97% consensus fake news

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:18 am

"No..... you are!"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Cadmusteeth » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:19 pm

To Jim
I think you need to follow your own advice. Because your requests really do ring hollow when your posts keep showing the behavior you accuse everyone here of showing you.
(And I couldn't give less of a {!#%@} about those others who do show that behavior because I'm addressing you right now. Not them.)
Thank you very much and sorry for my irate behavior. I didn't get much sleep last night and the sleeping medication I used to get back to sleep is still in my system.
Have a nice day and I commend those people who have more patience than I do with dealing with others.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:16 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:To Jim
I think you need to follow your own advice. Because your requests really do ring hollow when your posts keep showing the behavior you accuse everyone here of showing you.
(And I couldn't give less of a {!#%@} about those others who do show that behavior because I'm addressing you right now. Not them.)
Thank you very much and sorry for my irate behavior. I didn't get much sleep last night and the sleeping medication I used to get back to sleep is still in my system.
Have a nice day and I commend those people who have more patience than I do with dealing with others.
Sorry that your meds are blurring your mind.

So what advice are you referring to?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Lausten » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:47 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:It's how that consensus came to that conclusion that global warming is happening.
Indeed. A consensus totally built on FAKE NEWS. Only 20-30% respond to surveys of which between 45 and 60% agree humans caused climate change. Thus .3 times .6 give us a maximum of 18% ever agreeing with the CO2 meme and

VOILA. there's your 97% consensus. ROTFLMAO

Sadly FAKE NEWS can drive the slow witted to think we are all gonna die!
And there is pretty much everything I've been saying. In one post.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:06 pm

Lausten wrote:
Jim Steele wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:It's how that consensus came to that conclusion that global warming is happening.
Indeed. A consensus totally built on FAKE NEWS. Only 20-30% respond to surveys of which between 45 and 60% agree humans caused climate change. Thus .3 times .6 give us a maximum of 18% ever agreeing with the CO2 meme and

VOILA. there's your 97% consensus. ROTFLMAO

Sadly FAKE NEWS can drive the slow witted to think we are all gonna die!
And there is pretty much everything I've been saying. In one post.
With all due respect Lausten I am never sure what you are saying, so please clarify and be more specific please.

1. Are you agreeing with survey calculations showing only 18% of scientists surveyed have actually stated agreement with CO2 driven climate change? If you disagree then why?

2. Are you agreeing that when only 18% of the scientists actually surveyed have ever stated they agree with CO2 driven climate change, then claims of 97% are Fake New? If not why?

3. Are you agreeing that Fake News can have undue influence? If not why?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22162
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:20 pm

Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gord » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:20 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:...your requests really do ring hollow when your posts keep showing the behavior you accuse everyone here of showing you.
He's been that way all along. The very first thing I remember reading from him was his hope that he would find people willing to discuss things without calling each other names. I thought he was sincere. Then, in his first reply to me, he started name-calling.

The guy's a major hypocrite.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28940
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:48 am

Did Sweetpea ever say goodbye or his reason for leaving the forum?

I assume he realised climate change was real and just left out of embarrassment.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:39 am

Gord wrote: He's been that way all along. The very first thing I remember reading from him was his hope that he would find people willing to discuss things without calling each other names. I thought he was sincere. Then, in his first reply to me, he started name-calling.

The guy's a major hypocrite.
Indeed respectful debate was my hope. However after being attacked mercilessly by citizen challenged and others including you, You all deserved some push back.

Perhaps I can join your hypocrite club?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gord » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:40 am

Jim Steele wrote:...after being attacked mercilessly by citizen challenged and others including you, You all deserved some push back.
I didn't attack you, I responded to one of your posts by quoting some of the article to which you had linked. YOU then attacked ME.

After that, I realised you were just here to exchange insults, so I didn't bother trying to "debate" anything with you (well, other than things about your mother, maybe).
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:54 am

Here's our first interactions!

