fringe element claiming to be scientifically based skeptics.....and don't confuse World Power with anything but corruption.


I’m not sure what your meaning is here but it’s obvious you didn’t get mine. By “world powers” I was referring to countries and entities like the EU/UN agencies that have the clout to enact things like ‘climate’ treaties and carbon-credit agreements.
Yes, yes. You don't think they are corrupt? We can whittle on that if you like.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:59 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No link=======no response. This is meant to reveal you just make stuff up like above when there is no link, or as with your OP when you do provide a link, you exaggerate miscellaneous facts and fabricate the others when not simply stating the OPPOSITE of what your own link says.

Hence: Bad Jimbo.


More broken promises.

You promised to stay out of my debates.

But you are obsessed with personal attacks.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Archer17
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:27 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Archer17 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Archer17 wrote:I like your last sentence here but when it comes to AGW and “debate” you miss the mark, with me anyway. I feel the sum of human causation in our current climate change is not something that can be whittled down to an all or nothing proposition, which does leave some room for debate. In fact most of the AGW debates I’ve come across wasn’t about “yes” or “no.


You "feel?" What FACTS/THEORY do you propose on any element of the issue? I assume by whittled down to an all or nothing proposition you mean whether or not the climate change is man made or not? You really do need to be more clear as often as you have the time to work on your first draft. Well...the IPCC says exactly that. ITS WHAT THE ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT. Its the consensus. Now.....not every detail about CC is known and errors get corrected all the time....the whittling is down to HOW WHEN AND WHERE CLIMATE/WEATHER is going to change and its effects. Where is it going to get drier vs wetter? Endless points of contention: but AGW is as well established as any other "theory" we have going. Again....don't know what you mean by "yes" or "no." Be more clear. In fact: be clear.


Enough. You told me there’s “no debate” and I showed you that there is. Deal with it. Now I have tried to be polite to you and yet you continue to come across as a pinhead that tries to split semantical hairs and feigns reading comprehension issues with my posts in lieu of posting anything constructive or just not posting at all. I haven’t posted gibberish here and if you think I have to actually explain what I mean by “I feel” or "yes" and "no" then you aren’t as smart as you think you are. I also noticed you resorted to doing the ALL CAPS shout a few times because my POV (that means “what I feel,” in case you felt the need to ask) that I already provided on this topic doesn’t sit well with you, probably because it’s not something you can realistically agree or disagree with, after all, I’m not the one here trying to sell something about global warming. That’s what this thread is really about, isn’t it? Selling a narrative? I must be a frustration for you since you seem to need allies or foes here and when it comes to GW/AGW I’m neither. Instead of wasting your time with ALL CAPS (save it for someone who actually trembles when they see that) or telling me to be “more clear” because you have nothing better to say, yet feel compelled to say something anyway, try reading what I actually say here instead of what you think I should say. I have been clear, I just haven’t posted what you want to read, apparently. That’s your problem.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Archer17 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
World Powers?---don't mix a fringe element claiming to be scientifically based skeptics.....and don't confuse World Power with anything but corruption.

I’m not sure what your meaning is here but it’s obvious you didn’t get mine. By “world powers” I was referring to countries and entities like the EU/UN agencies that have the clout to enact things like ‘climate’ treaties and carbon-credit agreements.

Yes, yes. You don't think they are corrupt? We can whittle on that if you like.


To what end? I already said I don't have a 'dog in this fight' (in case you're really stupid and not acting, that means I'm not selling or buying a GW/AGW narrative here) and it seems that those "corrupt" countries are your "dogs" when it comes to [sarcasm] 'doing something' [/sarcasm] about climate change, you know, things like "treaties" and carbon-credits. Tell me, do you like shooting yourself in the foot like this or is it just another one of your compulsions?
The plural of anecdote is not data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:03 am

Self destruct in 6 posts. I think the Woo Boys beat that record.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:16 am

Jim Steele wrote:1. Are you agreeing with .....

I agree with almost nothing you say. You have this neat little package that you have created in which you live your life. Your online life anyway, I can't imagine how you would be in a social situation, I'm sure you could clear a room pretty quick.

If someone presents a fact, you don't respond to it, you just repeat the non-facts that you've been repeating for years. You insult people then say insults are wrong. If you are getting ignored, you say something completely outrageous to get attention. You ask for specifics when you are told that you are generally impossible to engage, then it start back with how you respond to facts, and around and around we go.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:24 am

Archer17 wrote: This I do know, science doesn't ever "rest it's case," so be careful where you hang your hat. It might not be where you left it.

