My three electric vehicle questions.

[elektra]

But I'm most curious why you limit yourself to only ONE of the MANY different papers and studies I cited.

Yet, you are not curious enough to read them yourself.

Of all the low down hypocrites, you take the cake. Curious why I don't read and comment on links you post that you have not read, quoted or commented on.

You are lousy arrogant hypocrite.

Read and quote your links.

As I have stated, quoted from your link, less than 32.6 %, not the 97% you claim.

At that, it is an insinuation, not a fact. They read abstracts, to cheap to read the study.

Or, more likely the study itself does not affirm the researchers insinuation.

 

[miketx]

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man had caused global warming.

yes that is 97% of 32.6% as your study states, not 97% pf 100%

Sounds like pure double talk bullshit to me.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yet, you are not curious enough to read them yourself.

I honestly wish I could explain this to you but clearly you have set in your mind that you will simply ignore what I say.

Of all the low down hypocrites, you take the cake.

Get over yourself.

Curious why I don't read and comment on links you post that you have not read, quoted or commented on.

Because you lack education.

You are lousy arrogant hypocrite.

Grow up.

 

[elektra]

I honestly wish I could explain this to you but clearly you have set in your mind that you will simply ignore what I say.

Get over yourself.
Because you lack education.
Grow up

Read your links, quote from your links, comment from your links.
You stated you are curious why I have not read everything you have linked to?

Again, how could you be so stupid and arrogant to question why I have not read the studies that you have not read.

This why you believe and we call it a religion. It is because you declare you believe the science but you won't read the science. You have nothing but faith in your religion of Global Warming.

You won't even read what you link to but you ignorantly profess that you know what it says.

When confronted with facts from your source, you resort to the tactics of the loser, you try to attack me.

Somehow, in the English language there are not words that describe your stupidity.

 

[elektra]

Let me highlight the bit you keep ignoring:

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming."

Hahaha, let me post the part you left out of your cherry picking.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again, how could you be so stupid and arrogant

Just. Stop.

When confronted with facts from your source, you resort to the tactics of the loser, you try to attack me.

LOOK AT YOURSELF. You have called me "stupid", "arrogant", and a "lousy, arrogant hypocrite".

Somehow, in the English language there are not words that describe your stupidity.

It's not like you would know them if they existed.

We're done here, Elektrotoad.

 

[elektra]

Just. Stop.


LOOK AT YOURSELF. You have called me "stupid", "arrogant", and a "lousy, arrogant hypocrite".



It's not like you would know them if they existed.

We're done here, Elektrotoad.

You made the post, you linked to ten articles, you called me out for not reading your links. That is you had a problem with me not reading articles that you posted and had not read yourself. You did not quote frome your articles, you did not comment on the articles.

Yet, I read one, from top to bottom, I read what you did not, I quoted from what you posted but what you would not quote from, I then commented on that quote, which you had no idea existed yet you are the one who found the link and posted the link.

Yet, you called me dumb and uneducated long before I called you stupid. In fact, your response to quotes from your link was I was uneducated at even a high school level.

Yet I was smart enough to goad you into finding the article. You did not do that on your own. I manipulated you into linking to the Cook study. I got you to post the link because I had already read the article. I knew along where you got the 97% from. I knew the context in which it was made. So all I had to do was get you to link to the study, then I could use your link to show that you are wrong.

I played you, I used you link, and the fact is, it is only, less than 32% of abstracts were found to support man made global warming, and that was 32% of what was used in the study. Not in the world. And it was not scientists, it was only abstracts.

Abstracts do not state what scientists believe. Certainly is some cases but never ever in all.

I said there is no word in the English language to describe your stupidity. You have proved that.

Post another study, bet you can't, hahahaha

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Post another study, bet you can't, hahahaha

You have a rich fantasy life, that's for sure.

 

[elektra]

You have a rich fantasy life, that's for sure.

