Dishonesty of the Trump cult: Polls edition

[jem]

you have no idea if there were 20, 200 or 2000 climate scientists who were skeptical were excluded.

hence that study does not stand for a 97 percent of climate scientists it stands for 97 percent of a cherry picked group.

and I note... that the consensus is not that man made co2 cause warming but that man contributes to warming.

I would be surprised if 7 billion people changing the earths albedo did not contribute to warming. Just 7 billion warm bodies might have an impact. If man does not have an impact... the earth has really strong negative feedback systems.

Nobody was excluded.

They were simply asked - if you are a climate scientist AND you have worked in the field by publishing a paper, what is your view on climate change.

And what is this 'true believer' journal bullshit? You do know that there are more than Doran's study on the consensus issue? And even assuming only 77% believe in the hypothesis, that's still a huge majority?

No matter how you slice and dice the survey, a clear majority believes in climate change - your entire argument is to the severity of their believe, not the actual hypothesis.

 

[jem]

by the way... once again it seems you just pulled shit out of your ass an pretended your idea was reality. from what I read

please document how you know there was a question framed like this...

"if you are a climate scientist AND you have worked in the field by publishing a paper, what is your view on climate change."

 

[Slartibartfast]

exGOPer, I assume you are talking to Jem, he is on ignore for my sanity.

Jem has been as Pauli said "Not even wrong" on CC for so long... He just will never accept that he is some parallel of a stroke patient, convinced his logic is sound when he is going 1,2,3, Wednesday, fireman! 8, 6, 6, 8, 9, 10!

He is not worth effort, just broken unless you perhaps have some stem cells to inject that is... his problem writing is a reflection of an organic problem I am certain.

It is only a short conversation before he pulls crap out of his ass. He is that pigeon who shits on the board and struts around as if he has won no matter what you do. This is his defense from the reality that he is not ok.

Anyway, it seems a shame to waste your talents with him, unless it is some kind of mental stamina resistance training.

 

[exGOPer]

you have no idea if there were 20, 200 or 2000 climate scientists who were skeptical were excluded.

hence that study does not stand for a 97 percent of climate scientists it stands for 97 percent of a cherry picked group.

and I note... that the consensus is not that man made co2 cause warming but that man contributes to warming.

I would be surprised if 7 billion people changing the earths albedo did not contribute to warming. Just 7 billion warm bodies might have an impact. If man does not have an impact... the earth has really strong negative feedback systems.

Again, there are more studies other than Doran's which prove the 97% consensus.

I have idea about things that were studied, you are basing your skepticism on religious arguments.

If you don't want to believe that study, fine, here is a solid paper published on Institute of Physics

www.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

What's your argument going to be now?

 

[exGOPer]

exGOPer, I assume you are talking to Jem, he is on ignore for my sanity.

Jem has been as Pauli said "Not even wrong" on CC for so long... He just will never accept that he is some parallel of a stroke patient, convinced his logic is sound when he is going 1,2,3, Wednesday, fireman! 8, 6, 6, 8, 9, 10!

He is not worth effort, just broken and unless you perhaps have some stem cells to inject that is... his problem writing is a reflection of an organic problem I am certain.

It is only a short conversation before he pulls crap out of his ass. He is that pigeon who shits on the boards and struts around as it he has won no matter what you do. This is his defense from reality that is is not ok.

Anyway, it seems a shame to waste your talents with him, unless it is some kind of mental stamina resistance training.

I know he isn't very bright but at least he tries to argue with complete sentences unlike hit and run Cons who can't think of two lines on their own. If children were taught basic logic at a young age, a lot of these Cons wouldn't be so dumb. It's too late and too hard now, reality to them is a liberal conspiracy.

 

[exGOPer]

by the way... once again it seems you just pulled shit out of your ass an pretended your idea was reality. from what I read

please document how you know there was a question framed like this...

"if you are a climate scientist AND you have worked in the field by publishing a paper, what is your view on climate change."

Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate
scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents
indicated that more than 50% of their
peer- reviewed publications in the past
5 years have been on the subject of cli-
mate change.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full

 

[exGOPer]

Again, there are more studies other than Doran's which prove the 97% consensus.

I have idea about things that were studied, you are basing your skepticism on religious arguments.

If you don't want to believe that study, fine, here is a solid paper published on Institute of Physics

www.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

What's your argument going to be now?