Gord's story of sincerely seeking a respectful debate until I was disrespectful is just more of Gord's dishonest fabrication!

In response to my request for more respectful debate Gord replies "WHY
JIm Steele wrote:
Gord asks why?

First I have observed how politicians and some scientists have jumped on the CO2 bandwagon which has led to misdiagnoses that have misdirected conservation efforts and funding.
Gord replie:s You mean, "reached the obvious conclusion".
JIm Steele wrote: Second, attempts to suppress debate is a call for intellectual tyranny that defiles science. If we are to promote science we must promote skepticism and debate. The good scientists try to prove themselves wrong in order to find the greater truth.
Gord (who claims to be sincerely interested sincere debates says "Debate's over, all that's left is the clearance sales."

JIm Steele wrote:Third, If the predictions of natural cycles are correct and the warming hiatus continues, cold winters continue to increase, and Arctic ice begins to rebound, there will be an ugly backlash against all who supported catastrophic global awrming and legitimate environmentalists will suffer as it will be much more difficult to muster the political will to take appropriate actions when truly needed. I guarantee the polar bears will not be decimated within the next 20 years as the alarmists have suggested, but as the Inuit have argued it is the time of the most polar bears. If catastrophic predictions fail miserably, everyone associated with the questionable hypotheses will suffer from the backlash.

Gord replied. "The catastrophists are just as wrong as the deniers. People need to listen to the scientists, not the extremists. Problem with most extremists is how loud they make their message. Obvious response: Turn off the volume."


So Gord's idea of engaging in a respectful debate was to suggest I am a denier and an extremist, and that there is no reason to debate because the debate is settled. Hmmmm
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:20 am

The debate IS settled. When 97% of QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS, and 100% of formal position papers from Professional Societies, and common sense have concluded on an issue, any disagreement has to be formulated with that reality. NOT AS YOU DO: to assume because no one agrees with you that your are right.

Its exactly like when I argue for Eugenics, or the ending of Native Peoples Reservations: I think I'm right, but I recognize I have the minority viewpoint. The above are "value" positions....not science based causation issues. You need to ground yourself in reality and not blame others as a justification for what you do yourself and then complain about.

..............aka: Man Up. If you want a reasonable debate and not name calling: lead by example.

I know..............ain't that a bitch???===>Looking at your own behavior first? (and mostly, only?).
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22162
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:41 am

I saw a report this morning that said 46% of Republicans term negative news stories "fake news" even if they're accurate. Figures.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2166
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by OutOfBreath » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:41 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I saw a report this morning that said 46% of Republicans term negative news stories "fake news" even if they're accurate. Figures.
Well, thats how trumpy boy has hijacked the term and uses it. A trickle-down effect maybe?

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22162
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:34 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I saw a report this morning that said 46% of Republicans term negative news stories "fake news" even if they're accurate. Figures.
Well, thats how trumpy boy has hijacked the term and uses it. A trickle-down effect maybe?

Peace
Dan
Lead by the nose, taking it in the ass, and not blinking at all.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:47 pm

Here is example of Jim Steele leading by example with respectful discussion followed by a typical Gawd comment

Gawdzilla Sama says,

"97% vs. 3%. Not much more debate needed."

Jim Steele respectfully replies

Gawdzilla, While most scientists including myself will admit the CO2 hypothesis is legitimate and probably has some impact, I bet for every paper that argues CO2 is responsible for all the recently observed climate change, I can cite 2 from which the climate scientists admit they still can not reliably separate the natural causes from the postulated CO2 effects. But that challenge would likely end in a spammig war with little critical analyses.

So it would be more informative, if you cited just one paper that you found had most convincingly proven CO2 has caused the recent warming and not natural variability of the sun and oceans and contributions of landscape changes. If no debate is needed then you should be able to demonstrate that by defending the validity of that argument.

The climate scientists who advocate CO2 warming also advocate not debating skeptics. Refusing to debate is a far different from claiming the debate is settled.

Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:23 pm

"I don't debate Bigfootologist, ufologists, {!#%@}, religion nut jobs or any other brand of conspiracy whacktard. No disrespect, of course."

Since 2014 Gawdzilla has never debated the science, preferring only to spew insulting venom with every post... as do those who support his repugnant behavior.

And no matter how many times requested not a single person has provided one paper that they found had most convincingly proven CO2 has caused the recent warming and not natural variability of the sun and oceans and contributions of landscape changes


Instead they repeat the fake news mantra about a mythical 97% consensus, while as proven at the beginning of this post, only 18% of the scientists actually surveyed ever actually stated the humans have caused more than 50% of observed changes.
Last edited by Jim Steele on Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:23 pm

You bet huh?

..............but thanks for quoting what Gawd posted. Its quite an accurate, telling, snappy CONCLUSION.

As to AGW: ipcc.ch OR just google search it. Gawd has been posted 3-4 warming reports a week recently.

If you wanted to see: you could open your eyes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: ..............but thanks for quoting what Gawd posted. Its quite an accurate, telling, snappy CONCLUSION.
Indeed Gawd and Boobo share the same repugnant behaviors that denigrate both this forum and the scientific process that demands healthy debate!


How Politicization of Climate Change has Denigrated the Scientific Process
1. A) Good Science: Albert Einstein, “Never stop Questioning”

B) Anti-science: If you question the anthropogenic causes of climate change you are a denier, a whacko and should be ridiculed


2. A) Good Science: Galileo, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

B) Anti-science: You are a denier of you question any consensus claims


3. A) Good Science: Richard Feynman states scientists should exercise “a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen

B) Anti-science: The science is settled. You are a denier.


4. A) Good Science: Carl Sagan writes, “Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Arguments from authority carry little weight.

B) Anti-science: The consensus says you are a denier

5. A) Good Science: The motto of Sir Isaac Newton’s Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge “Take No One’s Word for it”.

In other words we can only trust science because it is well vetted by independent investigations.

B) Anti-science: Michael Mann says the challenges to his “hypotheses” are “attacks on
science”.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:11 am

Good Science: NOT ignoring basics in science. Let's say it all together: what does centuries of burning fossil fuels do, ............ and what does a green house do?

Good Science: NOT posting 48 images of ice or snow without explanation or point and claiming its a parody while at the same time claiming all climate is explained by natural causes WITHOUT identifying those causes.

Good Science: NOT claiming a cold trend without including any warm data at all.

Good Science: NOT Cherry picking quotes from "anyone" else and thinking they support taking a position without facts or theory to back it up.

Good Science: what we should all pursue. What Bad Jimbo does: NOT.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Good Science: NOT posting 48 images of ice or snow without explanation or point and claiming its a parody while at the same time claiming all climate is explained by natural causes WITHOUT identifying those causes.]

ROTFLMAO

I am just posting weather news and bringing balance to the forum? Why does that bother you soooo much?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:50 am

You really do constantly FAIL on basic science, and can't even follow your own arguments without flip flopping.

WEATHER has nothing to do with the cause of CLIMATE CHANGE. You make this basic error ALL THE TIME....and it comes down to basic vocabulary. AGAIN: because it is so telling and revealing and as usual you don't respond to any contrary ideas except to mock them without substance: debating coral health is NOT a debate about AGW. You confuse issues of EFFECT with issues of CAUSATION. CLIMATE with species change, modification, adaptation, and competition. Same with Polar Bear. You must make yourself look incredibly ignorant each time you do that........which is constantly.

So....are you parodying or bringing balance??? ((Hint: neither.))

OK......going to bail again and hope my continuing interest in the subject doesn't draw me back in. YOU are a waste of time.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:28 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
OK......going to bail again and hope my continuing interest in the subject doesn't draw me back in.
Promises promises promises. So many broken promises.


Some people brighten the forum when they enter. Others brighten the forum when they leave.

