ukcanuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
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
UMMM Cook admits to the bias in his paper, Molyneux delves deeper into said bias.
What... the fuck... is wrong with you.
ukcanuck wrote:
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.
Talk about a "dream world".
ukcanuck wrote:
and its AllEGED pedophile
UMMMM no, he was actively trying to get the "age of consent" lowered
... so he could
legally have sexual relationships with little boys.
ukcanuck wrote:
I dropped the whole discussion because its impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone
You dropped the debate because I proved most of your "facts" to be
lies.
In fact you were forced to concede that you had been running with lies.
(and you're damned determined not to ever do it again, no matter how far up your ass your head must go)
ukcanuck wrote:
who labels any and all criticism of Isreal as racist and antisemitism.
Yes but see
I don't do that, not in the least.
My, you
do love your lies in your little dream world... don't you Chicken Little.
ukcanuck wrote:
BTW your immediate labelling of any and all criticism of Isreal as antisemitic looks a lot like your cockamamie reductio ad hitlerum
I have no idea what you're trying to say here my backwards friend.
But anyone who witnessed our debate (should I bump it?) knows you were exposed as majorly antisemitic.
