On Jan 11, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Almost every scientific prediction has been WAY OFF
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barb......rming-17
... yet somehow they still sing the same song failure after failure. It's almost like a cult or something. Look around ... We aren't flooding. No one is drowning. The Polar Ice Caps are still there and the polar bears are better than ever (Growing at an astounding rate.. from 5,000 to 30,000 or more). The ocean is only rising 1/2 of an inch every DECADE.
AL GORE lied to everyone and made $200 million dollars doing it.

The sun heats the earth

On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 10, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Fracking is on the water side of the hot air / hot water question. Iran-Russia oil prices on the hot air side. Living conditions vs political position.

Any thoughts on the linked articles?

Yeah, I've got some thoughts. Both articles present extremely weak arguments and numerous logical fallacies in their attempts to refute the articles they refer to. I could go through them step by step but don't really want to waste the time. I'll give you a quick fer instance from the Watts rebuttal article.

Rebutting paragraph 2, 2nd part. The quote James Taylor as saying, "At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

In attempting to Rebut this, they completely ignore the point and simply argue that, "Taylor neglects to mention that John Cook's study isn't the first to find that over 95% of actual climate scientists agree with the evolving consensus understanding." One way to prove this, they link to a report that links back to the John Cook study! But regardless, they never address the above point that they claim to rebut!

That's just one quick example but both articles are replete with similar examples on most every point they attempt to make.

And btw, the fact that the entire study was based on the meaningless survey question is something no one here has ever bothered to address either. One of those nasty little facts that Bob likes to complain about.

I see you still haven't read the Cook article. It did not involve a "simple survey". First they did a thorough search of the publushed peer-reviewed literatue, identifying over 11,000 candidate papers. Phase 1 involved a content analysis of the abstracts of the papers to classify them as supporting, not supporting or indifferent to the position that human activity is a cause of global warming. In Phase 2 they had the authors of the papers classify the position they believed the papers took.

You seem awfully certain about something you haven't read, rockwall.

The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.

Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.

On Jan 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So John what do you want the rest of the works to do based on all this?

On Jan 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So you do want to impose your will n other countries.

On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Actually, rockwall, I did read the actual study. Good bluff, but you obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Or are you pretending that a literature search of over 11,000 papers is part of a "simple survey" and that the conclusions drawn from reading the abstracts is part of a "simple survey". If that's so, I'd love to see another example of such a "simple survey". Asking authors to self-rate on the same scale as the readers gave, I suppose is some sort of "survey" but you miss the breadth of the study if you rely on that single aspect.

And what in the world is an implicit "simple survey"? Very funny.

Quote:

The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.

Not quite. They have a 7-point scale (see Table 2 in the original study) which they do interpret under the three categories you mention. But this hardly counts as their main conclusion, or a reduction of the entire study to a "simple survey".

Quote:

Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.

Good thing none of us are saying that, eh?

On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So you do want to impose your will n other countries.

No Danny. As I've said every time you've attempted this infantile "gotcha" there is room in the world for diplomacy. Diplomacy and negotiation has resulted in nuclear non-proliferation treaties, the banning of CFCs, the eradication of smallpox and more.

It's not perfect, but it's all we've got. And it works.

On Jan 11, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Actually, rockwall, I did read the actual study. Good bluff, but you obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Or are you pretending that a literature search of over 11,000 papers is part of a "simple survey" and that the conclusions drawn from reading the abstracts is part of a "simple survey". If that's so, I'd love to see another example of such a "simple survey". Asking authors to self-rate on the same scale as the readers gave, I suppose is some sort of "survey" but you miss the breadth of the study if you rely on that single aspect.

And what in the world is an implicit "simple survey"? Very funny.

Quote:

The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.

Not quite. They have a 7-point scale (see Table 2 in the original study) which they do interpret under the three categories you mention. But this hardly counts as their main conclusion, or a reduction of the entire study to a "simple survey".

Quote:

Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.

Good thing none of us are saying that, eh?

Nice try. They could have a 100 point scale but if they then take that scale and combine 50 categories into one group and 50 into another group then the 100 point scale has little meaning and becomes a very 'simple' question. Tell me John, of the 3 levels of endorsement of AGW within the report, what percentage of papers belong in each individually?

On Jan 9, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Just a few years ago you were blaming the government because gas prices were rising and unemployment was still too high. Now that gas prices have actually plummeted and employment is higher than it's been since 1999, it's STILL Obama's fault, right?

Unbelievable.

On Jan 10, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Fracking has forced the OPEC crowd to lower their prices in an effort to stop it.

The number of People who sign up for unemployment has little or no bearing on how many people are currently working or currently unemployed.

It just means that a certain number of people have lost their current job and are seeking employment. It doesn't take into account the millions of people that have been unemployed so long that they no longer qualify.

There are no more jobs now than 8 years ago... Actually less people are fully employed ... Things are not getting better on the job front .. Proof of this is that we still have a record number of people needing food stamps and welfare ....
It's a scam with the numbers.

I predict the Saudi's lower oil to about $40 a barrel in an attempt to destroy fracking.

On Jan 12, 2015, Mystification wrote:

Quote:

On Jan 9, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Just a few years ago you were blaming the government because gas prices were rising and unemployment was still too high. Now that gas prices have actually plummeted and employment is higher than it's been since 1999, it's STILL Obama's fault, right?

Unbelievable.

Well........gas prices did drop when the Republicans gained control.......just sayin