Nonsense, for religious people like you, any form subtlety means negation. That's not how science works.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated
Dishonesty of the Trump cult: Polls edition
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Nonsense, for religious people like you, any form subtlety means negation. That's not how science works.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated
that paper from cook is destroyed by this peer reviewed paper...
the "consensus" for agw in the papers was under 1%.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
--
by the agnotology discussion mirrors the critique we have when confused lefties love to cite the dunning krueger effect even though they have no facts on their side.
the "consensus" for agw in the papers was under 1%.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
--
by the agnotology discussion mirrors the critique we have when confused lefties love to cite the dunning krueger effect even though they have no facts on their side.
LOL, you missed the update where this paper (published in a Chinese journal) got overturned?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z#CR1
you move was right out of the troll playbook page 9.
when your b.s. arguments are proven to be bullshit...try to make a joke and change the subject.
it was actually cook's (your author) counter response (which last time I had checked) was rejected by peer reviewed journals.
when your b.s. arguments are proven to be bullshit...try to make a joke and change the subject.
it was actually cook's (your author) counter response (which last time I had checked) was rejected by peer reviewed journals.
Last edited:
I never made a joke you moron, I laughed at you linking to a paper published in a Chinese journal after you made derisive remarks for me linking a paper in a Indian journal - the difference being your paper got fucking demolished for being false.
And piss off with your troll insults, everytime you lose an argument you start with your deranged bullshit. I don't need lectures from a Seth Rich conspiracist on trollism. You link to unsubstantiated made up BS about Clintons and here you are arguing about science in the same fervor, give me a break about your scientific arguments.
Just sayin.. 
1. your journal and the journal to which I liked were not the same. So if you were not joking you were mistaken.
2. on what basis do you compare Science and Education which has been publishing since 1992 with the predatory pay to publish journal from India you cited here in the past.
do you have any basis at all to make that statement. are you claiming science and education is a predatory journal.
if you don't have solid info calling into question the Science and Education journal that will be multiple times on the same thread you just made shit up.
and you deny being a troll?
2. on what basis do you compare Science and Education which has been publishing since 1992 with the predatory pay to publish journal from India you cited here in the past.
do you have any basis at all to make that statement. are you claiming science and education is a predatory journal.
if you don't have solid info calling into question the Science and Education journal that will be multiple times on the same thread you just made shit up.
and you deny being a troll?
Last edited:
1. I did not say you said they were the same did I.
I stated if you were not joking you were mistaken.
As your article did not overturn the paper I cited.
That paper did not even cover the same subject matter.
Below is your odd quote..
"LOL, you missed the update where this paper (published in a Chinese journal) got overturned?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z#CR1"
2. I cited a peer reviewed paper. When Cook tried to submit his garbage rebuttal it got rejected by peer reviewed publications.
You cited a bloomberg article which is not peer reviewed.
I stated if you were not joking you were mistaken.
As your article did not overturn the paper I cited.
That paper did not even cover the same subject matter.
Below is your odd quote..
"LOL, you missed the update where this paper (published in a Chinese journal) got overturned?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z#CR1"
2. I cited a peer reviewed paper. When Cook tried to submit his garbage rebuttal it got rejected by peer reviewed publications.
You cited a bloomberg article which is not peer reviewed.
Last edited: