There’s a good reason Americans are horrible at science

Started by Lostphoenix

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

PreviousNext
547 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
  7,344 10 Jan 2016, 10:19 pm

Cedarswamp Sideways Down an Old Dirt Road
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 16,993
Classical Liberal Classical Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Classical Liberal
Money: 7,343.88



Log in or register to remove this ad..
JoeLib » 10 Jan 2016 8:18 pm wrote:

the scientific community is agreed that AGW is a reality


Link?
0


Image
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 10 Jan 2016, 10:20 pm

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



Here's more: http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases ... tists.html

A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.


A study from Purdue University indicating a strong consensus even OUTSIDE climate science specifically.. Just more part of the conspiracy right?
As I said, you don't give a fuck. You are gonna believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence and whether qualified people agree with you or not. All because you are afraid of responsibility and change. You're sticking you're head in the sand hoping you won't be called upon to do anything and can just keep on plugging along if you pretend nothing's happening that you influence.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cedarswamp
  7,344 10 Jan 2016, 10:29 pm

Cedarswamp Sideways Down an Old Dirt Road
User avatar
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister
Cannonpointer's Internet Barrister

Posts: 16,993
Classical Liberal Classical Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Classical Liberal
Money: 7,343.88




Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 9:08 pm wrote:

A Meta Analysis of studies of climate papers taking a stance showed over 90% of said papers agreed with AGW. Multiple sources confirm this, even ones anti global warming. According to the same anti-global warming source used by Golfboy, the professor said "yes, an overwhelming and broad consensus exists among climate scientists specifically." So yes, it's true.

The consensus is fact. It only declines when you move outside of the relevant field of climate science. It is not debatable. At all. Moreover, every major scientific professional organization agrees with AGW and supports it. Every. Single. One. Period.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I guess NASA along with 200 other major scientific foundations and independent organizations are ALL IN ON your conspiracy too bro. Libertarians have a strong political tendency toward radical conspiracy theorizing. You give Alex Jones his market. What you are doing is approaching a 9/11 Truther level of crazy conspiracy.


NASA along with 200 other major scientific foundations and independent organizations are relying on a Google search by a cartoonist blogger.

It's listed as footnote one at your link. :rofl:
5


Image

User avatar
Posted by onlyaladd
  5,343 10 Jan 2016, 10:47 pm

onlyaladd User avatar
      
      

Posts: 21,836
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Gender: Male
Money: 5,343.34




Tiger » 10 Jan 2016 2:36 pm wrote:

Labeling a skeptic as a "denier" is an insult.

I don't deny science. The global warmongers use bullying tactics and lying.

Every piece of science should be held in skeptical light. That's what real scientists fo. However I've seen noth8ng but Joe the plummer armchair sxientists or oild driven propaganda on the "denier" side. It's so obvious.
1
"Europe’s a big place," he said. "I’m not going to take cards off the the table. We have nuclear capability.'
Trump discussing nuking Europe.

User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 10 Jan 2016, 10:58 pm

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



Skeptics is what crazy conspiracy kooks call themselves to look respectable to the common man who can't tell the difference. Creationists call themselves "skeptics" too. You can call yourself anything you want.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 12:19 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31




Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 9:05 pm wrote:
Except it hasn't. And the source that was used to "debunk" it actually confirmed it by saying "there is broad consensus among climate scientists." There only stops being consensus when you include irrelevant people in the survey like mathematicians, doctors, biologists, petroleum geologists, engineers etc.

Golfboy had egg on his face when his own source refuted his argument.


I'm not saying the consensus stopped. I'm saying it never started - at least, as far as your bullshit "meta-study" goes. The bullshit study - to which you wisely did not link - used the same prestidigitatious mathematcs as that guy you barely ever heard of used in the film you never watched, Wink wink.

The sample used was "those who published and stated an opinion on the causes of climate change." So far, so good. The sample amounted to less than 1% of accredited climatologists, and only about 2% of those who pubished. The overwhelming majority who published did not state an opiion (I no longer remember the precise number that DID opine, but your unlinked source does state it, and it is miniscule).

The group that sample was used to predict was "all climatologists, published and unpublished, who did or did not state an opinion."

That is a different and discrete group. The rules of statistics forbid using people born in May to predict the attitudes of people born in June.

The very greatest claim that could have been made was this: OF THOSE who stated an opinion, 97% opined that climate changes was IN SOME MEASURE anthropogenically caused. IF your source had used math responsibly in that limited regard, it would STILL have been massively in violation of the rules of statistics - because it would not have been accounting for factors which could have skewed the results.

For example, it MIGHT be that those who disagree publish less papers - perhaps because a "This is false and here is why" position paper doesn't bear repeating, whereas those who agree get new evidence to interpret every year or even more often than that.

Then, too. some might consider it it suicidal to disagree with the global warming establishment, which would suppress requests for publication. And then there is the fact that a plot was discovered and revaled to both punish nay sayers professionally AND squelch their ability to publish. To what degree the exposed plan was a success may never be known. So, without factoring these inhibitions into the equation, blithely stating the results as if they stand as representative is a misuse of statistical analysis.

But that's not all that's wrong - your source is not finished with its sacrilege against the noble field of statistics.

In statistical analysis, there is a predictable scatter among those who answer, whether in the negative or in the positive. You will have heard of this scatter and will have experienced it with your students - it's refered to as the "bell curve." So it is a virtual CERTAINTY that among those who are counted in your "consensus" are folks ranging from, "It's happening, it's catastrophic, and we're causing it," to, "It's happening, but not appreciably, and we're at cause, but only about 2% - the rest is caused by nature."

Rolling those outliers into some fabricated "consensus,: notwithstanding they are at loggerheads, is dishonest and cagey - downright slimy, really.

That is why your consensus is silly: Because it broke a half dozen rules in being stillborn.THE RULES APPLY TO YOU, NOT JUST TO US.

By the way, these rules ARE TAUGHT in statstics 101 - this is not arcana that I am hipping you to.

By the further way, I HAVE read the study, obviously - yes, I, who according to your lies do not read links. I go to links in order to prove or debunk them. If you're just spamming to give me busy work, then I do not bother.
1
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 11 Jan 2016, 12:51 am

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2016 11:19 pm wrote:
Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 9:05 pm wrote:
Except it hasn't. And the source that was used to "debunk" it actually confirmed it by saying "there is broad consensus among climate scientists." There only stops being consensus when you include irrelevant people in the survey like mathematicians, doctors, biologists, petroleum geologists, engineers etc.

Golfboy had egg on his face when his own source refuted his argument.


I'm not saying the consensus stopped. I'm saying it never started - at least, as far as your bullshit "meta-study" goes. The bullshit study - to which you wisely did not link - used the same prestidigitatious mathematcs as that guy you barely ever heard of used in the film you never watched, Wink wink.

The sample used was "those who published and stated an opinion on the causes of climate change." So far, so good. The sample amounted to less than 1% of accredited climatologists, and only about 2% of those who pubished. The overwhelming majority who published did not state an opiion (I no longer remember the precise number that DID opine, but your unlinked source does state it, and it is miniscule).

The group that sample was used to predict was "all climatologists, published and unpublished, who did or did not state an opinion."

That is a different and discrete group. The rules of statistics forbid using people born in May to predict the attitudes of people born in June.

The very greatest claim that could have been made was this: OF THOSE who stated an opinion, 97% opined that climate changes was IN SOME MEASURE anthropogenically caused. IF your source had used math responsibly in that limited regard, it would STILL have been massively in violation of the rules of statistics - because it would not have been accounting for factors which could have skewed the results.

For example, it MIGHT be that those who disagree publish less papers - perhaps because a "This is false and here is why" position paper doesn't bear repeating, whereas those who agree get new evidence to interpret every year or even more often than that.

Then, too. some might consider it it suicidal to disagree with the global warming establishment, which would suppress requests for publication. And then there is the fact that a plot was discovered and revaled to both punish nay sayers professionally AND squelch their ability to publish. To what degree the exposed plan was a success may never be known. So, without factoring these inhibitions into the equation, blithely stating the results as if they stand as representative is a misuse of statistical analysis.

But that's not all that's wrong - your source is not finished with its sacrilege against the noble field of statistics.

In statistical analysis, there is a predictable scatter among those who answer, whether in the negative or in the positive. You will have heard of this scatter and will have experienced it with your students - it's refered to as the "bell curve." So it is a virtual CERTAINTY that among those who are counted in your "consensus" are folks ranging from, "It's happening, it's catastrophic, and we're causing it," to, "It's happening, but not appreciably, and we're at cause, but only about 2% - the rest is caused by nature."

Rolling those outliers into some fabricated "consensus,: notwithstanding they are at loggerheads, is dishonest and cagey - downright slimy, really.

That is why your consensus is silly: Because it broke a half dozen rules in being stillborn.THE RULES APPLY TO YOU, NOT JUST TO US.

By the way, these rules ARE TAUGHT in statstics 101 - this is not arcana that I am hipping you to.

By the further way, I HAVE read the study, obviously - yes, I, who according to your lie
s do not read links. I go to links in order to prove or debunk them. If you're just spamming to give me busy work, then I do not bother.


You can say whatever you want. That won't change the reality that you're wrong. Objectively and demonstrably. Repeatedly, meta-analysis of studies shows broad consensus among published papers. Your own sources even admit broad consensus, and I have linked you to dozens of other scientific organizations which I quoted saying there is broad consensus. I linked you two several studies--one from Purdue--polling climate scientists showing 90% + are in agreement. The only relevant people are those who are publishing and saying something, since that is what the consensus is among. People who do nothing, say nothing, and take no position or do write on the issue don't matter. The reality is that 90% of the research on global warming agrees it exists.

Most biologists also believe in evolution. This is also a fact. I can show you infinite biology organizations and textbooks that it's broadly accepted theory and you would pretend it doesn't exist because every biologist on Earth wasn't polled. Your statistics 101 is misunderstood. Brushing up might be necessary.

I'll stick with the actual science experts who certainly know "statistics" better than you do rather than your layman "analysis" of "statistics." Thx. :LOL:
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 1:08 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
You can say whatever you want. That won't change the reality that you're wrong. Objectively and demonstrably.


So you have nothing. That was my prediction.

Now, run some rhetoric to cover your embarassment at not being able to TOUCH my refutation of your unlinked "meta-analysis."

Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
Repeatedly, meta-analysis of studies shows broad consensus.


Using bad math twice doesn't make it good math. Why aren't you able to PRESENT any of these alleged proofs? I promise you, I will shred them - they all cheat because they MUST cheat. They're peddling garbage.

Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
Your own sources even admit broad consensus,


I didn't use any source other than a statistics 101 text to shred your silly bullshit, cultist. You're pontificating, trying make a smack down go away.

Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
I have linked you to dozens of other scientific organizations who I quoted saying there is broad consensus.


No, you haven't - and PLEASE DON'T. Just link to ONE which doesn't play with the math the same way CATO and fox news do. You DO know that I have analyzed and debunked THEIR "fun with numbers," too - yeah? It's alway a pleasure, son.

Sorry for asking the impossible, cultist - but it's YOUR problem, not mine, that you rode a jackass in a thoroughbred race.

Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
I linked you two several studies polling climate scientists showing 90% + are in agreement.


Yes, yes - you really showed me what fer, back in your glory days that never happened. Furiously linking garbage is your common ploy - bragging about it is unbecoming. If you HAVE anything, link it NOW - link your BEST, not fifty or sixty spam links, son.

You have nothing. You're REFERENCING without SOURCING. You have no viable sources - you've got hokey schtick grafts and clap trap from non-science sources which REPRESENT science - actually, MISrepresent science.

You're part of a cult. I just proved that your consensus is bullshit, and you're trying to shitmouth your way out of it. ADDRESS THE ISSUES I RAISED, OR ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT AND EITHER CONCEDE OR BEG TIME, PRINCESS.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 1:13 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
I'll stick with the actual science experts


No, you won't. You'll stick with propagandists, cultist. You got beaten and you're not man enough to admit it.

Afraid I'll use your concession to bell the cat, as you have infamously and ungraciously done, low-brow?

Limp away, stooge - or put up.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Reverend Al Sharpton
  1,290 11 Jan 2016, 1:52 am


Posts: 227
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 1,289.56


Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2016 12:13 am wrote:

No, you won't. You'll stick with propagandists, cultist. You got beaten and you're not man enough to admit it.

Afraid I'll use your concession to bell the cat, as you have infamously and ungraciously done, low-brow?

Limp away, stooge - or put up.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?


I may only be a sok - and your sok, to boot, - but I must offer my independent opinion that you just creamed that boy's potatos. His post in reponse to that POWERFUL debunking limped across the page like an Earth-Day celebrant retreating from a littering citation. I was raised wearing designer jogging attire on the mean streets of Foodtampvania, and even I have never seen so thorough a drubbing as that, my honkey sok-jockey.

May the lord bless and keep you, and may your hand remain the soft, lilly white, unmasculine appendage that I have come to know biblically, sir.

Was that good enough? Can I stay out of the box? Or at least get some more greenies? I loves me some colored greens.
251

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 1:58 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Reverend Al Sharpton » 11 Jan 2016 12:52 am wrote:
I may only be a sok - and your sok, to boot, - but I must offer my independent opinion that you just creamed that boy's potatos. His post in reponse to that POWERFUL debunking limped across the page like an Earth-Day celebrant retreating from a littering citation. I was raised wearing designer jogging attire on the mean streets of Foodtampvania, and even I have never seen so thorough a drubbing as that, my honkey sok-jockey.

May the lord bless and keep you, and may your hand remain the soft, lilly white, unmasculine appendage that I have come to know biblically, sir.

Was that good enough? Can I stay out of the box? Or at least get some more greenies? I loves me some colored greens.


Sorry, rev - but good job, and yes on the colored greens.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 11 Jan 2016, 2:02 am

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2016 12:13 am wrote:
Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 11:51 pm wrote:
I'll stick with the actual science experts


No, you won't. You'll stick with propagandists, cultist. You got beaten and you're not man enough to admit it.

Afraid I'll use your concession to bell the cat, as you have infamously and ungraciously done, low-brow?

Limp away, stooge - or put up.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?


You can choose to do whatever you want. 90% + of climate scientists' published research agree with me. Not you. I am not out to convince you, because you don't matter. Scientists matter. ;)

If you wanna shrug off 200 scientific organizations and studies showing most research supports AGW positions, that's your prerogative. Kinda like the Flat Earth Society pretending the Earth is flat.
0

User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 11 Jan 2016, 2:10 am

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

200 major scientific organizations recognize the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and that there is broad consensus among climate scientists. Cannon and his sock puppets think they know more than everyone else. The above link is to dozens and dozens of peer organizations and official academies of science agreeing with me.

I got the experts. Cannon has...sock puppets of himself. :D
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 2:17 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Technocrat » 11 Jan 2016 1:02 am wrote:

You can choose to do whatever you want. 90% + of climate scientists' published research agree with me. Not you. I am not out to convince you, because you don't matter. Scientists matter. ;)

If you wanna shrug off 200 scientific organizations and studies showing most research supports AGW positions, that's your prerogative. Kinda like the Flat Earth Society pretending the Earth is flat.


Seeing you reduced to the Nuh Uh defense makes my cockles warm.

THANK YOU for helping me to rediscover my cockles, son.

It would be nice if you had the integrity to stay down until you can bring anything better than Nuh Uh - but disappointingly, you never disappoint my expectation that you'll disappoint.

You braggd that if you were ever debunked you would admit it. Anyone who reads this - and its pinned, son - will see that you're a weak, sniveling liar.

The beauty of the rules of statistics is that they are - like pavlov's dog experiments - common sense, once you are exposed to them. This means that you KNOW you've been debunked on substance - which is why you are relying on rhetoric and repetition to stand in for substance.

You have nothing. Your "meta-analyses" are pure tripe, constructed for rubes who don't understand the rules of statistics. You drank the koolaid and I made you choke on it - and you're filibustering to hde from your respnsibility - and your promise - to admit it.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 11 Jan 2016, 2:27 am

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2016 1:17 am wrote:
Technocrat » 11 Jan 2016 1:02 am wrote:

You can choose to do whatever you want. 90% + of climate scientists' published research agree with me. Not you. I am not out to convince you, because you don't matter. Scientists matter. ;)

If you wanna shrug off 200 scientific organizations and studies showing most research supports AGW positions, that's your prerogative. Kinda like the Flat Earth Society pretending the Earth is flat.


Seeing you reduced to the Nuh Uh defense makes my cockles warm.

THANK YOU for helping me to rediscover my cockles, son.

It would be nice if you had the integrity to stay down until you can bring anything better than Nuh Uh - but disappointingly, you never disappoint my expectation that you'll disappoint.

You braggd that if you were ever debunked you would admit it. Anyone who reads this - and its pinned, son - will see that you're a weak, sniveling liar.

The beauty of the rules of statistics is that they are - like pavlov's dog experiments - common sense, once you are exposed to them. This means that you KNOW you've been debunked on substance - which is why you are relying on rhetoric and repetition to stand in for substance.

You have nothing. Your "meta-analyses" are pure tripe, constructed for rubes who don't understand the rules of statistics. You drank the koolaid and I made you choke on it - and you're filibustering to hde from your respnsibility - and your promise - to admit it.


If you think "nuh-uh" involves linking you to studies and NASA's list of scientific organizations that prove you wrong. Okay. :LOL:
Have fun with that! You can build your own stone-wall and hide behind it. But the siege of reality goes on.
Last edited by Technocrat on 11 Jan 2016, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 2:28 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Technocrat » 11 Jan 2016 1:27 am wrote:
If you think "nuh-uh" involves linking you to studies and NASA's list of scientific organizations that prove you wrong. Okay. :LOL:
Have fun with that!


If you think linking me to articles CHATTING ABOUT studies = linking to actual studies, you're a shit-fisted rube who's been duped on his first trip to the carnival, cultist.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Technocrat
  28,707 11 Jan 2016, 2:29 am

Technocrat Alexander Fuckin' Hamilton
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 13,071
Location: New Jersey
Socialist Socialist political affiliation
Politics: Socialist
Gender: Male
Money: 28,707.42



Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2016 1:28 am wrote:
Technocrat » 11 Jan 2016 1:27 am wrote:
If you think "nuh-uh" involves linking you to studies and NASA's list of scientific organizations that prove you wrong. Okay. :LOL:
Have fun with that!


If you think linking me to articles CHATTING ABOUT studies = linking to actual studies, you're a shit-fisted rube who's been duped on his first trip to the carnival, cultist.


k. :LOL:

Too funny. I accept your concession. G'nite. Don't hurt yourself shifting the goalposts too much while I am gone.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 2:33 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Technocrat » 11 Jan 2016 1:29 am wrote:

k. :LOL:

Too funny. I accept your concession. G'nite.


In another thread, the rube posted this link: A Rube's ideer of a "study"

Click it - you'll see the trash this bumpkin thinks = "sourcing" a "study."

This was my response:

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2016 1:26 am wrote:
You poor child. You just linked me to an article CHATTING about studies.

Link a study and watch me shred it, clod hopper. You really need some polish, kid - get with inglorious bastard. He claims to have some.

The game being played on you and through you is getting weaker and weaker - talk ABOUT studies but never actually PRESENT them.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Present an actual study which confirms your school girl fantasies, son - one that DOESN'T rresort to FUN WITH NUMBERS.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 3:28 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2016 11:19 pm wrote:
Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 9:05 pm wrote:
Except it hasn't. And the source that was used to "debunk" it actually confirmed it by saying "there is broad consensus among climate scientists." There only stops being consensus when you include irrelevant people in the survey like mathematicians, doctors, biologists, petroleum geologists, engineers etc.

Golfboy had egg on his face when his own source refuted his argument.

I'm not saying the consensus stopped. I'm saying it never started - at least, as far as your bullshit "meta-study" goes. The bullshit study - to which you wisely did not link - used the same prestidigitatious mathematcs as that guy you barely ever heard of used in the film you never watched, Wink wink.

The sample used was "those who published and stated an opinion on the causes of climate change." So far, so good. The sample amounted to less than 1% of accredited climatologists, and only about 2% of those who pubished. The overwhelming majority who published did not state an opiion (I no longer remember the precise number that DID opine, but your unlinked source does state it, and it is miniscule).

The group that sample was used to predict was "all climatologists, published and unpublished, who did or did not state an opinion."

That is a different and discrete group. The rules of statistics forbid using people born in May to predict the attitudes of people born in June.

The very greatest claim that could have been made was this: OF THOSE who stated an opinion, 97% opined that climate changes was IN SOME MEASURE anthropogenically caused. IF your source had used math responsibly in that limited regard, it would STILL have been massively in violation of the rules of statistics - because it would not have been accounting for factors which could have skewed the results.

For example, it MIGHT be that those who disagree publish less papers - perhaps because a "This is false and here is why" position paper doesn't bear repeating, whereas those who agree get new evidence to interpret every year or even more often than that.

Then, too. some might consider it it suicidal to disagree with the global warming establishment, which would suppress requests for publication. And then there is the fact that a plot was discovered and revaled to both punish nay sayers professionally AND squelch their ability to publish. To what degree the exposed plan was a success may never be known. So, without factoring these inhibitions into the equation, blithely stating the results as if they stand as representative is a misuse of statistical analysis.

But that's not all that's wrong - your source is not finished with its sacrilege against the noble field of statistics.

In statistical analysis, there is a predictable scatter among those who answer, whether in the negative or in the positive. You will have heard of this scatter and will have experienced it with your students - it's refered to as the "bell curve." So it is a virtual CERTAINTY that among those who are counted in your "consensus" are folks ranging from, "It's happening, it's catastrophic, and we're causing it," to, "It's happening, but not appreciably, and we're at cause, but only about 2% - the rest is caused by nature."

Rolling those outliers into some fabricated "consensus,: notwithstanding they are at loggerheads, is dishonest and cagey - downright slimy, really.

That is why your consensus is silly: Because it broke a half dozen rules in being stillborn.THE RULES APPLY TO YOU, NOT JUST TO US.

By the way, these rules ARE TAUGHT in statstics 101 - this is not arcana that I am hipping you to.

By the further way, I HAVE read the study, obviously - yes, I, who according to your lies do not read links. I go to links in order to prove or debunk them. If you're just spamming to give me busy work, then I do not bother.


Run, Forrest - run!

Spam some irrelevant links! Make an appeal to authroity! Say Nuh Uh, really loud.

WHATEVER you do, don't link an actual study which uses statistics responsibly - THAT would debunk my thesis!

YOU CAN GOOGLE IT! WHERE'S THE BEEF?
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,685 11 Jan 2016, 3:53 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 65,052
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,685.31



Technocrat and his crowd SCREECHED that the hokey schtick graft was the smoking gun with proved gorebal warnings.

NOW the lying POS will straight faced prevaricate the he never even SAW algrore's indecent proposals in the film inconvenient asspulls.

Let's check in with the hokey schtick graft and see how it measures up to peer-reviewed SCIENCE insteead of the gossip rags posing as science that the chisel-chested fruitcake keeps trying to run past us.

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-history/

Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' graph, used by the IPCC "experts" as propaganda to convince gullible elites that modern warming was unprecedented, has had its science and respectability torn asunder by a multitude of experts over the years.

The graph's lack of both science creditability and statistical robustness eventually caused the UN's IPCC to throw in the towel and exclude it from future climate reports.

Climate research in recent years has confirmed that the hockey stick deserved the ash heap of bad paleo-science it now resides in.

This has again been proven in the latest study, which shows the non-existence of the 'hockey stick' and the rather similar (yet less) modern warming versus that of the Medieval Period. The study's summer temperature reconstruction is adjacent.

More charts indicating modern warming is not unprecedented. A fantastic book regarding the 'hockey stick' and the IPCC.

Other peer-reviewed articles.

0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me



PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests

Who has visited this topic