Over 59322
politifake

Consensus Politics


Consensus, Models & Predictions vs. REALITY -


TAGS: global warming myth hoax climate change scam green energy farce consensus models predictions reality ipcc al gore greenies alarmists warmists
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - April 4, 2015, 12:39 pm
Here's a possible explaination, http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-climate-sensitivity-environmental-worries-are-trending-downward


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming??? -


TAGS: global warming consensus climate change hoax scam farce michael crichton junk science green religion alarmists warmists greenies al gore ipcc agenda21
Rating: 4.69/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - April 25, 2015, 9:29 pm
I've seen worse, Ala 62039. Being fired for pointing out AGW junk science.
OTC - April 25, 2015, 6:19 pm
You're wrong again, "activist" scientists, not scientists. Activist scientists have been caught drawing conclusions before doing the research, its not that hard to follow along.
calron - April 25, 2015, 5:00 pm
What's really bad is that natural variability could be used to support AGW, but some shout denier whenever you bring it up as a cause for warming.
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 4:48 pm
As long as it annoys Rebecca, it is worth it to me. X-D It's the only thing keeping me going, mate. :-) F*ck carrots and gum.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:48 pm
Like when Rush Limbaugh lied this week about the Duke study. The authors of that study actually came out against him because the political media does this all of the time. That is scientists up in arm over being exploited in a non-debate
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:46 pm
By now, it's common sense knowledge in the world of academia that climatology firmly supports the theory of MMCC. The scientific community is not at odds over this. It's the public that is on the fence. Talking about it too much distracts from the issue
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:43 pm
Don't really care about any of that. If or when the media is wrong about MMCC, doesn't change the fact that the science community is firmly behind MMCC in both consensus and findings.
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:39 pm
Roughly 1.59% of the abstracts reach the conclusion that he says the majority agrees with. That's not in the ballpark. If he chose a different standard to measure the consensus, he could have got the 97.1%.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:33 pm
the scientists will just get each other's back like some country club. That's absurd. That's not what peer review means. On this issue, there has been enough fact checking that this bias would've been revealed by the present.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:31 pm
It would appear Faux is talking about peer-reviewed journals about climate change, not the consensus. Roughly speaking, virtually all of them ARE behind the MMCC theory. OTC's problem is he thinks peer review is biased because
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:27 pm
Cook is guilty of being sloppy, not being debunked. Roughly speaking, he was in the ball park. Again you are splitting hairs hun. Peer review has caught it. It's just not a big enough issue to matter. Climatology isn't up in arms over this for good reason
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:24 pm
I've red a few and this is not necessary true. Take Cook's census for example. It reaches a conclusion that is debunked by Cook's own numbers rather than reaching the conclusion supported by the numbers. Peer review should catch it, but it still happens.
OTC - April 25, 2015, 12:34 pm
Like the past 2 years of unusual cool climate is suddenly "just weather". Anyways, have a good weekend and break that cig habit, you're more amusing nicotine free :-)
OTC - April 25, 2015, 12:31 pm
*Sigh* Perhaps you missed my posts stating that I don't deny human impact (contributing), I'm fully aware of MMCO2 but I do deny it's the sole driver of current trends in CC. And I notice anything to the contrary of MMCC is not welcomed
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:23 am
Alrighty then. Off to start my weekend. A night of me designated driving for my friends while others get drunk :-/ WEEEEE! Anyhow, fun jousting with you mate. Let's do it again next week if the spirit moves us, OTC. Cheers. :-) Fox is off the air.
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:20 am
P.S. Don't think I didn't notice you abandoning your cosmic ray Henrik denier theory. ;-) Is science like a crap shoot for you? One of these days do you just hope to roll the dice 'just right' and find a random link that will finally pay off? X-D
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:16 am
The only Quote from that article that matters - "It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century." #PWNEDYOURSELF
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 1:16 am
Even you admit, in your game of pigeon chess, that they are not removing the human element. You're grasping for straws - everything else you said is irrelevant in light of that concession.
OTC - April 25, 2015, 1:10 am
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html
OTC - April 25, 2015, 1:08 am
Well even this states it doesn't. remove the human equation, but the climate models didn't predict a cooling and that has them confused, which is funny because not everything was used in the models because scientists didn't think it was significant
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:20 pm
...the peer rev.studies themselves are pretty dry and free of politics.They make for boring reads,like plumbing manuals.They are not to be confused with the lib media that reports and distorts them.Hope this helps to FINALLY clear that up. Cheers mate :-)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:20 pm
...the peer rev.studies themselves are pretty dry and free of politics.They make for boring reads,like plumbing manuals.They are not to be confused with the lib media that reports and distorts them.Hope this helps to FINALLY clear that up. Cheers mate :-)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:15 pm
...I think, sometimes, you are confusing the political conclusions drawn by the liberal crowd which I agree are conflated.However,the peer-reviewed journals simply say:MMCC is unequivocal.They do not endorse the dire predictions of Al Gore or the libs...
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:13 pm
...in that sense, we've always been in agreement. The libs, as badly as the GOPers, have dragged the science dialogue into the political gutter. And the libs have their own denier issue to deal with -- the anti-vaccination movement...
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:08 pm
...The scientists are just reporting their findings. How long and how bad MMCC will affect the planet is up for conjecture.All they can claim is it's happening and a serious issue.It's not meant to be a crystal ball about next years temps or Superbowl win
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 9:06 pm
P.S. Before you go down another rabbit hole, I can save you the trouble: all the consensus says about MMCC is that it is unequivocal.It doesnt claim to predict everything. It doesnt claim it will be the end of the world.The lib politicians are doing that
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 8:56 pm
Source? I think I'm sure about what you are speaking about. But with you, I can never be sure. ;-) Provide a citation, please. And yes, the MMCC debate ended more or less many years ago. It's not confusing for the scientists, just the quacks.
OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:51 pm
If the debate on MMCC is over, then why is there a global temperature conundrum that scientists plan to address this fall? I thought it was settled.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:20 pm
...except Scientology. You can judge Scientology. X-D
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:19 pm
Scientology was created in the 20th century by a science fiction author. An awful science fiction author. Religion of any kind holds us back. But none of us has the right to judge the other - Be you Xtian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic Atheist...etc
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:15 pm
I actually respect religion even if I don't believe in God. I just don't respect fundamentalism. If you want to pick on a religion of liberal geeks, pick on Scientology. It has "science" in the title, at least. It is a liberal tard fest. X-D
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:13 pm
The science on MMCC is simply a report on the findings. Whatever problem you have with the politics of it comes with your own philosophical problem with how science works, which a**umes a theocratic pov as the inverse since you are making this about faith
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 1:09 pm
And by "theocratic", what I mean by that is - again, it's revealed when you overplayed your hand with your philosophical problem with science: Science doesn't pretend to be infallible. That is what religion is for. Science isn't a religion for geeks.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:53 pm
No, becca. Coffee. Lots and lots of coffee :-/ They have Taco Bell Mountain Dew Baja Blast in the can now for a limited time! :-D Now I dont have to sneak my McDonald's cup into there and steal it. X-D I can get my caffeine fix from the convenience store.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:51 pm
You have such unreasonable distrust toward science,wildly a**uming political bias everywhere you can.Yet you haven't a skeptical bone in your body over secular Christian ideology,which is rife with politics? You have a theocratic agenda on MMCC, mate(2/2)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:41 pm
It proves you are more than a simple contrarian. It proves you are delusional, mate. :-/ Your problem isn't with MMCC. Your problem is with science, and how it works. And your issue with it is a purely philosophical one.(1/2)
rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:29 pm
You're actually on top of things for a change.Not that obliterating OTC's argument is rocket science.Regular science would do - something he doesnt comprehend.But a coherent argument from you,Faux? You must've remembered your nicotine gum this morning :)
rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:21 pm
"when the facts show it is wrong following a proper scientific inquiry,which already demonstrated human-induced CC was unequivocal." Finishing that sentence for you,denier :) Know you wanted to imply politics or bias was behind the rejection.Not today hun
OTC - April 24, 2015, 11:37 am
I didn't state that he disproved MMCC. But this does prove that research that finds reasons for CC other than humans is rejected.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 10:23 am
And how does your idiotic anecdotal observations about weather counter my thorough refutation of Henrik? The man YOU CITED as DISPROVING MMCC?? Oh yeah,it doesn't because you can't - hence this LAME red-herring, Im sorry, I meant 'attempt at sarcasm.' :-)
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 10:14 am
lol...You can't be serious, mate...lolololol...Yeah, the scientist's evidence vs. your own two eyes. Well...I went to China last year and didn't fall off the Earth. Guess those flat Earthers were right! X-D Hmmmm?
OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:10 am
Let me guess, a tornado? GW! a hurricane? GW! a blizzard? GW! so this cooler than usual weather must be GW, right? isn't that what the consensus is?
OTC - April 24, 2015, 8:07 am
We're told 2014 was the h**test year on record, yet when I'm usually experiencing several days in the 100s, we had 1, maybe 2 days in '14. & for the 2nd yr in a row its almost May but instead of the normal 90s we are barely hitting the 80 degree mark
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 10:01 pm
So please, mate, call me a "denier." In fact, I will be disappointed in you if you don't. Yes, I'm the biggest JUNK SCIENCE DENIER around. ;-) If in your game of pigeon chess that represents Check mate, then it's a game I'm PROUD to lose. #WINNINGBYLOSING
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:57 pm
But basically you say any interpretation of science you present is BEING DENIED if we disagree with it. Fair enough. I'm a JUNK SCIENCE DENIER. I see your junk science and raise you 10000+ peer reviewed studies and the 97-99% consensus that backs it.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:56 pm
It's point (B) you are refuting. Now with your debunked cosmic ray nonsense. The effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation has been shown to be dubious. GCRs exert a very tiny influence over low-level cloud cover, not enough to account for sh*t.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:53 pm
But the reason WE KNOW man-made CO2 is causing GW now is because (A) CO2 in theory CAN cause CC (a point you've conceded) and (B) thousands of investigations by reputable scientists and have found the correlation in a myriad of ways that is unequivocal.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:52 pm
Just because man-made CO2 or cosmic rays COULD cause climate change, doesn't mean all climate change is caused by CO2 and cosmic rays. See what I did there? I included CO2 as well.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:50 pm
Sure...if all this happened, it could cause global warming. But there is ZERO evidence that any of this happened. And by pushing it, you are engaging in a causal fallacy. ie.Just because Socrates is a man, doesn't mean all men are Socrates.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:49 pm
In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must induce aerosol formation which THEN must grow sufficiently through the condensation of gas in our atmosphere to form cloud-condensation nuclei. Then his must lead to increased cloud formation.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:47 pm
FACT- Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the 1950s, and has shown ZERO-ZILCH-NADA significant trends over that period. FACT - our global solar magnetic field also has NOT changed appreciably over the past thirty years.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:45 pm
However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals that Henrik proposed are occurring in reality. For instance, a nuclear winter COULD create global cooling. But that doesn't mean nukes caused the ice age.lol.. What matters is the PRESENT causes NOW
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:39 pm
Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field COULD deflect cosmic rays, which hypothetically seeds low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing GW.That's his hypothesis.But is that ACTUALLY happening? Is it the reality now?
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:36 pm
In fact, it's funny, but you are pretty much just copying and pasting what Henrik is saying. I know. I checked. Again, here is the refutation mate--->
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:34 pm
You're simply posting something without demonstrating comprehension of the concepts involved.I gave you the methodology to verify your claims.You ignored it and simply repeated an empirically disproven concept.In other words,you're talking out of your a$s
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:31 pm
Mother nature is not denying the science. You are, denier. There are 4 requirements that must be true for his theory to be valid. They failed to produce results when tested repeatedly against empirical variables. And you are not replying to that.
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 9:28 pm
And that didn't reply at all to the evidence I cited. Just more pigeon chess from you. Yes, you are good at the copy and paste function, mate. Now apply that same vigor to actually learning the science you deny. :-) You might learn something
OTC - April 23, 2015, 9:02 pm
You understand his findinds that when the sun is active, as it has been, it shields us from cosmic rays reducing cloud cover which heats up the planet. with the sun becoming less active, more cosmic rays will produce more clouds
OTC - April 23, 2015, 8:55 pm
The sun is going into a grand minimum, temperatures have flatten recently and scientists are suggesting a cooling period. There's too much invested in the MMGW hype to accept a Global Cooling. Everyone can deny that science, but Mother Nature won't
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:21 pm
It turns out that none of these Hen'schypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect. This IS why he is ignored and why you don't know **** about MMCC.Cheers :-)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:18 pm
In summary,studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover,solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades,nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased.In fact,if GCRs did have a significant impact,cooling wouldve occurred
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:16 pm
3)Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.4)Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend. Fortunately climatology had empirical variables against which they tested these requirements. Study after indie study debunked Hen's theory
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:12 pm
In order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.1)Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.2)Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:09 pm
, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then." End quack quote. (2/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:07 pm
Henrik Svensmark says -- It's cosmic rays! The quack says, "When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover,(1/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:05 pm
who also say radiation is proof of Jesus's resurrection because they claim it explains away the carbon dating which shows the Shroud of Turin to have originated a few hundred years ago, not 2000 yrs ago. Junk science is real neat, huh? (2/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 6:01 pm
He IS ignored because he was proven wrong. PERIOD. He blames everything and I mean EVERYTHING on cosmic rays, including evolution. Congrats! You know how to use Google, mate. ;-) While you at it there you'll find these Russian "scientists" too (1/2)
OTC - April 23, 2015, 5:09 pm
Like Henrik Svensmark who gets ignored because his research didn't coincide with the consensus
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:20 pm
Even so, Michael Crichton's opinion on this means about as much to the CC debate as Steven Spielberg's opinion. ie.Not very much. A poster like this plainly proves the deniers are simply trolling science. It is proof of nothing. 1 Lion
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:18 pm
We are discussing 10000+ studies, reproducible results, in what is called PEER-REVIEW. The consensus vernacular is plainly the "CC for Dummies" explanation for that.It is not meant as a substitute for hard science, which already exists for MMCC(2/2)
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:14 pm
Michael Crichton, who is the author of this quote, never did a study on climate change. Nor was he a climatologist. The part you missed, though, was where he says: "what is relevant is reproducible results." Every major CC study has been reproduced(1/2)


