How’s That Wind Power Working Out for You?

[mamooth]

Address the point,

_Five_ power-weeping threads directed at me?

Wow.

I've owned loser-bitches before, but this might be a new record.

 

[elektra]

There's "low", there's "whaleshit-low", and there's "elektra-low".

maMOOT, true or not true, that is a moot point, unrelated to the question, which even maMOOT will not answer

hahahahahaha

 

[elektra]

_Five_ power-weeping threads directed at me?

Wow.

I've owned loser-bitches before, but this might be a new record.

Five threads? You do mean I addressed your rant with five comments. You have been addressed by five comments, in one thread. maMOOT does not know the difference?

Separated to keep it clear, for maMOOTs limited intelligence.

 

[mamooth]

Seven! A new record!

 

[elektra]

Seven! A new record!

Go for 8

 

[elektra]

Go for 8

Or 9 , or 10 moot points, maMOOT

 

[elektra]

So you Whiffed on the Death Penalty bet on your LIE tha I and Crick are the same person.
Let's be clear, You are a caught and defeated LIAR.

You lost, it was clear, now you wont abide by the terms ypu made

How much did it cost, how much more will they spend

 

[abu afak]

You lost, it was clear, now you wont abide by the terms ypu made

How much did it cost, how much more will they spend

So You have NO more LIE about me and Crick being the same person/sock puppets.
You ldiotic POS.
`

 

[elektra]

So You have NO more LIE about me and Crick being the same person/sock puppets.
You ldiotic POS.
`

You seem like the same person to me, crick and abu afk.

Crick replies to the posts where I quote abu afk as if that post quoted and is replying to crick.

Take your beef up with yourself, i mean crick

 

[Crick]

You seem like the same person to me, crick and abu afk.

Crick replies to the posts where I quote abu afk as if that post quoted and is replying to crick.

Take your beef up with yourself, i mean crick

Our conversations recently, concerning scientists agreeing with the IPCC and how high is the sky, have not left you looking all that crispy. Returning to this is... well... your choice I guess. You have fun with this. You deserve a little.

 

[elektra]

Our conversations recently, concerning scientists agreeing with the IPCC and how high is the sky, have not left you looking all that crispy. Returning to this is... well... your choice I guess. You have fun with this. You deserve a little.

Post something other than the opinion of Eisntien.

There are over 6 million scientists.

Your wikipedia post sats specifically that only actively publishing scientist's papers in one particular journal were used.

That proves a 100% of scientists were not asked.

Your post proves only a minority of papers met the parameters they set.

Crick will not post the study, at most a summary of the study might get posted.

Crick, you made the claim, prove it. Wikipedia cut/paste of einstein proves you are lost and dont know a thing

 

[Crick]

Post something other than the opinion of Eisntien.

There are over 6 million scientists.

Your wikipedia post sats specifically that only actively publishing scientist's papers in one particular journal were used.

That proves a 100% of scientists were not asked.

Your post proves only a minority of papers met the parameters they set.

Crick will not post the study, at most a summary of the study might get posted.

Crick, you made the claim, prove it. Wikipedia cut/paste of einstein proves you are lost and dont know a thing

What the fuck is wrong with you? All you are showing here is dishonesty or ignorance. You pick.

 

[elektra]

What the fuck is wrong with you? All you are showing here is dishonesty or ignorance. You pick.

What is wrong? You made a claim. I know exactly where that claim comes from.

A narrow sample of papers, not climate scientists, were surveyed under a very wide parameter. From that sample they hypothesised what we are to believe what all scientist think of AGW.

Dishonesty and ignorance. If that is the case crick/abu afk can easily prove my statement wrong.

Crick's nice long rant that includes Einstein, as crick stated, has nothing to do with this.

Prove you opinion, crick. Show how what I just wrote is not fact.

I will grin for a long time, knowing you will have to somehow avoid the trap you just set for yourself, that you walked into.

 

[Crick]

What is wrong? You made a claim. I know exactly where that claim comes from.

A narrow sample of papers, not climate scientists, were surveyed under a very wide parameter. From that sample they hypothesised what we are to believe what all scientist think of AGW.

Dishonesty and ignorance. If that is the case crick/abu afk can easily prove my statement wrong.

Crick's nice long rant that includes Einstein, as crick stated, has nothing to do with this.

Prove you opinion, crick. Show how what I just wrote is not fact.

I will grin for a long time, knowing you will have to somehow avoid the trap you just set for yourself, that you walked into.

God are you stupid.

 

[elektra]

God are you stupid.

Right or wrong prove it.

Crick made the claim that 99% of scientists agree.

Crick knows that percentage comes from a study of published papers, not a survey of scientists.

Crick will post everything he/she can, to avoid posting the study.

Crick will post opinions from multiple sources stating they also believe.

But as you can see, the actual study can not be seen because crick knows the study shows that the scientist were not asked.

Call me stupid, certainly stupid is many levels above crick's ability think.

Sad really, poor cricket

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

Right or wrong prove it.

Well, really, I think that's up to you...

What is wrong? You made a claim. I know exactly where that claim comes from.

Oh fuck NO!!!!