So, you understand the part about how science is always open to new data, but you seem confused on what "consensus" means. Or is it that you think someone else is confused? Why do you think someone saying "consensus" means "case closed"? Anyone who says that would not understand science. Do you think someone here said that? Or did someone just use that word, and you are deciding what they meant by it?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:36 pm

Intelligent rational reasonable Men of Science FOLLOW THE CONSENSUS. And when the consensus changes, so do they.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:02 pm

Lausten wrote:
Jim Steele wrote:1. Are you agreeing with .....

I agree with almost nothing you say. You have this neat little package that you have created in which you live your life. Your online life anyway, I can't imagine how you would be in a social situation, I'm sure you could clear a room pretty quick.

If someone presents a fact, you don't respond to it, you just repeat the non-facts that you've been repeating for years. You insult people then say insults are wrong. If you are getting ignored, you say something completely outrageous to get attention. You ask for specifics when you are told that you are generally impossible to engage, then it start back with how you respond to facts, and around and around we go.


Well Lausten, Anyone reading your posts would see the only person throwing insults has been you.

Your accusation that I do not respond to facts is your false fabrication. You have never provided any facts from which we could debate. You have always tried to shut down the debate simply arguing the "consensus is the evidence"

I have politely asked for you to present some evidence to discuss. Instead you have posted several times a bogus insulting narrative about how I debate.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:20 pm

Do you just save these responses in a file somewhere and cut and paste them? They sound the same as they did 3 years ago.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:21 pm

It is not clear why Lausten is attacking Archer???

Lausten wrote:
Archer17 wrote: This I do know, science doesn't ever "rest it's case," so be careful where you hang your hat. It might not be where you left it.

So, you understand the part about how science is always open to new data, but you seem confused on what "consensus" means. Or is it that you think someone else is confused? Why do you think someone saying "consensus" means "case closed"? Anyone who says that would not understand science. Do you think someone here said that? Or did someone just use that word, and you are deciding what they meant by it?



To put Archer's reply in context, and answer Lausten's question "Why do you think someone saying "consensus" means "case closed"?

here is the discussion

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Archer17 wrote:Sorry if I wasn’t more clear. As I touched on later in my post I think “it” is global warming with human activity playing a part, how much of one I don’t know. What I tried to convey in my first paragraph is that citing a “scientific consensus” or lack of one isn’t going to end the debate.
You've been misled by the likes of James Steel: there is no debate. THAT is what the consensus is all about.


saying "consensus" means "case closed" has been a common tactic on this forum Lausten is correct that Boobo's statement reveals once again he does "not understand science"
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:23 pm

Lausten wrote:Do you just save these responses in a file somewhere and cut and paste them? They sound the same as they did 3 years ago.


Is this your way of leading the way by example to demonstrate how you avoid personal attacks and engage in a substantive discussion Lausten???
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:40 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:Do you just save these responses in a file somewhere and cut and paste them? They sound the same as they did 3 years ago.


Is this your way of leading the way by example to demonstrate how you avoid personal attacks and engage in a substantive discussion Lausten???

If you take my comments out of context, yeah, you can make that judgment, but I tried to be reasonable with you, and you don't know what reason is. Anyone who tries to talk to you knows that. You've tried to generalize about this forum, but show us some forum where people speak well of you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:30 am

Lausten wrote:
Jim Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:Do you just save these responses in a file somewhere and cut and paste them? They sound the same as they did 3 years ago.


Is this your way of leading the way by example to demonstrate how you avoid personal attacks and engage in a substantive discussion Lausten???

If you take my comments out of context, yeah, you can make that judgment, but I tried to be reasonable with you, and you don't know what reason is. Anyone who tries to talk to you knows that. You've tried to generalize about this forum, but show us some forum where people speak well of you.


Lausten, How did I take your words out of context when I quoted your entire reply and the sequence of replies?????

Lausten, alarmists hate me while skeptics adore me. But I hope you realize that does not determine if what I say is right or wrong. However that you would throw out such a comment suggests you think otherwise.

The science motto is Nullius En Verba, Take No One's Word, meaning we must use critical thinking and experimental results to guide our conclusions.

As Carl Sagan's science baloney alert warns, attack the argument and not the arguer, and don't engage in the fallacy of authority. Your personal attacks set off Sagan's baloney alert.

In addition to Sagan's warning that arguments by consensus are just untrustworthy arguments of authority, in this post I relayed the statistics in the published claims to show survey claims of a 97% consensus are fake news.

In surveys of actual scientists, surveys reported only around 20-30% of the scientists ever actually respond. Of those respondents only between 40 and 60% agree that CO2 is driving most of climate change That results in about only 18% ever actually endorsing CO2 driven climate change!