Nature -




We've come to a consensus -




Apollo 7 Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’ -


TAGS: climate change alarmism apollo 7 astronaut walter cunningham usmc global warming fruad hoax scientific consensus green religion greenies alarmists warmists hysterians junk science eco fascism nasa ipcc
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - May 4, 2015, 12:17 am
Looks like An Appeal to Irrelevant Authority with a side of Person Credulity.


Doran & Zimmerman (2009) -


TAGS: agw consensus moving the goalpost
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by calron

rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:27 pm
the real thing. Faux and Debt probably agree with me as well. Nothing personal sweetie. Personally, I like your contributions. Who wants this place to get too one sided? What fun is that?? Have a beautiful day, Lron :) See you around.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:25 pm
In my heart of hearts, I don't actually think you are a denier hun. OTC? Maybe. But the worst denier to ever grace us was a troll named Emma. The fool did herself in with her own hand. As for the rest of us, easy to confuse a spirited debate with
calron - April 25, 2015, 3:20 pm
Unfortunately my position is "more complicated than that", but I get called a denier for it like there are on;y two sides.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:06 pm
and sells garbage that the scientists are actually not saying to advance an anti-science agenda. Limbaugh outright lied. This is why scientists are up in arms over this. Happens all too often, on both sides
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 3:05 pm
No one isn't saying the science isn't more complicated than that. But many deniers - like Limbaugh demonstrated this week - are using the nuances in the complexity to confuse their audience to push propaganda
calron - April 25, 2015, 3:01 pm
Well if you just got for AGW exists, then yes. But the science is more complicated that that. I would like to know the outcomes for the amount of GW that is AGW by varing measures, but there is not enough info for that one.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:54 pm
There have been enough metastudies into this - not all of them are based on Cook.Even then,it's pretty much a safe common sense a**umption by this point.There've been enough peer-reviewed research concluded on MMCC to reasonably infer how they feel by now
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:43 pm
It isn't just the media. Cook says that the above study supports a 97% consensus, it is not only an exaggeration when you leave off the qualifiers, it makes people skeptical of the good science.
rebeccaolsen - April 25, 2015, 2:25 pm
I agree with faux's point hun that the media does a lousy job reporting on the consensus.It's enough to admit that the clear overwhelming majority is overwhelmingly behind the theory.Anything else is splitting hairs.If that all you meant,I can accept that
calron - April 25, 2015, 2:10 pm
No it doesn't. It does show a clear majority that supports the idea. We shouldn't exaggerate things like this as it really does make people skeptical even if others would for other bad reasons.
fauxnews - April 24, 2015, 12:54 pm
:-/
rebeccaolsen - April 24, 2015, 12:30 pm
Yes. Yes you are =p
fauxnews - April 23, 2015, 4:10 pm
Meh, can't win 'em all, mate. ;-) I still believe 'some' of the deniers are just master parodists at heart.I'm just trying to see the good in people, so sue me ;-p P.S.I take it,that Im stuck with being the b'utt of your cigarette joke? (pun intended) :-/
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:12 pm
Thank you for clearing that up, denier. :)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:11 pm
Did I need to say all that? Probably not. I could've also said THESE few words - I liked you better when you were a contrarian hun. Even if you were only one for a few brief moments.It was nice - peaceful. Oh, well.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:04 pm
Gonna take a wild stab at this - maybe it has something to do with the fact that it is TRUE and not a conspiracy? :) LOGIC FTW
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:04 pm
So share with us a some PROPER peer-reviewed studies, ANY peer-reviewed study backing your claim. You won’t find any because the only papers to survive peer-review and fact checking are the ones that found MMCC to be unequivocal.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:03 pm
The extremely well respected journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, a.nalyzed climate change science, and determined that 97-98% of researchers in climate science supported the tenets of human influenced climate change.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:03 pm
Deniers, whether it’s those in the news or online giving us a pseudo-debate, think that to be balanced, both sides of a scientific argument are equivalent in quality of opinion and evidence. However,the real balance would give us a 97% consensus on MMCC
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:03 pm
You cannot spend an hour or a day or even a week Googling a dozen websites, even a thousand of them, and then loudly proclaim that the scientific consensus is wrong; no, you need to do the hard work.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
You cannot deny basic scientific facts without getting a solid education, opening a scientific laboratory staffed with world-class scientists, and then publishing peer-reviewed articles that can help move the prevailing scientific consensus.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
But, and it’s a big b.utt (talking Kim Kardashian here) if you want to dispute accepted science, then you have to bring science to the table not a false debate. Science isn’t hard, but it’s not easy either.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
You drop the false equivalency logical fallacy card to pretend there is a scientific debate over climate change - citing red-herrings like b***er. We can accept scientific principles without doing the research ourselves hun.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:02 pm
The links you share point to political interpretations of the scientific consensus. The few scientific links you did share came from junk scientists or non-scientists like the NCSC engaging in fraud.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:01 pm
Here we go again :roll my eyes: Fine then - Here it is, Incredible claims require incredible evidence. You anecdotal observations and political talking-points you gather from other websites aren’t evidence.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 11:00 pm
I still don't think you are a bouche dag. But being nucking futs isn't that much better hun. :(
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:59 pm
I'm not accepting the wackjob interpretation of science from someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about it. For a second there, I thought we were getting along :o/ What a shame. Sorry faux.You were wrong this time.Smoke 'em while you got'em :)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:55 pm
The scientists who are PART of that consensus are NOT activists.lol That's dishonest. Ironically, virtually every "scientist" you presented IS an activist as I'm shown you again and again and again.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:52 pm
More contrarianism? The "FACTS" you presented (sometimes fallaciously) don't DISPUTE THE FACT that the scientific community found that MMCC is unequivocal in their investigation, as vetted by the scientific method (ie. many times, by peer view)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 10:51 pm
More contrarianism? The "FAGTS" you presented sometimes fallaciously don't DISPUTE THE FACT that the scientific community found that MMCC is unequivocal in their investigation, as vetted by the scientific method (ie. many times, by peer view)
OTC - April 22, 2015, 9:13 pm
And I've told you FACTS about science pertaining to CC other than human cause, and you seem to deny that. You can either accept it or believe what your told when it's been proven that "activist" scientists and journalistic failures report wrong info
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 9:10 pm
I can accept that hun
OTC - April 22, 2015, 9:04 pm
I'm guessing here too, but you could have known by my other posts where I said I don't deny MMCO2 is contributing, buy I deny it's causing CC. That coulda been a big clue
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 6:54 pm
Thank you for clearing that up, contrarian. :)
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 6:53 pm
Nopers. Without you admitting that, how are we to know? If you are truly a "contrarian", OTC, then I can live with that if you can. That's fair. I'm only guessing here - but I think that was all Faux was getting at in his Cheney diatribe about deniers.
OTC - April 22, 2015, 5:46 pm
I didn't say you never admitted to being wrong in an argument, did I? And you keep calling me a denier when the more accurate term is contrarian, so there's two wrongs, no?
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:23 am
There's lots FUNNY about moi,ShoOTCer :) My fashion. The way I bite my nails when Im watching zombie movies,etc. But being RIGHT about the scientific community's consensus on MMCC is not one of them. What's truly funny is your game of pigeon chess over it
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:11 am
And I understand if you can't break character to address my humble points:a good skeptic or devil's advocate would NEVER do that.But if a denier HONESTLY thinks science DOESNT BELIEVE in MMCC (and many denier dont)then they're NUCKING FUTS or a BOUCHE DAG
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:06 am
So, OTC, if you are simply the ultimate denier playing devil's advocate in order to keep the scientists honest, then let me give you a round of applause! :) That's forgivable - as long, of course, you privately know the truth (that MMCC is unequivocal).
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:02 am
Science isn't just skeptical - it's skepticism as an artform. Not only do they accept your skepticism, they invited. Please. Scrutinize everything they do hun. It makes their work stronger as long as they are on the side of the facts.
rebeccaolsen - April 22, 2015, 12:00 am
Politics - like the law - is an adversarial winner take all system. That's what makes a democracy work. Better fighting with ideas than on the streets like the Brown shirt and the communists back in pre-WW2.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:58 pm
