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

[Billy_Bob]

Stirling, Michelle, Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy (July 10, 2016). Available at SSRN: Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy by Michelle Stirling :: SSRN
Abstract:

A number of scholars who have previously undertaken studies on the alleged ‘consensus’ of the human impact on global warming have recently published a paper (Cook et al. 2016) which they claim confirms and strengthens their previous 97% consensus claims. This author rejects their findings and deconstructs both the premise of the relevance of consensus in the empirical evidence-based world of science and finds the claims are in fact ‘nonsensus.’ Several of the scholars’ consensus claims and those of scientific bodies were published prior to the 2013 IPCC Working Group I report wherein it was reported that there had been a hiatus in global warming for some 15 years (to 2012), despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide from human industrial emissions.

Open source paper here: Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy by Michelle Stirling :: SSRN

Source





This paper rips apart John Cooks 97% lie with ease... I find it funny that Cook and his comrades are trying this lie again...

 

[Billy_Bob]

They have nothing... The earth is not complying with their warm up demands and 30-50 years of a normal cooling cycle just began...

The word I was searching for is DESPERATION... Their lie is again exposed and their fruitless efforts to be relevant are stunningly of extremely low moral fiber..

 

[skookerasbil]

The 97% had always been the big fraud.......their centerpiece of fake......although in 2016, frankly, its old. Nobody is caring about it.

 

[Crick]

No peer review. No contact information for the single author. That isn't a paper, it's a fucking blog. And she brings up nothing new. That is, she hasn't got shite. The consensus is approaching unanimity. Your ridiculous desperation moves are not going to change the fact that AGW is very widely accepted science.

If it was a lie, one of you would be able to conduct your own poll and find different results. But that hasn't happened. Ask yourself WHY NOT? Or stop pushing what you KNOW is a lie.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No peer review. No contact information for the single author. That isn't a paper, it's a fucking blog. And she brings up nothing new. That is, she hasn't got shite. The consensus is approaching unanimity. Your ridiculous desperation moves are not going to change the fact that AGW is very widely accepted science.

If it was a lie, one of you would be able to conduct your own poll and find different results. But that hasn't happened. Ask yourself WHY NOT? Or stop pushing what you KNOW is a lie.

Wrong again.. The Open Source posted all of the relevant information, you just choose to ignore it... No Surprise coming from you however...

 

[Crick]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

 

[jc456]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

You mean your peer team? Why do you get to choose who approves papers? Bzzzzttt

 

[Crick]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

And where is Billy Bob's evidence that I am wrong? Here's mine:

From the Abstract Page

Contact Information
Michelle Stirling (Contact Author)
Independent ( email )
No Address Available

As for the peer review, read this:

Home :: SSRN

According to Google, Michelle Stirling is a "Creative writer and communication strategist".

 

[Old Rocks]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

And where is Billy Bob's evidence that I am wrong? Here's mine:

From the Abstract Page

Contact Information
Michelle Stirling (Contact Author)
Independent ( email )
No Address Available

As for the peer review, read this:

Home :: SSRN

According to Google, Michelle Stirling is a "Creative writer and communication strategist".

LOL. Creative writer. In the employ of the Energy Corporations, no doubt. LOL

These flap yappers cannot tell a credible source from a cowpie. What a bunch of loonies.

While there is much disagreement in the scientific community as to what the ultimate result will be from AGW, there is almost none concerning the fact that it is happening, and that we are already seeing some of the results in a changing climate.

 

[jc456]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

And where is Billy Bob's evidence that I am wrong? Here's mine:

From the Abstract Page

Contact Information
Michelle Stirling (Contact Author)
Independent ( email )
No Address Available

As for the peer review, read this:

Home :: SSRN

According to Google, Michelle Stirling is a "Creative writer and communication strategist".

LOL. Creative writer. In the employ of the Energy Corporations, no doubt. LOL

These flap yappers cannot tell a credible source from a cowpie. What a bunch of loonies.

While there is much disagreement in the scientific community as to what the ultimate result will be from AGW, there is almost none concerning the fact that it is happening, and that we are already seeing some of the results in a changing climate.

still waiting for the area where climate has actually changed other than seasonal weather. so have you found that place yet?

75 out of 77 = 97% ewwwwwwwww same old same old.

 

[Crick]

No peer review. No contact information for the single author. That isn't a paper, it's a fucking blog. And she brings up nothing new. That is, she hasn't got shite. The consensus is approaching unanimity. Your ridiculous desperation moves are not going to change the fact that AGW is very widely accepted science.