Others tried to create a fake consensus arguing that if a abstract using the word global warming did not REFUTE CO2 warming then it meant they were endorsing the CO2. meme . Using that flawed logic, in surveys of published abstracts which mentioned "global warming" or a similar key phrase, Oerskes claimed a 97% consensus but reported only " 20 percent of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position" that climate change is anthropogenic. That is a very similar rate of endorsement as surveys of actual scientists.

Now if anyone has evidence to show that those survey should be interpreted as 97% consensus, by all means, present your case!

But please Lausten, stop engaging in your non-stop personal attacks. As I have repeated for 3 years, you need to argue the evidence. Denigrating the arguer is neither professional and only sets off Sagan's b baloney alerts!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:19 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
Lausten, alarmists hate me while skeptics adore me. But I hope you realize that does not determine if what I say is right or wrong. However that you would throw out such a comment suggests you think otherwise.



Really?! Show me where someone made a citation of your work. That's one way science is evaluated. I'm not going to argue your other points, because you have shown you are beyond reason. There is no reasoning with you. I don't care what you think other people think.

What you have done here on this forum is right out of the fake news handbook. First, someone creates some data, don't worry too much about it being accurate. Make a conclusion. Publish it. Actual scientists will then comment on it. But don't worry about them, they won't last long. Now repeat the claims and the questionable data. If anyone wants the truth, they'll do actual research and find the comments and the peer review and retractions and whatever else. But you aren't worried about people who know how to do that, you just want the ones who read headlines, the ones who are easily confused if there is more than one opinion. The ones who don't know how science works. Using Bobbo as your example for instance. I barely skim his posts. So, you create threads that go on for years, making it harder for anyone to find the times I actually tried to be reasonable with you. No one is doing that, because, guess what Jim, nobody actually cares what you think.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28530
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:35 pm

Lausten wrote:Really?! Show me where someone made a citation of your work.


Jim Steele, another WUWT science denier, gets it wrong about Kivalina
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/jim- ... enier.html

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:59 pm

Lausten wrote: I'm not going to argue your other points, because you have shown you are beyond reason. There is no reasoning with you. I don't care what you think other people think.



Hmmm.

I ask Lausten for his evidence and a reasonable argument and Lausten refuses, choosing to denigrate me as "someone beyond reason", yet he never refutes all the reasonable arguments I have supplied for years.

Why is it Lausten, all you ever offer against me is personal insults, in order to avoid any meaningful discussion that is backed by evidence???

Why is it that Pyrrho protects you no matter how much you indulge in venomous personal attacks???

Are you related? Lovers? twins?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:25 am

Jim Steele wrote:Why is it Lausten, all you ever offer against me is personal insults, in order to avoid any meaningful discussion that is backed by evidence???

I've been answering that question with every post. But you don't respond. You just keep asking for me step back into your illogic traps.

Here's how reasonable people relate. You should be able to describe how we differ. You're pretty good at that actually. Then, you should say what you need to make you change your mind. Not so good at that.

Jim Steele wrote:Why is it that Pyrrho protects you no matter how much you indulge in venomous personal attacks???

Are you related? Lovers? twins?

Desperate much?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:33 am

Lausten wrote:]
I've been answering that question with every post. But you don't respond. You just keep asking for me step back into your illogic traps.


I don't like to respond to irrelevant personal attacks.

Unlike you, I prefer more meaningful scientific discussions.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Lausten wrote:Really?! Show me where someone made a citation of your work.


Jim Steele, another WUWT science denier, gets it wrong about Kivalina
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/jim- ... enier.html


ROTFLMAO. Ellard reaches out for a Slandering Sou dishonest bashing post.

Anyone reading my essay would realize I never stated in which sea Kivalina is located. I did reference sea level gauges The PSMSL only has a tide gauge to the north and south of the Chukchi Sea, so Slandering Sou seizes on my references to those tide gauges to suggest I didn't know in which sea Kivalina was located. More hilarious Slandering Sou, then in the comments starts talking about Kivalina being in the Barent Sea on the other side of the Arctic.

Anyone referencing Slandering Sou's bogus website is desperate to make a personal attack and lacks integrity.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:40 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:]
I've been answering that question with every post. But you don't respond. You just keep asking for me step back into your illogic traps.


I don't like to respond to irrelevant personal attacks.

Unlike you, I prefer more meaningful scientific discussions.

I'm sure you don't like to, but if you stopped doing that, you wouldn't have much to respond to would you? When someone doesn't use reason, the only thing to do is tell them. You call that an attack.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:42 pm

Lausten wrote:
Jim Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:]
I've been answering that question with every post. But you don't respond. You just keep asking for me step back into your illogic traps.


I don't like to respond to irrelevant personal attacks.

Unlike you, I prefer more meaningful scientific discussions.

