US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Strangelove]

Lol oh doc I'm losing that loving feeling!

I love you as much as ever but you should get checked for brain cancer and dementia good buddy.

I show you how biased your sources are.

Actually "my" sources showed how biased your sources are, but you missed that of course.

Actually they were Griz's sources.

Quite obviously you didn't watch (or didn't understand) said videos...

accuse me of ad hominem rage ??

Well I don't know what else one would call it:

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 78#p263678

These are the people you're in bed with.

Oh I see.

[ukcanuck]

Oh I see.

I don't know if you actually do...

what I'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of climate change/ global warming deniers, skeptics and conspiracy theorists are in fact either far right conservatives, employed in the fossil fuel industry or investors in carbon producing industries.

If there was any truth to the hoax claim, this correlation logically should not be. If the facts didn't support the position then the response should come from a broader spectrum than just the far right.

It seems there is a clear connection between denying anthropogenic climate change and vested interests which in one huge stroke pulls the rug right out from underneath said climate change/ global warming deniers, skeptics and conspiracy theorists.

As much I love a good conspiracy theory it seems we have to toss the global warming hoax on the same pile as

Flat earth theory
The hollow earth theory
Sandy hook
Orlando
9/11
Pearl harbour
Fake moon landings
Area 51
and other sundry tin foil hat conspiracies

[Strangelove]

Right, so you didn't watch the videos.

[ukcanuck]

Right, so you didn't watch the videos.

you're deflecting again

answer the charge

climate change deniers are biased and have ulterior motives and are not to be taken seriously

[ukcanuck]

[ukcanuck]

This one is a nod to science

[Strangelove]

Right, so you didn't watch the videos.

you're deflecting again

answer the charge

climate change deniers are biased and have ulterior motives and are not to be taken seriously

LOFL... I'M deflecting!!

Answer Griz's videos.

YOU are not to be taken seriously....

[Cornuck]

So Doc, just curious... climate change debate aside, are in favour of burning fossil fuels until they run out or switching over to renewable energy?

(and no, I'm not watch any videos)

[Strangelove]

Well "burning fossil fuels until they run out" is probably the best way to postpone WWIII

... so I suppose I'm in favour of "switching over to renewable energy" asap.

[Strangelove]

There is demonstrable proof that the earth is warming and it doesn't take a computer model or any deep research to figure out that as human population increases the more we will effect the environment

well there is this...

1 Introduction
There is growing expectation that increases in the con- centrations of greenhouse gases arising from human ac- tivity will lead to substantial changes in climate in the twenty first century. Indeed, there is already evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have altered the large-scale patterns of tem- perature over the twentieth century (Santer et al. 1996; Tett et al. 1999; Barnett et al. 1999; Stott et al. 2001; Mitchell et al. 2001), although natural factors, including changes in solar output and episodic volcanic emissions, may also have contributed. Future climate change will probably be dominated by the response to anthropogenic forcing factors.

Nice passive aggressiveness but in fact you're the one making assumptions. I didn't say once that anthropogenic global warming is a MAJOR factor in global warming.

"97% of scientists BULLSHIT”

Personally I hate quoting statistics in debates as it’s exceedingly hard to tell whose ass they came out of. However, I always thought that consensus is how science arrives at its conclusions, you know, preponderance of evidence and all that?

It seems there is a clear connection between denying anthropogenic climate change and vested interests which in one huge stroke pulls the rug right out from underneath said climate change/ global warming deniers, skeptics and conspiracy theorists.

As much I love a good conspiracy theory it seems we have to toss the global warming hoax on the same pile as

Flat earth theory
The hollow earth theory
Sandy hook
Orlando
9/11
Pearl harbour
Fake moon landings
Area 51
and other sundry tin foil hat conspiracies

There now, doesn't feel good to finally be out of the closet?

It took a couple of days but you can thank me now.


Typically blind fully-indoctrinated mind-controlled goosestepping leftist...

[ukcanuck]

Right, so you didn't watch the videos.

you're deflecting again

answer the charge

climate change deniers are biased and have ulterior motives and are not to be taken seriously

LOFL... I'M deflecting!!

Answer the videos.

YOU are not to be taken seriously....

Be careful what you wish for...

You posted the links. You suggested I watch them, So now these sources are yours

However, I did that very thing and I was struck by how dodgy and flimsy the arguments were.

They reminded me of NRA videos explaining why everyone having assault rifles is a good thing.

A specific example in the first one, the one from Molyneux where he derides the 97 percent consensus by muddying the waters (roughly 5:06 minutes in)

Molyneux tries to tell us that John Cook, the man who has won international recognition and awards for his research which makes the case that 97% of scientists support AGW didn't do his due diligence "His methodology was terrible".

This statement alone sounds completely fishy and is enough to make me question the quackery of the nut job in front of me, but I persevered and continued watching for the back up to such an outlandish claim

I was to be disappointed however.

At 6:56 Nutmolyneux stated and I quote:

"What happened was that they looked for anything to do with climate change and if they found it they assumed it was for AGW - So for instance, a paper on the impact of carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence of AGW. A paper on the impact of climate change on the red panda was taken as evidence of AGW. Even a paper describing television coverage of climate change was seen that CO2 was to blame.