If it was a lie, one of you would be able to conduct your own poll and find different results. But that hasn't happened. Ask yourself WHY NOT? Or stop pushing what you KNOW is a lie.

Wrong again.. The Open Source posted all of the relevant information, you just choose to ignore it... No Surprise coming from you however...

Link?

 

[jc456]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

And where is Billy Bob's evidence that I am wrong? Here's mine:

From the Abstract Page

Contact Information
Michelle Stirling (Contact Author)
Independent ( email )
No Address Available

As for the peer review, read this:

Home :: SSRN

According to Google, Michelle Stirling is a "Creative writer and communication strategist".

LOL. Creative writer. In the employ of the Energy Corporations, no doubt. LOL

These flap yappers cannot tell a credible source from a cowpie. What a bunch of loonies.

While there is much disagreement in the scientific community as to what the ultimate result will be from AGW, there is almost none concerning the fact that it is happening, and that we are already seeing some of the results in a changing climate.

still waiting for the area where climate has actually changed other than seasonal weather. so have you found that place yet?

75 out of 77 = 97% ewwwwwwwww same old same old.

15 MAR 2010: REPORT
What’s Killing the Great
Forests of the American West?
Across western North America, huge tracts of forest are dying off at an extraordinary rate, mostly because of outbreaks of insects. Scientists are now seeing such forest die-offs around the world and are linking them to changes in climate.
by jim robbins

For many years, Diana Six, an entomologist at the University of Montana, planned her field season for the same two to three weeks in July. That’s when her quarry — tiny, black, mountain pine beetles — hatched from the tree they had just killed and swarmed to a new one to start their life cycle again.

Now, says Six, the field rules have changed. Instead of just two weeks, the beetles fly continually from May until October, attacking trees, burrowing in, and laying their eggs for half the year. And that’s not all. The beetles rarely attacked immature trees; now they do so all the time. What’s more, colder temperatures once kept the beetles away from high altitudes, yet now they swarm and kill trees on mountaintops. And in some high places where the beetles had a two-year life cycle because of cold temperatures, it’s decreased to one year.

Such shifts make it an exciting — and unsettling — time to be an entomologist. The growing swath of dead lodgepole and ponderosa pine forest is a grim omen, leaving Six — and many other scientists and residents in the West — concerned that as the climate continues to warm, these destructive changes will intensify

What’s Killing the Great Forests of the American West? by Jim Robbins: Yale Environment 360

Around the whole world, jc. Just because assholes like you will not wake up to reality does not mean the rest of us are cretins.

so because the japanese beetle is killing trees, it's due to climate change? Is that your story? Funny. no explanation of what the change is except that perhaps the beetles have evolved. Cause the Japanese beetles have. In Chicago, they're cutting down ash trees as a result to control the bugs.

Will We Kiss Our Ash Goodbye? | American Forests

"It’s not like we haven’t seen this sort of thing before. In the early 1900s, people who lived in the eastern U.S. watched chestnut blight, an exotic pathogen, roll through, killing large and small trees and altering the hardwood forest forever. A few decades later, Dutch elm disease, an exotic pathogen carried by an exotic bark beetle, came through, killing majestic American elms along city streets and in forests. Today, more than 450 species of nonnative forest insects and at least 17 significant forest pathogens are established in the U.S. Most go unnoticed, but about 15 percent have had major consequences. And it’s starting again."

Note the reference to the past in 1900. hmmm same thing different bug, different tree. Doesn't proved climate anything.

 

[skookerasbil]

The 97% thing is only popular anymore on internet blog sites like this one. In 2016, its like a relic of a former era.......it moves nobody anymore.

And how do we know? Because you visit any of these ENVIRONMENT internet forums and there are very, very few ( a handful only ) of regular members. And they fall all over themselves making thousands of posts/week about the "real science"..........but meanwhile, we thought is was "settled" years ago??!!!! I mean.......how ghey is that?.

When something is so decided, why the need to get hyper-hysterical trying to defend it?

 

[skookerasbil]

I repeat: NO peer review, NO contact information for the author. If you see something different, break your magnificent tradition and POST IT.

And where is Billy Bob's evidence that I am wrong? Here's mine:

From the Abstract Page

Contact Information
Michelle Stirling (Contact Author)
Independent ( email )
No Address Available

As for the peer review, read this:

Home :: SSRN

According to Google, Michelle Stirling is a "Creative writer and communication strategist".

LOL. Creative writer. In the employ of the Energy Corporations, no doubt. LOL

These flap yappers cannot tell a credible source from a cowpie. What a bunch of loonies.