Bye!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:42 am

Even brighter, would be you actually engaging the SCIENCE.

but yeah, its a downer.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:51 pm

As shown by all my early posts presenting scientific evidence complete with citations and links, those posts were met with personal attacks. Most of the posters here, had their minds already made up. They already believed there's no reason for a scientific discussion , never mind a polite one. They held the anti-science belief the science was settled, or the fallacy that consensus was evidence. Thus they all preferred to either engage in insults and denigration or completely ignore any and all scientific evidence that countered their beliefs.

I get more discussion simply by posting pictures of record cold and snow, with little or no commentary. A discussion of the causes of record snow or record cold provide insight into how weather and climate change, but instead most just hate to see the part of reality and thus play shoot the messenger.

It is hilarious that the major actor in denigrating any scientific discussions on this forum by indulging in repugnant non-stop personal attacks, now pleads to engage in SCIENCE. ROTFLMAO

Does Mr Bobbo Two-Face have any science back ground not to mention any credibility?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:21 pm

Cherry Pickers and those practicing parody who rarely provide links and who rarely answer direct questions: are not engaged in science.

I have not pled to engage in science. I merely point out that you do not.

As stated, and quite tellingly so, even if one day your positions all turn out to be correct: your presentation is faulty.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:36 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I have not pled to engage in science. I merely point out that you do not.
ROTFLMAO

Still Here??? Another broken promise. :(

Indeed you have not "pled to engage in science" You entered the forum bragging that you had no science background but you could win arguments with your verbal diarrhea. You admitted no science background and subsequently demonstrated that was the most honest statement you've made to date.

Yet your hubris and blind beliefs make you think you can determine which scientific interpretations are more correct when scientists disagree. ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Cherry Pickers and those practicing parody who rarely provide links and who rarely answer direct questions: are not engaged in science.

I have not pled to engage in science. I merely point out that you do not.

As stated, and quite tellingly so, even if one day your positions all turn out to be correct: your presentation is faulty.

Just look.
To quote Gawdzilla's response to boobo's endless word salads
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:You really think I give a {!#%@} about your confabulations?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:08 am

Its obvious you don't.

Thats the point.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Its obvious you don't.

Thats the point.
Your most lucid reply to date!

That said, whenever you decide to honestly engage in a scientific discussion, I want you to know I here for you!.. Until then I think Gawdzilla's reply to you says it all!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:41 pm

Here's another example of bunk consensus!

James Powell decided to go through the abstracts of all these articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014 claiming a bogus 99% consensus that the media hyped. A literature search was conducted using the ISI Website of Science (internet-hosted reference service of Thompson-Reuters) that provides a searchable database of every scientific article published in peer-reviewed journals.


Powell padded his statistics with papers in which the research had nothing to do with investigating to what degree Co2 vs natural variability have affected climate. Thus Powell dupes those who fail to engage in critical thinking into believe there is a 99% consensus. ROTFLMAO.


Here's Powell's list of bogus papers to manufacture a dishonest 99% consensus Perhaps Biil Wallace can explain how any of these studies would confirm or refute the effects of CO2 on climate


The Ecological and Geographic Context of Morphological and Genetic Divergence in an Understorey-Dwelling Bird


Evaluating Linked Social-Ecological Systems in Marine Protected Areas

Environmental life-cycle assessment of various dairy products

Impacts of Varying Estuarine Temperature and Light Conditions on Zostera marina (Eelgrass) and its Interactions With Ruppia maritima (Widgeongrass)

Response of discharge, TSS, and E. coli to rainfall events in urban, suburban, and rural watersheds

Childhood intermittent and persistent rhinitis prevalence and climate and vegetation: a global ecologic analysis

Environmental and agronomical assessment of three fertilization treatments applied in horticultural open field crops

Temperature and food availability affect risk assessment in an ectotherm

Geographically different oceanographic responses to global warming during the Cenomanian-Turonian interval and Oceanic Anoxic Event 2

Germination and seedling frost tolerance differ between the native and invasive range in common ragweed

Origin and life history of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) near their northernmost oceanic limit

Muted change in Atlantic overturning circulation over some glacial-aged Heinrich events

The role of climate in increasing salt loads in dryland rivers

Modelling changes in grassland hydrological cycling along an elevational gradient in the Alps

Erosion of bulk soil and soil organic carbon after land use change in northwest Vietnam
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Archer17
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:27 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Archer17 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:55 am

Science is a process so "consensus" is not something to hang one's hat on when debating this issue for that reason. Current "consensus" doesn't matter as far as the scientific method goes. Some folks older than yours truly tell me that global cooling was all the rage a few decades back and they (the scientists) are still trying to prove Einstein wrong every chance they get. Maybe they'll succeed one day. That's how science works. Regarding whether the "consensus" is really a "consensus" I'll leave that to those that want to split those particular hairs. To me it doesn't matter, GW/AGW is what it is.

Reading this thread I see some hostility which makes me think this topic has been debated to the point of diminishing returns. That's what usually happens when there's not one cut-and-dried answer for global warming. I have no "answer" myself to put out there for the scientific method to chew on, I wish I did. IMO us humans are exacerbating something that seems to happen periodically for one reason or another (volcanism, solar luminosity to name a couple of past culprits) with our greenhouse emissions and deforestation so I'm probably somewhere in between Al Gore and Sean Hannity or, more locally, between Jim Steele and his foils here as far as this subject goes. This I do know, science doesn't ever "rest it's case," so be careful where you hang your hat. It might not be where you left it.
The plural of anecdote is not data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:38 am

Archer17 wrote: Regarding whether the "consensus" is really a "consensus" I'll leave that to those that want to split those particular hairs. To me it doesn't matter, GW/AGW is what it is.
What is "it"? ---Seriously, I don't know. I can make 3-4 good interpretations, but what do you mean?

Archer17 wrote: This I do know, science doesn't ever "rest it's case," so be careful where you hang your hat. It might not be where you left it.
problem is, when a decision/social policy has to be made: you do have to hang your hat. And rationally, you do that on the "best science available"========>and that is the consensus.

there is philosophy in a vacuum, and then there is pragmatism.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Archer17
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:27 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Archer17 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:31 pm

Sorry if I wasn’t more clear. As I touched on later in my post I think “it” is global warming with human activity playing a part, how much of one I don’t know. What I tried to convey in my first paragraph is that citing a “scientific consensus” or lack of one isn’t going to end the debate. This thread is a good example.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, I have no problem with cleaning up our planet, and that sentiment doesn’t just end with air pollution/greenhouse gasses as it does with more than a few. My primary motivation for posting here wasn’t to take a side, FWIW I'm on the side of "clean air," it was to simply reiterate the scientific method - in a forum debate like this one things like “consensus” and “best science available” isn’t the same thing as “case closed.”

You make a very good point regarding pragmatism and I can’t argue with that in the context of this topic but I don’t see that reflected by world powers. I hear/read rhetoric and see symbolic gestures like ‘climate treaties’ that give some countries byes along with things like the “feel-good” ‘carbon-credit’ scheme our friends across the pond engage in but that's basically it.
The plural of anecdote is not data.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:47 pm

Archer, thanks for interjecting a very balanced and objective perspective.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: problem is, when a decision/social policy has to be made: you do have to hang your hat. And rationally, you do that on the "best science available".
Indeed the precautionary principle would advise social policy to prepare for warmth and cold. For example;


Cold winters are testing the limits of US energy grid


http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envir ... nergy-grid
The arctic air that has frozen the northeastern U.S. over the first weeks of 2018 has prompted New Englanders to crank up the heat and New England’s utility companies to scramble for fuel.