Cheney - and hardcore deniers like him - actually know the truth hun. Again, they're aren't dumb. But to protect their brand, they loyally marry themselves into a POV to test their ideology. It's not any different than what lawyers do, really.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:56 pm
Basically someone can ONLY respect a hardcore FACTdenier is IF he is doing it for God and country. ***k Cheney is a douche. But he's not stupid. He's not actually lying. He's may be the ultimate denier. But he's actually the ultimate devil's advocate
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:52 pm
When Faux ranted about ***k Cheney, I dismissed him at first as him being grouchy and going going off the reservation a bit. Wouldn't be the first time he's done it. But after going several rounds with you, I can see what he's been saying all along.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:49 pm
I simply told you what the science says. No one is forcing you to AGREE with it. You chose to deny. I don't care or don't know what are your motives or agenda. Intentional or not, you just happen to be in denial about the scientific community's consensus.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:46 pm
That is not my opinion hun. I'm just telling you what the science SAYS - empiricism and logic are the only language available to them. When I'm telling you what the science SAYS that's synonymous with me telling you a statement of FACT.
rebeccaolsen - April 21, 2015, 11:43 pm
Are you talking to me, ShoOTCer? :) If so,Ive never said I have never been wrong about an argument before.Too err is to be human.To not admit that is to be a fool.But on MMCC?I've been spot on.My main point has only always ever been - MMCC is unequivocal
OTC - April 21, 2015, 6:11 pm
You've been wrong yourself, that's what's so funny about you
OTC - April 21, 2015, 6:07 pm
So, scientists who specialize in certain areas and spend a decade or more doing research in their field of expertise, conclude a different reason for CC other than humans, get criticised by other scientists because there is just quack (or mad) scientists?
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:23 pm
You're welcome :)
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:23 pm
it's our ignorance as a species doing us in.They told you what the science says. You denied it. They arent LIBERALS pushing a political opinion. They are investigators presenting empirical findings.And you are in denial about it.Not hard to figure out hun
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:19 pm
They do their work and leave it up to the public and the media to report and distort their findings. Given the irony that MMCC represents humankind playing Russian roulette, I'm not sure they care too much about the feelings of an ignorant public when
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:17 pm
pretend to be good at PR. The science community is lousy at public relations. Truthfully, they could care less. They know their work speaks for itself. Unlike the politicians, the climatologists aren't going to kiss a** and tell you what you want to hear
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:16 pm
and the flaws inherent with doing that, and the (sometimes) poor communication involved, is more of an indictment of the public's ignorance, not that of the scientists - they are just doing their frigging jobs. Scientists are lousy at politics and don't
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:12 pm
It's common sense knowledge by now hun. The FACT that thousands of independent studies independently survived a scorcher test of peer-review is what concluded the debate. The need of the science community to dumb down their findings for public consumption
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:06 pm
some in the media to spoon feed the public about the outcome of the MMCC by summarizing complicated studies with simple terms. Those in academia and intelligent people in general didnt need a "consensus report" to know science concluded that MMCC is real
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 5:02 pm
The consensus is not BASED on polls.ROFL Also untrue. It's publicly accepted among academia that scientists (as a whole) found MMCC to be unequivocal. It a common sense to a**ume that by this point. The "consensus" was simply a public service provided by
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 4:58 pm
Untrue, denier. NASA and every single major reputable and highly respectable scientific organization in our country disagrees with you - they have used the words "unequivocal" and "the debate is over" many times, and these orgs are NOT run by liberals.
OTC - April 20, 2015, 12:42 pm
That's fine, because what I found are words like "might", "likely", and "not well known", & "more research" except on left wing sites, then those words are substituted with "unequivocal" & "the debate is over" Also found the consensus based on polls
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 6:13 am
http://bit.ly/Jj586U
OTC - April 20, 2015, 5:37 am
Thanks for the tip, since I've been asking here and no one has been able to answer it, Iguess no one here is "in the know"
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 1:13 am
If you really don't understand this, ask a real scientist. Go to a no-politics science forum. Take a science class at a decent community college. Ask someone "in the know" to explain it to you - they have no reason to lie.
rebeccaolsen - April 20, 2015, 1:09 am
Climatologists, and the rest of the science community, aren't relying on the media to decide this for them hun.lol The consensus-speak is a service being done for the public, to package complex studies into summation that can easily be spoon fed to them
OTC - April 20, 2015, 12:57 am
I was asking because if this is qhat is being cited as the consensus on MMCC, it's not from counting any peer reviewed papers, it's counting poll numbers
fauxnews - April 20, 2015, 12:02 am
ph**o = p h o t o
fauxnews - April 20, 2015, 12:01 am
s104.ph**obucket.com/user/NCYDR/media/unclel.jpg.html :-p
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 11:52 pm
http://www.wetookthebait.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Denis.jpg
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:49 pm
Nothing personal, mate. We just agree that we disagree in this political debate over the scientific consensus on MMCC. Have a good night. Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:46 pm
As for "reasons for people not to trust science". Since when do we need to give them a reason? LOL..Politics has always forced science to take a seat in the back of the bus.Read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science AS a Candle IN the Dark"(3/3)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:40 pm
It is simply common sense at this point,and more than reasonable,to infer that the scientific community-as-a-whole has found MMCC to be unequivocal.Splitting hairs here & there over small points doesnt change this FACT.It's a common sense observation(2/3)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:37 pm
Calron, with all due respect....intentional or not, such an argument implies that there is a debate or ambiguity within the scientific community over their stance on MMCC when there is not. The consensus on this is solid, mate.(1/3)
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 11:34 pm
YES - yes I am. ^.^
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 11:23 pm
Now you are just f*cking with me, Becca. :-/ Merciless wench! X-p haha..CRUEL! Is this about my Hillary poster where I put her face on the head of a younger woman to poke fun at her insecure ego? You are doing this to get back at me, eh?? ;-)
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 11:01 pm
Sounds like you could use a nice relaxing smooth-as-b***er cigarette, faux? :) Another nicotine moment doll?
calron - April 19, 2015, 10:35 pm
Notice how in your reply to me, you wen on a rant about something I didn't even mention. Exaggeration like drawing 97% from this poll is one of the reasons that people tend not to trust science.
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 10:16 pm
In other words, mate, according to the tenets of science -- after an extensive EXHAUSTIVE scientific investigation has concluded, it is reasonable to infer something is true or false. The consensus is just a laymen's way of stating as much. Cheer mate :-)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 10:02 pm
But there is a political debate over MMCC and the opposition is engaging in a foolhardy strategy of trying to blur the distinctions between empiricism and political discourse; mostly because THEY are in denial over the truth. (2/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 9:58 pm
It's splitting hairs. There isn't a debate within the scientific community over MMCC anymore. It ended years ago. The consensus within climatology, and science in general, is that MMCC is unequivocal. To pretend otherwise it to DENY the science (1/2)
calron - April 19, 2015, 6:19 pm
And again here's nice link where you can find all those studies and actually read them, http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
calron - April 19, 2015, 6:17 pm
There are about four consensus studies. In this one some people to claim that is says 97% because of that last column on the right side of yes. As I have said before some people misrepresent what these studies say and that is my point here.
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 5:46 pm
discredit accepted scientific fact is to simply claim that there is a 'debate' going on about it. There simply isn't. There is a difference between a healthy skepticism on MMCC and your commitment to being contrarian on this issue, mate. Cheers :-) (2/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 5:44 pm
Again, there is NO 'debate' about AGW in the scientific community and there hasn't been for decades. The carbon industry was specifically advised to "Always attack the consensus". Of course they do. It''s one of the key areas if you want to try to (1/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 5:42 pm
This poster - intentional or otherwise - is conflating the Zimmerman survey to mislead from the fact that the consensus by scientists has always hovered around 97%-99%, since the 1990s the community has been lock in step on MMCC based on the findings,OTC.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 5:37 pm
So is this the 97% consensus everyone cites?