Your post reminded me of this Nietzsche passage


I am one thing, my creations are another. Here, before I speak of the books themselves I shall touch upon the question of their being understood or not understood. I shall do this in as perfunctory a manner as the occasion demands; for the time has not yet come for this question. My time has not yet come either; some are born posthumously. One day institutions will be needed in which men will live and teach as I understand living and teaching; maybe also that by that time chairs will be founded for the interpretation of Zarathustra. But I should regard it as a complete contradiction of myself if I expected to find ears and eyes for my truths today: the fact that no one listens to me, that no one knows how to receive from me today is not only comprehensible, it seems to me right that it is so. I do not wish to be mistaken for another—and to this end I must not take myself for what I am not. To repeat what I have already said, I can point to but few instances of ill-will in my life: and as for literary ill-will I could mention scarcely a single example of it. On the other hand, I have met with far too much pure foolishness! It seems to me that to take up one of my books is one of the rarest honours that a man can pay himself—I can even suppose that he takes his shoes off, not to mention boots. When on one occasion Dr. Heinrich von Stein honestly complained that he could not understand a word of my Zarathustra I said to him that this was just as it should be: to have understood six sentences in that book—that is to say to experienced them—raises a man to a higher level among mortals than "modern” men can attain. With this feeling of distance how could I even wish to be read by the "modern men” that I know! My triumph is just the opposite of what Schopenhauer’s was—I say "Non legor non legar”. —Not that I should like to underestimate the pleasure I have derived from the innocence with which my works have frequently been rejected. As late as last summer at a time when I was attempting perhaps by means of my weighty, all too weighty literature to throw the rest of literature off its balance, a certain professor of Berlin University kindly gave me to understand that I ought really to make use of a different form: no one such works as I wrote. Finally, it was not Germany but Switzerland that presented me with the two most extreme cases. An essay on Beyond Good and Evil by Dr. V. Widmann in the paper called the Bund under the heading "Nietzsche’s Dangerous Book” and a general account of all my works from the pen of Herr Karl Spitteler also in the Bund constitute a maximum in my life—I shall not say of what. The latter treated my Zarathustra for instance as "advanced exercises in style” and expressed the wish that later on I might try and address the question of substance as well; Dr. Widmann assured me of his respect for the courage I showed in endeavouring to abolish all decent feeling. Thanks to a little trick of chance every sentence in these criticisms— with a consistency that I could not but admire— seemed to stand the truth on its head. In fact it was most remarkable that all one had to do was to "revalue all values” in order to hit the nail on the head with regard to me instead of striking my head with the nail. I am more particularly anxious therefore to attempt an explanation. After all, no one can draw more out of things— books included— than he already knows. A man has no ears for that which he cannot access through experience. To take an extreme case, suppose a book contains only incidents which lie outside the range of general or even rare experience—suppose it to be the first language to express a whole series of experiences. In this case nothing it contains will really be heard at all and thanks to an acoustic delusion people will believe that where nothing is heard there is nothing to hear. This at least has been my usual experience and proves if you will the originality of my experience. He who thought he had understood something in my work had as a rule adjusted something in it to his own image—not infrequently the very opposite of myself; an "idealist” for instance. He who understood nothing in my work would deny that I was worth considering at all—The word "Superman” which designates a type of man who has turned out very well— as opposed to "modern” men, to "good” men, to Christians and other Nihilists—a word which in the mouth of Zarathustra, the annihilator of morality, acquires a very profound meaning—is understood almost everywhere and with perfect innocence in the light of those values, to which a flat contradiction was made manifest in the figure of Zarathustra—that is to say as an "ideal” type, a higher kind of man, half "saint” and half "genius”. Other learned cattle have suspected me of Darwinism on account of this word: even the "hero cult” of that great unconscious and involuntary swindler Carlyle—a cult which I rejected with such roguish malice—was recognized in it. Once, when I whispered to a man that he would do better to seek for the Superman in a Cesare Borgia than in a Parsifal, he could not believe his ears. The fact that I am quite free from curiosity in regard to criticisms of my books, more particularly when they appear in newspapers will have to be forgiven me. My friends and my publishers know this and never speak to me of such things. In one particular case I once saw all the sins that had been committed against a single book—it was Beyond Good and Evil; I could tell you a pretty tale about that. Is it possible that the National-Zeitung—a Prussian paper (this comment is for the sake of my foreign readers—for my own part I beg to state I read only Le Journal des Débats)—really and seriously regarded the book as a "sign of the times”, as a genuine and typical example of Junker philosophy— for which the Kreuzzeitung had not sufficient courage?

 

[jem]

1. but that is not responsive to question of why you stated this was one of the questions...
if you are a climate scientist AND you have worked in the field by publishing a paper, what is your view on climate change."

2. approximately 5 percent of 3146 respondents would be 157.
so 8.5 percent of what number gets us to 95 of 97 published climate scientists?

Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate
scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents
indicated that more than 50% of their
peer- reviewed publications in the past
5 years have been on the subject of cli-
mate change.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full

 

[jem]

the other studies have been debunked as well.
cook study was debunked in a peer reviewed paper.
oreskes studies are easily debunked when you recognize she left out hundreds of skeptical peer reviewed papers.

Again, there are more studies other than Doran's which prove the 97% consensus.

I have idea about things that were studied, you are basing your skepticism on religious arguments.

If you don't want to believe that study, fine, here is a solid paper published on Institute of Physics

www.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

What's your argument going to be now?

 

[exGOPer]

1. but that is not responsive to question of why you stated this was one of the questions...
if you are a climate scientist AND you have worked in the field by publishing a paper, what is your view on climate change."

2. approximately 5 percent of 3146 respondents would be 157.
so 8.5 percent of what number gets us to 95 of 97 published climate scientists?

It is the same question, am I supposed to recite the exact question from memory?

And you think 157 papers is a small number in scientific research? Really?