This season’s above-average heating and electricity demand has tested grid reliability at a time when the topic has had particular political salience. Most reporting on the matter has lauded the resilience the grid has shown, but a fuel-security analysis performed by the group that oversees New England’s power system delivers a pessimistic chill. ISO New England’s analysis reveals that in winters to come fuel insecurity will plague the region.
[/quote]
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:01 pm

Archer17 wrote:Sorry if I wasn’t more clear. As I touched on later in my post I think “it” is global warming with human activity playing a part, how much of one I don’t know. What I tried to convey in my first paragraph is that citing a “scientific consensus” or lack of one isn’t going to end the debate.
You've been misled by the likes of James Steel: there is no debate. THAT is what the consensus is all about.

Philosophy in a vacuum vs scientific pragmatism. The debate about AGW makes as much sense as saying there is a debate regarding evolution or the age of the Earth. ====>There is no debate. AGW is "it." The fact that "you don't know" adds no weight or doubt.......like everything else in the world, most of which none of us know anything about, your/our/my ignorance is not a position but only an opportunity to learn.

World Powers?---don't mix a fringe element claiming to be scientifically based skeptics.....and don't confuse World Power with anything but corruption.

Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:34 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You've been misled by the likes of James Steel: there is no debate. THAT is what the consensus is all about.
ROTFLMAO.

Boobo-the-thought-police was to tell people to not think for themselves, by telling the lie there is no more debate.

So don't anyone dare to think for them selves, even though only 20% of the scientists surveyed have actually endorsed the CO2 global warming meme!

As Boobo has too often shown which agrees with his own self evaluation, Boobo doesn't read nor understand scientific papers.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:45 pm

Bad Jimbo: is there a debate about evolution or the age of Earth? Why not? After all..... the "wisdom" of a single doubter is equal to the life long study of experts.

Idiot.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:06 pm

Actually.......the issue of "the consensus" has been fairly raised and I should not dismiss it simply because Jimbo never answers a direct question and confuses climate with weather and only presents data that is cherrypicked to support is view of any issue........but still.

From memory....the 97% was of QUALIFIED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.......and on the dissent voiced by Bad Jimbos of various sorts, the study was redone and confirmed.

so....I went back to the OP. Ha, ha.......Bad Jimbo tries to hide his balls by claiming whatever is the opinion of "Meterologists" and worse that "Meteorologists are the scientists most likely to understand if unusual weather extremes are weather or climate change." ///////////// Just go look at the link that Bad Jimbo actually chose to provide. What is says is: "TV Weathercasters’ Views of Climate Change Appear to Be Rapidly Evolving...." aka: Jimbo cannot be trusted to report anything accurately. Bad Jimbo says only 20% of these "Scientists" endorse AGW........the article says 80%. Who ya gonna believe............Bad Jimbo or your own eyes?

Denying Science: its a tough gig.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Archer17
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:27 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Archer17 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Archer17 wrote:Sorry if I wasn’t more clear. As I touched on later in my post I think “it” is global warming with human activity playing a part, how much of one I don’t know. What I tried to convey in my first paragraph is that citing a “scientific consensus” or lack of one isn’t going to end the debate.
You've been misled by the likes of James Steel: there is no debate. THAT is what the consensus is all about.

Philosophy in a vacuum vs scientific pragmatism. The debate about AGW makes as much sense as saying there is a debate regarding evolution or the age of the Earth. ====>There is no debate. AGW is "it." The fact that "you don't know" adds no weight or doubt.......like everything else in the world, most of which none of us know anything about, your/our/my ignorance is not a position but only an opportunity to learn.
I like your last sentence here but when it comes to AGW and “debate” you miss the mark, with me anyway. I feel the sum of human causation in our current climate change is not something that can be whittled down to an all or nothing proposition, which does leave some room for debate. In fact most of the AGW debates I’ve come across wasn’t about “yes” or “no.”
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:World Powers?---don't mix a fringe element claiming to be scientifically based skeptics.....and don't confuse World Power with anything but corruption.
I’m not sure what your meaning is here but it’s obvious you didn’t get mine. By “world powers” I was referring to countries and entities like the EU/UN agencies that have the clout to enact things like ‘climate’ treaties and carbon-credit agreements.
The plural of anecdote is not data.