if liberals believe the debate is over -


TAGS: 97 percent consensus liberal master debaters jerk offs
Rating: 4.64/5

More politifakes by OTC

rebeccaolsen - May 8, 2015, 6:30 pm
WE are not the scientists debating this.(lol)97% of'em are settled on the debate,but the 3% of derp might still be debating it.Confusing a political debate with a scientific one is like going to the dentist to get your tires changed,and being disappointed
rebeccaolsen - May 8, 2015, 6:19 pm
That's a negative, denier. WE are having a lovely 'political' debate over what the science SAYS, which is - MMCC is unequivocal. My 'political' strategy: to affirm it, I like being on the side of facts. You're choosing to deny it, for whatever derp reason
OTC - May 8, 2015, 5:35 pm
And yet, you're still debating it
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 11:38 am
Before your next move in pigeon chess, lemme save u the trouble - If the debate has been over for 97% of the scientists and for years now the 3% have failed to move that consensus with their lack of evidence, we can reasonably infer that the debate's over
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 11:32 am
So you missed the part where the debate is settled among 97-98% of them. Help me decide: basic math fail OR cognitive dissonance FTL? Do your cred a favor, stop confusing a political debate for a scientific one like you confuse weather for the climate


untestable hypotheses -




Apollo 7 Astronaut Speaks Out On Climate Alarmism -




I’ll see your “95 % of scientists believe in global warming” talking point & raise you a “95 % of reality thinks your climate models are absolute garbage.” -


TAGS: climate change hoax global warming scam alarmism green religion greenies warmists alarmists hysterians ipcc al gore scientificconsensus eco fascism
Rating: 4.2/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

DebtToAmerica - July 9, 2015, 7:49 am
you do realise thats like saying "mormonism is clearly false, therefore all other religions are wrong too and there is no god".