While there is much disagreement in the scientific community as to what the ultimate result will be from AGW, there is almost none concerning the fact that it is happening, and that we are already seeing some of the results in a changing climate.

still waiting for the area where climate has actually changed other than seasonal weather. so have you found that place yet?

75 out of 77 = 97% ewwwwwwwww same old same old.

15 MAR 2010: REPORT
What’s Killing the Great
Forests of the American West?
Across western North America, huge tracts of forest are dying off at an extraordinary rate, mostly because of outbreaks of insects. Scientists are now seeing such forest die-offs around the world and are linking them to changes in climate.
by jim robbins

For many years, Diana Six, an entomologist at the University of Montana, planned her field season for the same two to three weeks in July. That’s when her quarry — tiny, black, mountain pine beetles — hatched from the tree they had just killed and swarmed to a new one to start their life cycle again.

Now, says Six, the field rules have changed. Instead of just two weeks, the beetles fly continually from May until October, attacking trees, burrowing in, and laying their eggs for half the year. And that’s not all. The beetles rarely attacked immature trees; now they do so all the time. What’s more, colder temperatures once kept the beetles away from high altitudes, yet now they swarm and kill trees on mountaintops. And in some high places where the beetles had a two-year life cycle because of cold temperatures, it’s decreased to one year.

Such shifts make it an exciting — and unsettling — time to be an entomologist. The growing swath of dead lodgepole and ponderosa pine forest is a grim omen, leaving Six — and many other scientists and residents in the West — concerned that as the climate continues to warm, these destructive changes will intensify

What’s Killing the Great Forests of the American West? by Jim Robbins: Yale Environment 360

Around the whole world, jc. Just because assholes like you will not wake up to reality does not mean the rest of us are cretins.

not for nothing but nobody cares.

God.....maybe Im missing the point of this forum but unless it is a place to just come and throw out the latest whims in the science field and blow a nut while doing it, big picture folks with real life responsibilities could not give a crap.

Could...........not...........give..........a............flying...............fuck!!!

But then again.........to a person, every single global warming religion guy in here ( about 3 or 4 ) thinks the 2016 election is going to turn on climate change!!!!

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Kraemer.gif.html'][/URL]




My kid plays a lot of dek hockey.........the crap the religion throws out there and believes is like me saying with 100% certainty, "DEK HOCKEY IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME IN THE UNITED STATES!!"

 

[Crick]

The 97% thing is only popular anymore on internet blog sites like this one. In 2016, its like a relic of a former era.......it moves nobody anymore.

Where are the surveys, polls or studies that show 97% to be false?

If you think it moves no one, where do you think the "settled science" viewpoint comes from?

 

[jc456]

The 97% thing is only popular anymore on internet blog sites like this one. In 2016, its like a relic of a former era.......it moves nobody anymore.

Where are the surveys, polls or studies that show 97% to be false?

If you think it moves no one, where do you think the "settled science" viewpoint comes from?

where did he state it was false in his post? Dude, you have a reading issue. try and read it again, he is saying no one cares about your 97% claim anymore. Never used that word. you love lying.

 

[Crick]

Lots of people care about it. He has no evidence that no one cares, he simply hopes that's the case. Skooker the Asshole has been running that same line here for years. What no one cares about is him. He's the most ignored poster on the internet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Love the attempts to justify the lie...

You cant make this stuff up.. Its hilarious.... 'Ignore the 11,647 other papers that say no.. our 77 papers out weigh them all and are true...'

Speaking of ignorant posters on the internet.... Why should i believe the ones posting up hyperbole in an effort to make their claims of consensus true?

 

[jc456]

Lots of people care about it. He has no evidence that no one cares, he simply hopes that's the case. Skooker the Asshole has been running that same line here for years. What no one cares about is him. He's the most ignored poster on the internet.

dude, he's posted those polls over and over in this forum. have you never seen the 30% numbers he has posted? Again, the search tool here is great for finding that kind of information. Go look.

 

[Crick]

Lots of people care about it. He has no evidence that no one cares, he simply hopes that's the case. Skooker the Asshole has been running that same line here for years. What no one cares about is him. He's the most ignored poster on the internet.

dude, he's posted those polls over and over in this forum. have you never seen the 30% numbers he has posted? Again, the search tool here is great for finding that kind of information. Go look.

The world is moving on AGW. Get used to it.

The OP, which claims that 97% is "a fraud" is demonstrably incorrect. The numbers of climate scientists that hold AGW to be an accurate description of the behavior of our climate is very close to unanimity. That is what matters most because that is to whom those in charge listen.