A narrow sample of papers, not climate scientists, were surveyed under a very wide parameter.

A narrow sample? Hmm... let's see...

2012 - 13,950 peer reviewed articles
2012 - Follow Up study looks at another 2,258 articles
2013 - Study involving 11,944 abstracts
2015 - Study involving 24,210 peer reviewed articles representing 64,406 authors
2017 - Study involving 54,195 articles with rejection as the criteria: 99.94%
2017 - Later study of another 11,600 articles: 100%
2021 - Study randomly selecting 3,000 papers out of 88,125 peer reviewed, climate-related studies found 00.1% expressing skepticism
2021 - Survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found 91 - 100% concurrence depending on group. 98.7% of climate scientists concurred which rose to 100% for climate scientists who had published 20 or more papers.

From that sample they hypothesised (sic) what we are to believe what(sic) all scientist think of AGW.

There is no better way, that the size of the consensus existing among climate scientists can be measured. These papers are their opinions, their data, their analyses and their conclusions. And don't let me forget to point out along these lines you have absolutely shite.

Dishonesty and ignorance. If that is the case crick/abu afk can easily prove my statement wrong.

Is this going to be a common strategy with you? To use your sock puppet fantasy as a distraction?

Crick's nice long rant that includes Einstein, as crick stated, has nothing to do with this.

Is English your second language? A rant would be something I said, that I wrote. I don't think a comment, clearly identified as having been made by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in an article, clearly in Wikipedia qualifies. And if you admit that it "has nothing to do with this", perhaps you could be so kind as to explain then WHY YOU brought it up?

Prove you(sic) opinion, crick. Show how what I just wrote is not fact.

I just did.

I will grin for a long time, knowing you will have to somehow avoid the trap you just set for yourself, that you walked into.

"...avoid the trap..." ? ? ? Well... now, I really hate to belabor a point... but HOW old are you ? ? ?
You know, in looking back through our conversation I saw in a post of yours - that may have been aimed at Mamooth... not sure - that you really highlighted "4 years old". Big question: what that a hint?

My initial response to the above Elektran comments was "God are you stupid". He came back with the comments below

elektra then​

said:​

Right or wrong prove it. [It being, I guess, the part about Elektra being stupid]

​

I'm afraid that is still you're task

elektra then
said:

Crick made the claim that 99% of scientists agree.​

​

No, actually, I did not. I have on several occasions stated that 99+% of published climate scientists agree with the IPCC but in this instance I said, and I quote "There is nothing irrational, illogical or unsupportable about the conclusion of the IPCC - that almost every scientist on the planet has accepted - that the primary cause of Earth's warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions." This is the second time I have had to quote myself because Elektra, I'm afraid, keeps LYING about what I said.

​

elektra then
said:

Crick knows that percentage comes from a study of published papers, not a survey of scientists.​

I do know what that article says having linked to it many times here. I also know that in not one of the 18,559 posts I have put up on this board have I ever said 99% of all scientists accept the IPCC conclusions, though it is very likely very close to being perfectly correct.

​

elektra then
said:

Crick will post everything he/she can, to avoid posting the study.​

​

Study? What study?

​

elektra then
said:

Crick will post opinions from multiple sources stating they also believe.​

​

But as you can see, the actual study can not be seen because crick knows the study shows that the scientist were not asked.​

​

Call me stupid, certainly stupid is many levels above crick's ability think.​

​

Sad really, poor cricket​

​

I think that by "study" Elektra is referring to the Wikipedia article or perhaps to some of the studies within the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure. But, happily, since I have posted a link to that Wikipedia page in this thread and on many other occasions (and in case you missed them all its at Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia) and as well have posted the multi-page segment from the article, listing all the many national and international science academies that have put out public statements of their support for the IPCC conclusions - you know, the multi-page segment that Elektra completely missed just before telling me that this same Wikipedia article disputes what I've said just before he started lying about what I actually HAD said, anyone reading this will be perfectly able to examine any and all studies that might fall into Elektra's unreferenced "study".

 

[elektra]

Right or wrong prove it.

Well, really, I think that's up to you...

Oh fuck NO!!!!

A narrow sample? Hmm... let's see...

2012 - 13,950 peer reviewed articles
2012 - Follow Up study looks at another 2,258 articles
2013 - Study involving 11,944 abstracts
2015 - Study involving 24,210 peer reviewed articles representing 64,406 authors
2017 - Study involving 54,195 articles with rejection as the criteria: 99.94%
2017 - Later study of another 11,600 articles: 100%
2021 - Study randomly selecting 3,000 papers out of 88,125 peer reviewed, climate-related studies found 00.1% expressing skepticism
2021 - Survey of 2,780 Earth scientists found 91 - 100% concurrence depending on group. 98.7% of climate scientists concurred which rose to 100% for climate scientists who had published 20 or more papers.


There is no better way, that the size of the consensus existing among climate scientists can be measured. These papers are their opinions, their data, their analyses and their conclusions. And don't let me forget to point out along these lines you have absolutely shite.

Is this going to be a common strategy with you? To use your sock puppet fantasy as a distraction?

Is English your second language? A rant would be something I said, that I wrote. I don't think a comment, clearly identified as having been made by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in an article, clearly in Wikipedia qualifies. And if you admit that it "has nothing to do with this", perhaps you could be so kind as to explain then WHY YOU brought it up?

I just did.

"...avoid the trap..." ? ? ? Well... now, I really hate to belabor a point... but HOW old are you ? ? ?
You know, in looking back through our conversation I saw in a post of yours - that may have been aimed at Mamooth... not sure - that you really highlighted "4 years old". Big question: what that a hint?

My initial response to the above Elektran comments was "God are you stupid". He came back with the comments below

elektra then​

said:​

Right or wrong prove it. [It being, I guess, the part about Elektra being stupid]

​

I'm afraid that is still you're task

elektra then
said:

Crick made the claim that 99% of scientists agree.​

​

No, actually, I did not. I have on several occasions stated that 99+% of published climate scientists agree with the IPCC but in this instance I said, and I quote "There is nothing irrational, illogical or unsupportable about the conclusion of the IPCC - that almost every scientist on the planet has accepted - that the primary cause of Earth's warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions." This is the second time I have had to quote myself because Elektra, I'm afraid, keeps LYING about what I said.

​

elektra then
said:

Crick knows that percentage comes from a study of published papers, not a survey of scientists.​

I do know what that article says having linked to it many times here. I also know that in not one of the 18,559 posts I have put up on this board have I ever said 99% of all scientists accept the IPCC conclusions, though it is very likely very close to being perfectly correct.

​

elektra then
said:

Crick will post everything he/she can, to avoid posting the study.​

​

Study? What study?

​

elektra then
said:

Crick will post opinions from multiple sources stating they also believe.​

​

But as you can see, the actual study can not be seen because crick knows the study shows that the scientist were not asked.​

​

Call me stupid, certainly stupid is many levels above crick's ability think.​

​

Sad really, poor cricket​

​

I think that by "study" Elektra is referring to the Wikipedia article or perhaps to some of the studies within the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure. But, happily, since I have posted a link to that Wikipedia page in this thread and on many other occasions (and in case you missed them all its at Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia) and as well have posted the multi-page segment from the article, listing all the many national and international science academies that have put out public statements of their support for the IPCC conclusions - you know, the multi-page segment that Elektra completely missed just before telling me that this same Wikipedia article disputes what I've said just before he started lying about what I actually HAD said, anyone reading this will be perfectly able to examine any and all studies that might fall into Elektra's unreferenced "study".

You still refuse to prove the 99% of scientists agree.

A group of people determined what a few scientists thought according to a set of parameters, applied to articles.

The IPCC, which is the United Nations, is now the weatherman. Being paid billions, for research, sounds like they found the goose that lays the golden eggs

 

[Crick]

You still refuse to prove the 99% of scientists agree.

A group of people determined what a few scientists thought according to a set of parameters, applied to articles.

The IPCC, which is the United Nations, is now the weatherman. Being paid billions, for research, sounds like they found the goose that lays the golden eggs

First things first, wind power, really, is working incredibly well for me. I could NOT be happier with it. It's better than hot buttered toast and a bucket of chocolate. Really.

Now then. Tell you what Ms Elektra, I will do my absolute darndest to prove that 99% of all scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions - will fully confess if I'm unable to do so, the INSTANT you present a quote of me saying they do.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel formed by the United Nations. It is not the United Nations. Neither is it "the weatherman". The IPCC does not monitor or forecast the weather. And, finally and most importantly, as you REALLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, the IPCC conducts no research. None. At all. What can I say man? Try to keep up.

 

[elektra]

First things first, wind power, really, is working incredibly well for me. I could NOT be happier with it. It's better than hot buttered toast and a bucket of chocolate. Really.

Now then. Tell you what Ms Elektra, I will do my absolute darndest to prove that 99% of all scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions - will fully confess if I'm unable to do so, the INSTANT you present a quote of me saying they do.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel formed by the United Nations. It is not the United Nations. Neither is it "the weatherman". The IPCC does not monitor or forecast the weather. And, finally and most importantly, as you REALLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, the IPCC conducts no research. None. At all. What can I say man? Try to keep up.

As, I have stated, there is no consensus of scientists that agree with

Now of course, crick changes what he/she has claimed, no longer is it AGW. Niw crick claims we were speaking of the IPCC.

Nice try idiot.

Just like you csn not follow and remember the comments you have made, now you think wind is working just fine.

Dementia is a bitch

 

[elektra]

Now then. Tell you what Ms Elektra, I will do my absolute darndest to prove that 99% of all scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions - will fully confess if I'm unable to do so, the INSTANT you present a quote of me saying they do.

Go ahead, prove it crick

NOAA comes clean ...

The biggest assumption, completely unproven, is that an additional 120ppm of CO2 can make a measurable increase in temperature. What they don't advertise is that their models are tuned to produce 2 to 3 times more warming than the GHG effect of CO2 alone. It's dishonest how they package their...

www.usmessageboard.com

Crick:
99% of those scientists agree with the conclusions stated in the IPCC's assessment reports; indicating that climate scientists are very widely in full agreement as to the basics of AGW.