Global Warming Liars

[otto105]

Hilarious

So, who has a different point of view on the periodic table?

Carbon dating?

The earth is round?

 

[otto105]

So, who has a different point of view on the periodic table?

Carbon dating?

The earth is round?

So nobody?

 

[ding]

Hilarious

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[otto105]

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Hilarious

Many what?

Reached a consensus…..?

 

[ding]

Hilarious

Many what?

Reached a consensus…..?

Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement

Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending on the data sets they use.

 

[jc456]

Hilarious

Many what?

Reached a consensus…..?

no such thing as a consensus in science.

 

[Crick]

Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement

Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending on the data sets they use.

Reality is a unique dataset. Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.

The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions (unsuprising since those conclusions are based on the work of those scientists). The vast majority of scientists do not feel that contrary views worthy of attention are being suppressed because, I suppose, they believe that the contrary opinions we've all seen simply AREN'T worthy of attention. The authors of those contrary opinions undoubtedly have a different point of view.

 

[jc456]

Reality is a unique dataset. Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.

The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions (unsuprising since those conclusions are based on the work of those scientists). The vast majority of scientists do not feel that contrary views worthy of attention are being suppressed because, I suppose, they believe that the contrary opinions we've all seen simply AREN'T worthy of attention. The authors of those contrary opinions undoubtedly have a different point of view.

What’s the percentage of vast majority? How many out of how many?

Been waiting on you for three months now

 

[Crick]

What’s the percentage of vast majority? How many out of how many?

Been waiting on you for three months now

I've had you on ignore for several years now jc. Any point at which I read your posts in one where no one else is playing. As to the percentage, a series of five different studies by Dr. James L Powell of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[otto105]

no such thing as a consensus in science.

So, the earth isn't round?

 

[otto105]

Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement

Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending on the data sets they use.

The contrary conclusions are usually paid for by the oil industry or the conservative noise machine. Like sun spots are causing our current warming...

 

[jc456]

So, the earth isn't round?

How’s that science?

 

[jc456]

I've had you on ignore for several years now jc. Any point at which I read your posts in one where no one else is playing. As to the percentage, a series of five different studies by Dr. James L Powell of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you have no idea. So vast majority is horseshit

 

[otto105]

How’s that science?

How is it not?

 

[ding]

The contrary conclusions are usually paid for by the oil industry or the conservative noise machine.

Incorrect. Were oil companies responsible for it being 2C warmer in the part with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?

 

[ding]

Reality is a unique dataset. Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.

Incorrect. Different datasets.

 

[jc456]

How is it not?

How is it? Show me all the experiments

 

[ChemEngineer]

"Peer reviewed literature" carries some kind of sacrosanct power with Al Gore's Followers.
A study of peer reviewed literature has shown that it is very often fraught with errors, and probably not
substantially different from non-peer reviewed literature. By the same token, placebos have been found
to be effective in a wide variety of medical applications, and the comparison of studied medicines to
placebos is causing countless problems because there often is not much difference in measured
efficacy. But those are some pretty difficult words much less concepts for haters on my Ignore List.

 

[otto105]

Incorrect. Were oil companies responsible for it being 2C warmer in the part with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?

When was that again?

 

[otto105]

"Peer reviewed literature" carries some kind of sacrosanct power with Al Gore's Followers.
A study of peer reviewed literature has shown that it is very often fraught with errors, and probably not
substantially different from non-peer reviewed literature. By the same token, placebos have been found
to be effective in a wide variety of medical applications, and the comparison of studied medicines to
placebos is causing countless problems because there often is not much difference in measured
efficacy. But those are some pretty difficult words much less concepts for haters on my Ignore List.

Yeah, we should just base science on GWB’s gut or former 1-term fuckup’s watching of newsmax.