Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A fine dishonest denier thread.
Weatherman, why did you claim a no-name sociologist in New Zealand was "climate scientist"?
And why have all you other deniers jumped on that lying bandwagon?
I'll answer that. It's because every denier always lies about everything. Duh.
What's next deniers, finding quotes from blog commenters? How desperate are you to pretend to be persecuted, and to deflect from your own fanatical Stalinism?
Oh, Dr. Jerod Gilbert is a dumbass, for the record.
Unlike we rational people, all deniers on this board, without exception, are still proud Stalinists Howdesperate are you to pretend to be persecutedf any of them would like to prove otherwise by condemning the denier attempts to jail Dr. Mann, step right up.
ah right ..they already have and what about the space station?NASA can't even get a man in space.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.it not deflection it's fact.
I've lost nothing.
Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
I notice your failure to condemn the Republican attempts to have Dr. Mann and other climate scientists jailed.
dude, your response is priceless. So explain to the class how NASA gets an astronaut to the space station?ah right ..they already have and what about the space station?NASA can't even get a man in space.obviously you've never given up yours .do you need your binky?Yawn ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.Lmao yes You are deflecting because you are so ignorant and didn't know what method Cook used...
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.
NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
willful ignorance at it's finest.
The term climate sceptic is now interchangeable with the term mindless fool.
Pretty much as far as I had to read. Except to confirm this guy is a fucking SOCIOLOGIST -- with license to meddle in damn near ANYTHING "human"..If 100 of the best-qualified engineers were asked to assess the structural integrity of a house and 97 of them said it was unsafe, who would listen to the other three engineers and buy the house?