I'm sure you don't like to, but if you stopped doing that, you wouldn't have much to respond to would you? When someone doesn't use reason, the only thing to do is tell them. You call that an attack.


ROTFLMAOO. Blaming the victim is always the venomous tactic used to justify one's own dishonest attacks, as well as a the total absence of reasoning. I understand how rape victims must feel.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:20 pm

The victim card. Nice play.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:04 pm

Jim Steele wrote: Anyone reading my essay would realize I never stated in which sea Kivalina is located.

I didn't even read the link for that issue. All too easy to misspeak. What is relevant that you skip over is you Cherry Pick the Winter Ice levels when the issue was the Summer Ice Levels.

Care to take another run at the relevant issue?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:34 pm

It comes as no surprise that Boobo accepts Slandering Sou's totally dishonest fabrication that she dishonestly attributes to me regards Kivalina's location, because that is exactly that same tactic boobo uses ad nauseam. Liars that flock together ,,,,,
Last edited by Jim Steele on Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:03 pm

The Jimbo calculus: claim bobbo/authors/the consensus claims the opposite of what they clearly said...and argue against that.

Silly.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:56 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The Jimbo calculus: claim bobbo/authors/the consensus claims the opposite of what they clearly said...and argue against that.


Boobo please provide a specific quote of what was "clearly said" and provide a link,

otherwise for the umpteenth time you reveal what an obsessed liar you are!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:52 am

The link provided was concerned with declining SUMMER ICE, your critique was about increased WINTER ICE. You either can't keep track of the relevant issue(s) or are intentionally trying to fog up the relevant issue.

Do the math.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The link provided was concerned with declining SUMMER ICE, your critique was about increased WINTER ICE. You either can't keep track of the relevant issue(s) or are intentionally trying to fog up the relevant issue.

Do the math.


More Boobo foolish blather.

Slandering Sou's drivel and everything thereafter was in response to my original essay. Winter ice was NEVER the focus, nor was it the focus of other debates regards the erosion of Kivalina
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:48 am

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Lausten » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:58 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just look.

What the focus of the original essay was, locations, where gauges are, but no coherent stating of his theme or how it is supported by his data. Exactly what I’ve been saying.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:29 pm

ftl: "Two points. Firstly, it's not the winter ice that's the problem, it's the fact the ice is melting sooner and forming later than it used to." ////the point was not where the gauges were, but that the town was going to have to move.

Perhaps a matter of values?.............but I don't think so.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:22 pm

Lausten wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just look.

What the focus of the original essay was, locations, where gauges are, but no coherent stating of his theme or how it is supported by his data. Exactly what I’ve been saying.


Based on Boobo's and Lausten's comments, it is clear they never read the original essay, just Slandering Sou's take that alarmist mindlessly embrace.

Here's a link to the original.

Notice the issue of winter ice was brought up first by the BBC author

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/31/ ... integrity/

Once you actually read it Lausten you would quickly realize the article is coherent and supported by data!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:58 pm

Quick read of the linked article was interesting in the mischaracterizations employed. subtle enough to pull in the Science Deniers....but not anyone that can read.

Here is a good one: "Are they trying to rekindle global fear in a time of paused global warming?" //// There is no pause in global warming. Just because the mean sea level in the area has been declining, or that Winter Ice has been increasing does not say anything about GLOBAL CONDITIONS. This is nitwits cherry picking the data and applying exceptions as if they were the rule.

Thats how Science Denying is done.........................if that is what you want to do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:12 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Here is a good one: "Are they trying to rekindle global fear in a time of paused global warming?" //// There is no pause in global warming. .


Wrong again. There are a hundred papers offering various explanations for the warming hiatus. Argo data has shown various layers of the ocean are cooling. Boobo denies the evidence.

I know Boobo admits not reading scientific papers but perhaps read " Distinctive ocean interior changes during the recent warming slowdown, Cheng (2015)
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:19 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just because the mean sea level in the area has been declining, or that Winter Ice has been increasing does not say anything about GLOBAL CONDITIONS. This is nitwits cherry picking


Get a clue! Bobo got cherrypicking on the brain.

The article was specifically about Kivalina. All the chosen evidence supplied was because it had an immediate and direct bearing on Kivalina.

It was not an argument about the complexities of global warming, but Booobo is threatened by each and every contradiction, so fabricates an accurately depicted regional issue into another nitwit's devious cherrypicking deception scenario. Bwaaaahahahah!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14666
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:06 pm

There is no warming hiatus. Its was only an issue of predicting/measuring where the heat went. We've covered this before..........won't do it again.

Re Kivalina and "the complexities of global warming"==>its the argument your article and you make...not "me." There are no contradictions.

Bad Jimbo and his straw man army.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest