Lewandowsky and Cook's papers on Skeptics

[IanC]

You know where they may be found.

yes, Ive looked at some of them. and found them wanting. I want you to look at them and see if they are as encompassing and thorough as you thought they were.

 

[IanC]

is your trust and esteem for Cook and his blog SkepticalScience damaged or not?

No, it is not.

Forgive me if I have failed to note responses of yours. Comes from trying to participate from too many threads in a limited amount of time. All I ever saw as a response was THIS hatchet job on Lewandowsky and Cook, neither of whom appear in my list. From my point of view, it was you who was attempting to deflect the discussion. You have devoted a great deal more time to the two of them than you have to the lengthy list of survey, polls and studies that ALL find widespread support for AGW among active climate scientists.

I dont actually care but I know that personally I think less of a person when they lie to me to save face.

As to respect, I have little for people who spend their time nitpicking, making ad hominem attacks and addressing irrelevant points because objectively addressing the actual point under discussion would require an admission of error. Or when they call me - or anyone else - a liar, without justification.

John Cook and S Lewandowsky did lie. and when they werent actually lying they were distorting the truth to the point where it was unrecognizible

 

[JakeStarkey]

The junk science and consensus nonsense does not invalidate the findings.

Massive climate change is talking place. Two questions arise.

Is it man made?

Can it be altered?

From those findings, a solution, if any, can be devised.

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, do you accept or reject the contention that greater than 90% of climate scientists accept the the primary or predominant causes of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years have been anthropogenic?

 

[westwall]

The junk science and consensus nonsense does not invalidate the findings.

Massive climate change is talking place. Two questions arise.

Is it man made?

Can it be altered?

From those findings, a solution, if any, can be devised.

Ummmm, yes...they DO! Junk science is INVALID you ignorant twit. Point to a period in time when the climate was not changing.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

 

[westwall]

Ian, do you accept or reject the contention that greater than 90% of climate scientists accept the the primary or predominant causes of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years have been anthropogenic?

They are biased because their monetary and professional lives are wrapped up in the fraud. That would be like saying "the Fox claims he is not guilty of raiding the chicken coop and 90% of all foxes agree with him so so should you."

The two statements are similarly asinine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The junk science and consensus nonsense does not invalidate the findings.

Massive climate change is talking place. Two questions arise.

Is it man made?

Can it be altered?

From those findings, a solution, if any, can be devised.

Ummmm, yes...they DO! Junk science is INVALID you ignorant twit. Point to a period in time when the climate was not changing.[/MENTION]

Thank you for admitting the consensus community is engaged in junk science. Consensus criticism, my butt

 

[Abraham3]

You know where they may be found.

yes, Ive looked at some of them. and found them wanting. I want you to look at them and see if they are as encompassing and thorough as you thought they were.

I am fully satisfied by the various results that AGW is very widely accepted among climate scientists.

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, do you accept or reject the contention that greater than 90% of climate scientists accept the the primary or predominant causes of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years have been anthropogenic?

They are biased because their monetary and professional lives are wrapped up in the fraud. That would be like saying "the Fox claims he is not guilty of raiding the chicken coop and 90% of all foxes agree with him so so should you."

The two statements are similarly asinine.

God are you stupid. And not Ian.

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you accept or reject the contention that greater than 90% of climate scientists accept the the primary or predominant causes of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years have been anthropogenic?

Down to 90% now? I have read the questions in at least a few of these polls. You are taking general answers and appropriating them to your own specific questions.

Let's take your above question. Maybe 90% would answer yes, maybe not. But what would be the response if we broke it down to 1860-1910, 1910-1960, 1960- 2010? Even amongst those who answered yes to your original question would answer no to 1860-1910.

Look up Van Storch's survey. You will come away with a different attitude on consensus. Look up that 85 out of 87 survey and you will find the questions too simplistic to give any real insight.

Perhaps there should be a professional poll done. I think there has already been some investigation into it and the preliminary results where not acceptable so it was dropped. For the same reasons there are few open debates on AGW. It would turn out badly for the alarmists.

 

[Abraham3]

You keep cherry picking. Tell me you can read one of these surveys of surveys and come away with the idea that support for AGW among active climate scientists is weak. I know one way you can do it, but I want to hear it from you.

 

[IanC]

You keep cherry picking. Tell me you can read one of these surveys of surveys and come away with the idea that support for AGW among active climate scientists is weak. I know one way you can do it, but I want to hear it from you.

Abe- In having a hard time trying to have a dialogue with you. You present a list and I reference the first two names and you accuse me of cherry picking. When I ask you whether or not you have read the survey you dint answer. When I show you how your black and white statement changes dramatically when restated with more detail, you no longer want to respond. I actually want to debate the issues but you are taking the trademark climate science way of stonewalling questions that are difficult to answer.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not particularly tired of you but I am tired of your compatriots. I have read through all of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and I don't see how you could have read them both and still doubt the consensus. Unless you'd made up your mind before you started.

 

[SSDD]

You keep cherry picking. Tell me you can read one of these surveys of surveys and come away with the idea that support for AGW among active climate scientists is weak. I know one way you can do it, but I want to hear it from you.

Abe- In having a hard time trying to have a dialogue with you. You present a list and I reference the first two names and you accuse me of cherry picking. When I ask you whether or not you have read the survey you dint answer. When I show you how your black and white statement changes dramatically when restated with more detail, you no longer want to respond. I actually want to debate the issues but you are taking the trademark climate science way of stonewalling questions that are difficult to answer.

Ian, do you think you could have any sort of meaningful dialog with a militant islamist on the merits and shortcomings of his religion vs any other? You are trying to have a discussion with a militant AGW cultist. He can only see the world in very narrow, predetermined terms. He has as much compassion for the people who have actually died as a result of his side's good intentions as the imam who sends out suicide bombers has for the people who are about to be senselessly killed. You are trying to have an intelligent conversation with a true nutball. Intelligent conversation is as far out of his realm as calculus is from a parrot's.

 

[Abraham3]

See what I mean.

 

[jc456]

See what I mean.

I think it was spot on!

 

[Abraham3]

See what I mean.

I think it was spot on!

Explain to us JC (Hay-soos?) why that description couldn't be applied to YOU without AT LEAST the same accuracy?

 

[jc456]

See what I mean.

I think it was spot on!

Explain to us JC (Hay-soos?) why that description couldn't be applied to YOU without AT LEAST the same accuracy?

Well I'm not supporting your warmists side so no, I'm not involved with deaths as a result of taking actions for no reason. So it doesn't include me.

 

[Abraham3]

Bullshit. The intensity of storms around the world have increased. Those storms take lives. For whose deaths do you believe me to be at fault? Repairmen falling off wind turbines?

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. The intensity of storms around the world have increased. Those storms take lives. For whose deaths do you believe me to be at fault? Repairmen falling off wind turbines?

No they haven't. Peer reviewed say the exact opposite. Try again, no one is buying your bullshit.