COOK Et Al 2016... Part Deuce. 97% lie shown fraud.. AGAIN!

[Crick]

Yes.

No.

And, again, it is only deniers that bring up Al Gore. None of my arguments rely on anything he has said or done. They rely instead on the work of thousands of degreed climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.

 

[Crick]

No one here, or anywhere else, has ever put forward the idea that the high consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming (hereafter AGW) among climate scientists PROVES the theory is correct.

The consensus here - and every other consensus among scientists concerning the various theories and hypotheses about which their professional lives revolve - determines the LIKELIHOOD that a theory is correct. A theory with which 97% of the experts agree is far, far more LIKELY to be correct than is one with which only 1% (eg, that GW is not anthropogenic) agree.

Got it?

What a steaming pile of Bull Shit.. Consensus is a political term not a scientific one..

Just saying it doesn't mean squat. I don't believe I have used one single political argument in these consensus discussions. I'd say you were full of shit. But, perhaps you could give a more thorough explanation of what you mean. Or perhaps not.

 

[SSDD]

Yes.

No.

And, again, it is only deniers that bring up Al Gore. None of my arguments rely on anything he has said or done. They rely instead on the work of thousands of degreed climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.

Are you claiming that algore's "work" isn't also based on the findings of the very same climate scientists that you rely on?...or does he get his info from different climate scientists?

 

[SSDD]

No one here, or anywhere else, has ever put forward the idea that the high consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming (hereafter AGW) among climate scientists PROVES the theory is correct.

The consensus here - and every other consensus among scientists concerning the various theories and hypotheses about which their professional lives revolve - determines the LIKELIHOOD that a theory is correct. A theory with which 97% of the experts agree is far, far more LIKELY to be correct than is one with which only 1% (eg, that GW is not anthropogenic) agree.

Got it?

What a steaming pile of Bull Shit.. Consensus is a political term not a scientific one..

Just saying it doesn't mean squat. I don't believe I have used one single political argument in these consensus discussions. I'd say you were full of shit. But, perhaps you could give a more thorough explanation of what you mean. Or perhaps not.

Reaching consensus is a political action you twit...and when people start presenting consensus instead of observed, measured, quantified data in an effort to defend their claims, you can bet that they don't have squat...

 

[Crick]

So, the fact that the results of overwhelming majority of peer reviewed research papers support AGW means nothing to you. That the overwhelming majority of the authors of those papers believe they support AGW means nothing to you. That the overwhelming majority of climate science researchers believe the evidence displayed by the research done in the field support AGW means nothing to you. And you continue to have no problem lying through your rotting teeth that no evidence exists.