So they analysed between 12/13 thousand papers but of those only 64 of them initially explicitly stated that humans are the cause of global warming

- So that shaves it down just a little bit. Then they reexamined the data and the number came down to 41 papers out of 12/13. So from 97% the actual consensus that 50 % of global warming is AGW is .03%"

Well I don't have to tell you I was shocked! How on God's earth does such shoddy methodology even get into a peer reviewed journal let alone receive awards and international recognition!?

So I thought I would check out this alleged crap research paper myself. Fortunately a quick google search provided me with the abstract:

"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.

In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. 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/article/10.10 ... 10-40-2-73

Well holy shit! it seems Molynutt is either stupid or lying stupidly as the abstract refutes his entire line of bullshit.


John Cook's methodology is clear and concise and is backed up by the paper's authors own self rating.



At this point it seemed pretty clear I could spend the remaining 26 minutes of the video picking the cotton out of my belly button and be more productive...

But something nagged at me.

I remember sending you a link of an Irish politician taking is Isreal to task on the inhumane treatment of Palestinians and you attacked the source stating he was a fag and an antisemite or some bullshit like that and I thought, turnabout is fair play, lets have a closer look at this mongoloid fellow and that's where I discovered his tinfoil hat blog and the hate mongers he regularly has on his radio show and then I made the connection which you still have failed to address.

AGW deniers are almost ALL also nasty libertarians (not the good kind that want interpersonal freedoms, mind you, but the cancerous economic kind that want liberty for corporations and crony capitalists to monopolize the worlds wealth for themselves and their sycophantic followers and hanger's on)


Anyway, in the absence of any real reasoned response from you or Griz or Topper for that matter, I guess the real question is which one are you, a wealthy one percenter, a sycophant, or a hanger on?

enquiring minds want to know

[Strangelove]

Yup, you didn't understand Molyneux.... and you didn't understand the abstract.

BTW the abstract doesn't claim 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW.

(the problem is that lefties/media claim it says just that)

Also even your link proves the bias of which Molyneux speaks:

"An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et?al2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people?s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et?al 2012)."

"The process of determining the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature contains several sources of uncertainty, including the representativeness of the sample, lack of clarity in the abstracts and subjectivity in rating the abstracts. (...) Lastly, some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves. Two sources of rating bias can be cited: first, given that the raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW, they may have been more likely to classify papers as sharing that endorsement. Second, scientific reticence (Hansen 2007) or ?erring on the side of least drama? (ESLD; Brysse et?al 2012) may have exerted an opposite effect by biasing raters towards a ?no position? classification."

But then you're a brainwashed zombie so.

As far as our old Israel/palestine "debate"...

FIRST I completely destroyed you in the "debate" (so utterly that I'm shocked you would ever refer to it)

AND THEN I pointed out that your "Irish politician" friend was a PEDOPHILE

(but yes, a homosexual pedophile)

Very odd that you would forget that....

[ukcanuck]

Yup, you didn't understand Molyneux.... and you didn't understand the abstract.

BTW the abstract doesn't claim 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW.

(the problem is that lefties/media claim it says just that)

Also even your link proves the bias of which Molyneux speaks:

"An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et?al2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people?s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et?al 2012)."

"The process of determining the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature contains several sources of uncertainty, including the representativeness of the sample, lack of clarity in the abstracts and subjectivity in rating the abstracts. (...) Lastly, some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves. Two sources of rating bias can be cited: first, given that the raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW, they may have been more likely to classify papers as sharing that endorsement. Second, scientific reticence (Hansen 2007) or ?erring on the side of least drama? (ESLD; Brysse et?al 2012) may have exerted an opposite effect by biasing raters towards a ?no position? classification."

But then you're a brainwashed zombie so.

As far as our old Israel/palestine "debate"...

FIRST I completely destroyed you in the "debate" (so utterly that I'm shocked you would ever refer to it)

AND THEN I pointed out that your "Irish politician" friend was a PEDOPHILE

(but yes, a homosexual pedophile)

Very odd that you would forget that....

hah! you're pointing out Cook's academic honesty to prove his bias !?

we are now officially in doc's dream world


still can't answer the fact that the hoax is a right wing conspiracy to discredit a generally accepted thesis in order to continue the paleo conservative agenda.


And you claim I'm indoctrinated.

debating with you is like trying to reason with a jehovah's witness


and its AllEGED pedophile another smear campaign by your good buddies
I dropped the whole discussion because its impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone who labels any and all criticism of Isreal as racist and antisemitism. I gathered that you want to speed up the second coming...

BTW your immediate labelling of any and all criticism of Isreal as antisemitic looks a lot like your cockamamie reductio ad hitlerum

[ukcanuck]

ill informed Paleo-Cunnies, you just gotta laugh...

[ukcanuck]

Well "burning fossil fuels until they run out" is probably the best way to postpone WWIII

... so I suppose I'm in favour of "switching over to renewable energy" asap.

You do want the second coming to hurry up and arrive!

Unfortunately for you I figure Jesus will pick his own timing