Yet, not as rich as yours, 32.6% of abstracts endorsed AGW, of that 32.6%, 97.1% endorse the consensus opinion that man caused global warming.

That is 97.1% of 32.6% have the opinion that man caused AGW. That is OPINION. Not fact, and less than 32.6%. That is from your link, your source.

You talk fantasy all you like, but the fact is, you were wrong and at the same time proved your stupidity as well as hypocrisy. Posting links to articles you have not read and then accusing me, of doing what you did not, when it was I that did read the article that you linked to, I who quoted and commented.

You could not even put any effort into educating yourself with what you were linking to. You believe headlines are science.

Now that is what we all call fantasy.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yet, not as rich as yours, 32.6% of abstracts endorsed AGW, of that 32.6%, 97.1% endorse the consensus opinion that man caused global warming.

That is 97.1% of 32.6% have the opinion that man caused AGW. That is OPINION. Not fact, and less than 32.6%. That is from your link, your source.

You talk fantasy all you like, but the fact is, you were wrong and at the same time proved your stupidity as well as hypocrisy. Posting links to articles you have not read and then accusing me, of doing what you did not, when it was I that did read the article that you linked to, I who quoted and commented.

You could not even put any effort into educating yourself with what you were linking to. You believe headlines are science.

Now that is what we all call fantasy.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming"
-J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016);

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
-W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010)

"It seems that the debate on the authentic-ity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
-P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009),

 

[ReinyDays]

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming"
-J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016);

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
-W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010)

"It seems that the debate on the authentic-ity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
-P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009),

From the first sentence in the first paper:

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper."

Classic example of how to lie with statistics ... reducing the sample pool to drive up percentages ... they're not sampling all the experts, just the ones who agree with catastrophic climate change ... and they still couldn't get 100% ROLF ...

Second sentence:

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming"

Hmmmm ... 4014 divided by 11,944 gives us 97% ??? ... I come up with 34% ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you and math are a bad mix ...

Excuse me while I clean off the coffee from my computer monitor ...

So ... I believe that 34% is correct, this is how many papers are published that support the CCC narrative ... and by subtraction we get 3% of paper that deny CCC ... leaving 63% that make no mention of CCC ... and this is just the climatologists the authors rate as expert, leaving off Atmospheric Scientists, Fluid Mechanics, Oceanographers, Dynamic Meteorologists and anyone else who disagrees with the authors ...

... reducing the sample pool to drive up percentages ... just plain fraudulent ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Classic example of how to lie with statistics ... reducing the sample pool to drive up percentages

Not at all.

Again, remember that some of the abstracts chosen were not of a type that discussed the general consensus or mechanism. As such they expressed NO OPINION. That is NOT the same as "we are undecided", not at all. They simply were silent on the topic of is AGW REAL OR NOT.

How do you classify those? You CAN'T say they are Pro-AGW and you CAN'T say they are anti-AGW. So you have to drop them.

This is pretty simple. It isn't a lie, it isn't trickery.

... they're not sampling all the experts, just the ones who agree with catastrophic climate change

Again, incorrect. The samples that were dropped expressed NO OPINION, which is NOT THE SAME AS BEING UNDECIDED.

Hmmmm ... 4014 divided by 11,944 gives us 97% ??? ... I come up with 34% ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you and math are a bad mix ...

Perhaps you should read Cook before you make incorrect assumptions.

So ... I believe that 34% is correct

You are wrong.

and this is just the climatologists the authors rate as expert, leaving off Atmospheric Scientists, Fluid Mechanics, Oceanographers, Dynamic Meteorologists and anyone else who disagrees with the authors ...

Really? Oceanographers and atmospheric scientists don't agree with AGW? You sure about that? (You are, of course, quite wrong, but you seem so sure.)

... reducing the sample pool to drive up percentages ... just plain fraudulent ...

If you don't actually understand what they did then you are not in a good place to yell "fraud".