scientific consensus -


TAGS: man made climate change consensus
Rating: 4.09/5

More politifakes by OTC

calron - April 4, 2015, 1:01 pm
Ignoring the actual underlying facts given in favor of excuses not to even listen to the argument, let alone attempt to show it is flawed. Ad Hominem indeed.
OTC - April 3, 2015, 5:08 pm
one condition to the cause of the original problem, and its usually not what I was told. Anyways, enjoy ur day mate. cheers
OTC - April 3, 2015, 5:05 pm
As a tech for several years, whenever I was called to a machine I never accepted what I was told about the problem because 99% of the time they were wrong. I guess it's my nature to question, doesn't mean I'm always right, just that there's more than
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 4:51 pm
Fair enough. I can acknowledge that, mate. Good point....Ok, got my mountain BIKE ;-) Almost forgot it. Another beautiful sunny day! On my way back to the lab. Have a good one, OTC! Cheers =)
OTC - April 3, 2015, 2:27 pm
Faux, there numerous articles about the climate models being wrong, many by scientists, as well as many scientific studies about other events that effect climate change.
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:28 pm
In any case, have a good weekend, mate. I'm back to work. nice debating with you. See you around maybe next week. :-) Cheers! =)
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:26 pm
...but the consensus of scientific FACTS and finding - not opinions - is that manmade climate change is unequivocally true. Public opinion doesn't say it is true or false (it says it's undecided) but science says it IS true. Hence the difference.
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:19 pm
Mate.....as Rebecca pointed out, the WSJ link you posted points to someone's opinion, nothing more. The WSJ thing you shared is proof that a POLITICAL DEBATE rages on. Yeah, public OPINION is divided on this. Stop confusing politics with science...
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:48 am
Normally I add lotsa sugar to this coffee I'm holding, but today I'm making an exception. PWNing you this morning has been sweet enough :)
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:40 am
So another #biasfail FTW. Let's see,ShoOTCer - two #biasfails + one OPINION piece you sneakily tried to pass off as proof against the generally acknowledged scientific consensus VS. 10000+peer-reviewed FACT-FOUND-BASED studies(read:non-opinion) OTC FTL :(
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:33 am
The Telegraph piece doesn't say what you want it to say.It comments on uncertainty, though in a sloppy way - commits slippery slope fallacy.Why? Because the Telegraph doesnt pretend to be a true news source.It's a right wing outlet known for its influence
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:27 am
The Daily Caller is well known as a politically conservative news and opinion tabloid website. Not that was necessary, hun. The ad hominem picture of Al Gore was a dead-giveway :) #Biasfail FTW
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 8:24 am
Sure. "Wall Street Journal" is professional. Problem is that this was not an article. It was an OPINION piece, as stated in the upper left hand corner - and that nice disclaimer warning about its veracity. PWNed
OTC - April 3, 2015, 8:01 am
or this professional site interestingly referring to the consensus that the "science is settle", which is often repeated here- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266
OTC - April 3, 2015, 7:47 am
or this one that cites other factors to changes in climate - http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/
OTC - April 3, 2015, 7:40 am
you forgot this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html and all the others that dispute the climate models based on continue research
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 7:00 am
In the event anyone would like to contact this 'reputable' major science organization -er- I meant, minor denier fanpage,here's C3headline's OFFICIAL 'professional' email address: [email protected] Now,excuse ME while I "roll on the floor" LAUGHING :)
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:54 am
The blog confesses to being a biased "climate conservative consumer". The funniest part? C3Headline claims to have an actual Publisher/Editor but lists as the site's "official" company email address a gmail account - http://postimg.org/image/sj8wrlt3t/
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:53 am
The site confesses to be a biased "climate conservative consumer".The funniest part? C3Headline claims to have an actual Publisher/Editor but lists as the site's "official" company email address a gmail account - http://postimg.org/image/sj8wrlt3t/
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:35 am
I noticed you forgot to provide the link to this fabulous article - I'm sorry - I meant OPINION blog http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/02/2014-nasa-hansen-climate-model-output-vs-climate-reality-failure-its-still-ugly.html
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:33 am
That website, c3headlines, deliberately misrepresenting facts in its OPINION PIECE on both Hansen and climate models(both of which have been vetted as accurate in peer review) have a lot of fundamentalist anti-science deniers choking on their Jesus juice
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:25 am
I thought you were going to finish this,ShoOTCer? Don't worry. I got this... This opinion about Hansen, a cut and pasted quote, from a cheaply maintained rightwing blogger site anti-science site called c3headlines http://www.c3headlines.com/
OTC - April 2, 2015, 9:25 pm
Let me finish this for you, James Hansen testimony to the Senate was "stage crafted" for maximum fear. That coupled with climate models (that have been proven wrong) have a lot of people in line to drink the kool-aid of global warming.
rebeccaolsen - March 30, 2015, 10:33 am
It's actually an incomplete sentence. Let me finish it for you,"SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.Not a scientific conclusion.But a consensus of scientific conclusions that(even independent of each other)AGREE man-made climate change is unequivocal." You're welcome :)
OTC - March 30, 2015, 9:45 am
It's a statement, not an argument.
Zeitguy - March 27, 2015, 7:59 am
You just lost the argument.


Michael Crichton, scientist -




scientific consensus -




97% of scientists agree -




T h i s i s y o u r b r a i n o n F a c t s -




Approximately 97% of climate scientists found man-made climate change is real. Republicans deny this. -




Science Says Man-Made Climate Change is Real. Republicans deny it. -




Science Denier Temper Tantrums -


TAGS: climate change consensus denial
Rating: 2.42/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - April 5, 2015, 2:58 am
So your ignoring me by replying to me? LOL You have not proved your belief on me and the others and thus is at best "UNTRUE".
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:55 am
unscientific standard divorced the standards of evidence and ignoring that you yourself have failed to prove yourself right and thus by your own standard must be wrong.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:55 am
Cal, some of us here have already entered into a pact behind-the-scenes to ignore you and your other trolls. Carry on if it makes you feel better though.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:52 am
" that your beliefs are, at best, UNTRUE until proven otherwise" LOL, nice to see your mask fall off. That is what is know as an Argument From Ignorance. It's like saying the outer planets didn't exist before they where proved to exist. Thus an...
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:47 am
Good night and good luck, Calvon, you’ll need it.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:46 am
which for all practical purposes means they will remain false. That’s a far cry from what you are claiming. You will have to live with your shame. I’m off to bed, Cal. Your persecution complex, if nothing else, is entertaining.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:46 am
By failing to do either, you concede by failing to accept a control - that your beliefs are, at best, UNTRUE until proven otherwise. Since you refuse to ever do so and accept a control, your beliefs will remain untrue forever -
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:45 am
On the other hand, if you really had conviction in your position, you would’ve taken my simple challenge and proven me wrong in a controlled setting.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:45 am
Like Uri Gellar and other science deniers - you would rather accept the reputation of a charlatan than be exposed as wrong.  If you really did not want to jump through hoops, you would’ve ignored me long ago sticking to principle.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:44 am
about why you won’t, but you still puff your chest out anyways, that man is labeled a coward. The REAL point was to trick you into this circus act of your own doing. We already knew you wouldn’t take the bait. In that sense, you took the real bait.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:44 am
This was fun! Wish I could say the same for you amigo. Last thoughts on this with help from my science buddies, Giving credit where credit is due: If a man asks you to step outside, and you spend an entire hour like you did whining and making excuses
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:43 am
As my science buddies point out, another strawman. As you have already conceded this debate by your behavior, it is now a moot point. But with their help, I promised them I would explain why so as to prevent you from more deception and strawmanning-
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:35 am
studies rather than of scientists. It is odd how often people (like the OP) confuses the two.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:35 am
So you are going to a**ume what I think again. It's odd how you claim that it is easy to debunk me and yet the effort you'll go though not to post it and then call me chicken when I actually provided my evidence. Most likely you'll point to a consensus ..
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:31 am
Was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were hiding behind the bar stools from my offer. Weren't sure you heard me or not. Now I know. I will take this as you are chickening out, coward
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:25 am
Oh, another last chance. I though the last last chance would be the last one. And nothing prevents you from doing it without me, except you of course.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:23 am
No, the 30% position divides the pro camp into several conflicting theories on MMGW, so your Appeal to Anonymous Authority has told you what I think wrong again. If you look at the poll you'll see added they present a greater number.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:21 am
Maybe you didn't hear me. Would you like to step outside into a real science forum and put your money where your mouth is Cal? You can name any apolitical science you prefer. Man up or chicken out? Last chance
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:20 am
You do not get to be the judge of what is unequivocal. You concede you are not an expert. Neither am I. You do not get to decide to be the control. It's not manning up if you get to choose a place where you can hide from the actual fight.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:19 am
Typo. My buddies point out you also listed as low as 30% giving you room to hold onto your denier position if you need to but 90% so as to not look like a fool. You don't get to ride the fence.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:18 am
No need, you have unequivocally without a doubt shown that you managed to get what I said wrong. QED. And nothing prevents you from putting your money where your mouth is and manning up yourself. Rather you have excuses for not presenting your evidence.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:16 am
Nope, up to 90%. As I said you are factually wrong on my position.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:15 am
Once again, would you like to step outside into a real science forum and put your money where your mouth is Cal? You can name any apolitical science you prefer. Man up or chicken out? Last chance
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:14 am
Would you like to step outside into a real science forum and put your money where your mouth is Cal? You can name any apolitical science you prefer. Man up or chicken out?
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:14 am
It isn't needed. You can go on and present everything here to them and show I was wrong just find and present it. Then you can show thoroughly how full of it you think I am to all to see. So show me the money.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:13 am
They tell me to stop entertaining your red herrings and return to the argument at hand: You believe the media has exaggerated the scientific consensus and the consensus is really only 30%-50%
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:11 am
Nothing doing. My science buddies have already pointed out a pattern here that you manipulate data to fit your false narratives and then you are allowed to strawman your opponents so you can put words in their mouths. They're offering a control instead.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:11 am
And another Appeal to Anonymous Authority to tell me what I think. Authority is technically irreverent.And nothing prevents you from quoting and showing what I have said as wrong in such a setting. So still you refuse to present the evidence.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:09 am
I don't need them to tell me this is another strawman. Test my honesty then. What apolitical scientific forum would you like debate your misguided views on climate change?
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:09 am
So your Appeal to Anonymous Authority has told you what I think again (talk about a lack on control) to further your own unwillingness to actually present your evidence that you say was easy to come by.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:08 am
My scientific buddies say you are strawmanning me by claiming what you think I mean by control. Neither of us our experts, so neither of us can make this claim with authority. By introducing a control, we can test our opinions with authorities
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:06 am
Your still making excuses for not providing the evidence. Rather you dismiss the ability of each person to come to there own conclusions in favor of setting up hoops instead of debating honestly.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:06 am
My science buddies inform me you are stalling with this red herring tactic. Instead, if you man up coward and pick an apolitical environment of scientific peers, they will introduce controls to test your evidence against science's claim of consensus
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:04 am
represent what I have said, the contradiction shows that you lack understanding of what the claim I have made is, and are dodging that that contradiction.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:02 am
Which I offered to do in a controlled environment. You are hiding in an environment where you making yourself the control. If you show up, and nothing happens, you will know I was bluffing.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:02 am
Scientifically that is not accurate. A control is there to confirm fact but it can be a**igned without it. Like for instance if you say 2+2=5 I cannot call that being wrong as a fact without someone else in the middle. As you failed to accurately...
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:59 am
Actually no I cannot, only the presentation of evidence by either them or you can dispel that anonymity. And of course you do not need me to do anything to present that evidence. So go ahead, I'm not stopping you.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:59 am
Without a control, you cannot make that claim. You are not allowed to be the judge of what I do or do not understand. Since you are making yourself the judge and the control, you have shown nothing. What control would you like to offer?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:58 am
We are past that now. Scientifically speaking, it can't be verified as fact as long as there is no control test or control. You cannot a**ign yourself the control. No scientist would ethically do that.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:56 am
My buddies tell me not only will you be able to dispel their anonymity, but you can feel more comfortable since you are among people you know and trust. Where do you want us?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:56 am
I can make any claim I want. I know what I think and noted that what you have said that I think is different from both that and what I have said and that. The facts prove that you misunderstand. No authority will change that.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:55 am
My buddies replied to me on Facebook! They consent to meeting you on your turf as long as it is an apolitical science forum. Atta boy. Great idea you came up with, Cal.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:52 am
For real? You have science buddies too? I can invite my buddies to debate you and your buddies in your science forum then. Is it apolitical?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:50 am
My buddies say you are strawmaning me.I do not consent to you putting words in my mouth as proxy.Rather,we both conceded we are not experts. Let us add the control of introducing experts in the field of climate change to test the accuracy of our opinions
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:50 am
So your Appeal to Anonymous Authority told you what I think once again. My science buddies tel me this is an attempt to a**ign an authority that doesn't exist to your own opinion (
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:49 am
Without a control, you cannot make that claim. You are not allowed to be the judge of what I do or do not understand. Since you are making yourself the judge and the control, you have shown nothing since your opinion could be biased in your favor
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:46 am
Doesn't need testing, you have shown to not understand my argument and that misunderstanding is what you are trying to test. We could have gotten here quicker if you bothered to actually show your work.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:46 am
My science buddies now tell me that you are acknowledging your sinking ship by creating a strawman in the place of me and essentially arguing with yourself to evade the control. Uri Gellar used to produce his own shows trying to prove his denial as well
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:44 am
you instead reached the conclusion that because I disagreed with an untrue statement that I am trying to support the opposite statement. That is a flat out false dich**omy.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:43 am
I can cut and paste as well: I am no expert. Neither are you by your own omission. Let us test your argument then with a control. What apoltical scientific forum of your choice would you like to test this argument?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:42 am
How can you? Are you psychic, Uri? I am no expert. Neither are you by your own omission. Let us test your argument then with a control. What apoltical scientific forum of your choice would you like to test this argument?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:41 am