 

[elektra]

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that man caused global warming"
-J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016);

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
-W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010)

"It seems that the debate on the authentic-ity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
-P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009),

hahahaha, more crap since what you posted before, from Cook left you looking like a fool as you tried to obfuscate the facts by making insulting my education. This one is as easy as the first. Again, it is the Cook study at fault, it only states 32% endorse AGW, and 97% of the 32% believe it is man that is causing global warming. Nowhere do your latest links state otherwise. If so, feel free to quote that part.

But more important than that, is what the scientists state. Here, we see the actual authors of the papers disagree with how cook classified the papers.

Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

hahahaha, more crap since what you posted before, from Cook left you looking like a fool as you tried to obfuscate the facts by making insulting my education.

You have education? Wow.

But more important than that, is what the scientists state. Here, we see the actual authors of the papers disagree with how cook classified the papers.

Note we have SEVERAL INDEPENDENT STUDIES USING DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES.

Honestly the way you trolls argue it feels like you are simply stealing pages from the Creationist Debate Book.

You are free to disagree with the methodologies but you can't simply tell people that they are idiots because you don't understand what is being done.

 

[elektra]

You have education? Wow.



Note we have SEVERAL INDEPENDENT STUDIES USING DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES.

Honestly the way you trolls argue it feels like you are simply stealing pages from the Creationist Debate Book.

You are free to disagree with the methodologies but you can't simply tell people that they are idiots because you don't understand what is being done.

You are an idiot, you insult me but when I insult you, that is an indication I am wrong.

Based on that, you began the insults, hence you are wrong, based on your idiotic principle.

Further, I quoted the Cook study that you linked to. I jeep not understand a thing when I provided the complete paragraph from your link.

You state 97% of scientists agree yet you provided proof that no scientist was asked. You provided proof that abtracts were rated and those ratings put the papers in particular categories.

Now I am showing that the scientists disagree with the results of the study evaluating their pspers.

The Cook study that you use to scientists agree, is pure bullshit.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are an idiot, you insult me but when I insult you, that is an indication I am wrong.

However you need to justify your hypocrisy over "insults".

Based on that, you began the insults

I doubt that. But then I'd ask you to support your claim (knowing full well you can't and you won't).

Further, I quoted the Cook study that you linked to. I jeep not understand a thing when I provided the complete paragraph from your link.

And I attempted NUMEROUS times to explain it to you. I even asked you a simple question about it. But you just blew past it because you don't read closely.

You state 97% of scientists agree yet you provided proof that no scientist was asked.

That's not required.

You provided proof that abtracts were rated and those ratings put the papers in particular categories.

That's in the papers. There's that "reading" thing again.

Now I am showing that the scientists disagree with the results of the study evaluating their pspers.

You are doing no such thing.

The Cook study that you use to scientists agree, is pure bullshit.

You wouldn't know.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Based on that, you began the insults, hence you are wrong, based on your idiotic principle.

You wanna try backing that claim up?

 

[ReinyDays]

You wanna try backing that claim up?

Only if you back up your own educational claims ... citation to your published thesis ... in geochemisty ... or at least post something geochemisty-ish ... or really anything from a science class from college ...

This is from someone who didn't know vapor pressure goes up with temperature ... that's not a casual mistake, this is a lack of understanding of the physical principles that underlay the structure of the known universe ... especially energy ...

i.e. - you rely on magic to much to be a scientist ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I only eat 'corn on the cob' when in season. I do use canned corn as carp bait however.

I eat the corn uncooked especially with the WHITE corn varieties never can understand why people want to cook it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Only if you back up your own educational claims ... citation to your published thesis ... in geochemisty

If you reveal your personal data as well.

... or at least post something geochemisty-ish ... or really anything from a science class from college ...

I have discussed at length several pieces of geology in these fora.

This is from someone who didn't know vapor pressure goes up with temperature

Wrong.

You could try to prove that claim but you can't because it is not true. I know the gas laws as well as you do.