And here it is, no do not understand what I have said on the subject in no uncertain terms. As I already said consensus is not what the media says it is. Not that it doesn't exist or that clear lines cannot be drawn.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:38 am
I'd lay ten to one odds that you have actually understood what I've said on the subject. The media has exaggerated the consensus as evidenced by the response to Anderegg's studies conclusion vs the medias take.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:37 am
I will entertain your bull. If you are not an expert, why are you scared to present your opinions to experts now? You can pick the experts as long as they are apolitical. I found several forums that are simple science forums.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:35 am
You're very convincing in your conviction about there not being a clear consensus about global warming up until a control is offered.Believers in climate change like myself would accept that control.Deniers would run from it.The only difference? Control
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:34 am
Your anonymous "science buddies" should know that your a***ogy is a false one meant to show something about me the evidence does not support.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:31 am
No you haven't. If you have you would present it is that controlled stetting. Instead what you have shown is a refusal to do what you say that your willing to do, which by your own argument would be less work that what you are doing.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:31 am
Uri Gellar, who was adept at avoiding controlled environment, convinced the world he was psychic. When tricked by skeptic Johnny Carson into appearing on his show and presented with a controlled test, he chickened out much the same way you are doing now
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:30 am
My science buddies point out that science denier Uri Gellar would accept settings as long as he was the control. When tricked onto "The Tonight Show" where the control was forced onto him, he made the same cowardly excuses you are making now.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:28 am
I have shown my willingness to present evidence, in a controlled setting. You have refused to present your evidence, unless you want to claim this is a controlled setting. Not being an expert, you would have to resort to fallacy to do so.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:28 am
in a neutral setting so I can judge if I wish to jump though those hoops and join in instead relying on the anonymous authority of your "science buddies" to claim I do not wish to do what I have already done.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:26 am
I will make a confession, Cal. I am being aided by three very intelligent scientists who moderate that forum. If you would like to verify this, please join us for a lively debate.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:26 am
So your not doing what you are doing because... Your Distinction Without A Difference is a fallacy. You are showing yourself unwilling to provide your evidence and then in turn try to shift the blame to me. I'm not stopping you from offering your proof...
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:25 am
My science buddies tell me that it is likely you want me to present my evidence here so you can be the own judge and filter of what is true or factual. By introducing a control, it has shown what I wish it to: you are hesitant to back your own position
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:23 am
I'm not refusing support of my claims at all. I am offering to present them in a setting where we can apply a control test. It's a reasonable request. I'm willing to offer my proof. You are the one refusing the control. In turn, that is very unscientific.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:22 am
No, your "anonymous authority" would be removed by showing the source of the claims that you keep presenting. You have failed to do so as you refuse to present evidence without hoops.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:20 am
Then why have you not supported your claims? It is because despite what you say, you are refusing to support your claims. You refuse to do so unless I jump though your hoops first. And then you attack me for being scared to shift the topic that refusal.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:18 am
We both agree we are not experts. Atta boy. Let's now remove your accusation of anonymous authority by seeing if it is anonymous by presenting our evidence in a controlled environment and presenting a control test.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:14 am
Untrue. I'm not refusing support of my claims at all. I am offering to present them in a setting where we can apply a control test. A scientist does know better and wouldn't refuse it. They'd invite it. Why are you scared to test your views?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:12 am
I never claimed "expertise" and your refusal to provide evidence instead relying on anonymous authority already has shown what I wish it to.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:09 am
Nope, you flat out refuse to offer support for your claims and then a**ign my refusal to play your game as a sign of something that is not supported by such refusal. A scientist should know better that that one.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:09 am
Then you choose a controlled setting where you can verify the experts and authorities yourself. You claim expertise in science. Shouldn't be hard for a smart fellow like yourself.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:08 am
The controlled setting would dispel the anonymity or expose me as a bull****ter. What do you have to lose then?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:07 am
What matters is that you refuse to offer evidence for yourt position at all. Rather you make a claim to authorities that I cannot verify actually exist and place conditions what matters that do not synonymous with truth.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:07 am
I am offering to present my evidence in a controlled setting. You are the one refusing. In a scientific debate, according to my buddies, that is a concession of the weakness of your position. They are right, Cal.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:05 am
"My science buddies say" say the Earth is flat, Obama is a reptilian, and your wrong. Applying claims to anonymous authority is far easier than providing actual evidence.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:03 am
When an irrational denier of science is challenged to present his claims in a controlled setting, the denier makes excuses or tries to blame the environment or others. What matters is that they refuse to challenge their views in a controlled setting.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:03 am
LOL, so your Appeal to Irreverent Authority gave you insight into what I think? So now that you're proved you are making excuses for non production of evidence rather than offering evidence of any of your claims.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:02 am
My science buddies say what you are doing is no different than what psychics do when confronted by skeptic James Randi.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:00 am
If you would like, I will entertain your bull, Cal. My science buddies inform me you would just manipulate here the data I present like you have done with most everything else you've presented.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:00 am
But you said it was safer over there, and now change your tune when convenient. And you prove that you do not understand what I've said, while making excuses for not presented the evidence you say you have.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:57 am
You've jumped through more hoops in dodging my simple challenge to have a fair scientific debate than if you just had agreed to it. So that is not your concern or you are really this dense or dishonest. Same thing.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:56 am
No. Because you will just argue about it from the safety of here. I'm challenging you to see how your argument plays out with the scientists you are smearing and misrepresenting. If you are not smearing them, you should have nothing to fear.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:55 am
So you once again a**ert stuff exists without bothering to show it. So why have you not posted the evidence I requested and requested me to jump though hoops instead?
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:53 am
So you will not present your evidence, not are not refusing to present your evidence, thus your distinction has no difference or to put it another way your doing what you claim you are not. And of course you can present you case without me, so go ahead.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:52 am
In a private message on the forum to me that I am allowed to share, they told me you are spending more time jumping through hoops evading my simple request. We could've been half way through our debate by now. Good point. Your bull, I meant,response?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:50 am
I'm not refusing anything. Rather, I am waiting to present my evidence in a safer setting, safer for both of us.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:49 am
So you still wish me to jump though your hoops. Of course the question of whether you even accurately know my views comes to mind. I'm saying that the consensus is exaggerated by the media, but not denying that one exists.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:46 am
So we have your word that evidence exist and your word that I have been reb***ed, but refuse to actually present the evidence or the reb***al.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:45 am
Let me start over. I challenge you to a debate about scientific consensus on global warming on a science forum of your choice for the purpose of seeing how your views hold up. If you are so sure of your grasp on science, shouldn't be a problem
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:45 am
Actually no, you didn't present a counterargument here. You a**erted that evidence exists and I look and then claimed I was debunked easily but failed to produce the debunking. Instead you want me to jump though that hoop and resort to attacks to dodge.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:42 am
Putting your persecution complex aside, you have not called me out on anything. I presented my argument here already. You presented yours. Neither you nor I are the best judge of who is right or wrong. A science forum is better. But you are chickening out
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:38 am
So as we can see form this you are presenting a artificial hurdle to avoid the evidence already presented, so why don;y you "Man up" and present the evidence that you claim to already have without all the hoop jumping.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:36 am
Personally attacking me will not change that you wish me to jump though hoops to do what has already been done because you refuse to actually provide the evidence you say you already have.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:34 am
Why are you scared, Cal? You came here to a political website to have a scientific debate even though what you have said has "played out on other forums." Man up or chicken out
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:30 am
When O'Reilly challenges a smarty pants to go onto his show for a debate, or a neutral setting, and the smarty pants invents an excuse like "I have already had this debate before, Bill rightfully call out the smartypants as a moral coward
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:29 am
Rather than show what you claim you wish me to jump though a number of hoops to do what already has been done and then attack me for calling you out for it.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:28 am
And once again you misunderstand. What I have said played out on that forum already. There is no need to rehash what has already been done, and you still refuse to present your evidence despite you saying you have no problem doing so.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:23 am
I have no problem presenting my evidence. I only want to do it in a fair setting where you nor I are the judge. I am not dodging. I am waiting. Still waiting, in fact.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:21 am
We never had any discussion, Cal. The debate you are having now has happened countless times else where. So what of it? By your cowardly reasoning, it shouldn't happen here then. But that isn't stopping you, now is it? You pick the science forum then.


Cats and dogs -




scientists: -


TAGS: scientific consensus pluto is isnt is a planet climate change fallacies
Rating: 1.96/5

More politifakes by OTC

Zeitguy - June 23, 2015, 9:20 pm
A nomenclature debate vs AGW? Your thread of logic is amazing.


PREV PAGE