Why we should listen to the 97%

[skookerasbil]

In 2013, the current state of climate crusader efforts.........

 

[skookerasbil]

God I love this forum!!!!

 

[Abraham3]

Is that comment supposed to have any relevance or is it just absurdist humor?

Weren't you whining about businnesses writing off their expenses?

I don't whine*. I was explaining things to you that you appeared not to understand.

* But you snark almost constantly

 

[Abraham3]

The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......

But don't take my word for it......see what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says >
The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."

Lets remember.......the climate crusaders have a need to be in a perpetual state of angst over this stuff.....a search for meaning in their lives leads them to obsessing about shit that virtually nobody else cares about!!

Webster's

RUSE: a trick, stratagem, or artifice.

Is that what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation actually said? Why NO. And what is the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Let's look and see what sort of places Skooker goes when he wants a good quote:

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Hmmm... tch, tch tch. We are not impressed... or amused.

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......

But don't take my word for it......see what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says >
The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."

Lets remember.......the climate crusaders have a need to be in a perpetual state of angst over this stuff.....a search for meaning in their lives leads them to obsessing about shit that virtually nobody else cares about!!

Webster's

RUSE: a trick, stratagem, or artifice.

Is that what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation actually said? Why NO. And what is the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Let's look and see what sort of places Skooker goes when he wants a good quote:

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Hmmm... tch, tch tch. We are not impressed... or amused.

That's right.......clearly, there are zero special interests involved in climate change science!!!!!


Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com



And anyway.......presenting bogus data as scientific fact is gay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that comment supposed to have any relevance or is it just absurdist humor?

Weren't you whining about businesses writing off their expenses?

I don't whine*. I was explaining things to you that you appeared not to understand.

* But you snark almost constantly

Excellent! Business write off does not equal subsidy.

Glad we're on the same page.

 

[daveman]

The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......

But don't take my word for it......see what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says >
The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."

Lets remember.......the climate crusaders have a need to be in a perpetual state of angst over this stuff.....a search for meaning in their lives leads them to obsessing about shit that virtually nobody else cares about!!

Webster's

RUSE: a trick, stratagem, or artifice.

Is that what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation actually said? Why NO. And what is the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Let's look and see what sort of places Skooker goes when he wants a good quote:

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Hmmm... tch, tch tch. We are not impressed... or amused.

Montford wrote the paper; it was published by the GWPF.

Here's the paper: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf -- not that you'll read it.

It's an interesting paper. It shows how Cook et. al. started with their conclusion, then looked for data to support it. The didn't mind outright lying, either:

This understanding of the Cook paper is confirmed by some surprising
categorisations of individual papers, with publications by the most prominent critics
of mainstream climate science said to endorse the consensus. For example, a paper
by Nir Shaviv,8 in the past described by Skeptical Science as a ‘denier’,9 was classified
as ‘Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise’ global warming.

Shaviv has rejected this classification of his work entirely:

…it is not an accurate representation [of my work]. The paper shows that…
climate sensitivity is low…I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the
paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach
these conclusions from the paper.10​

Similarly, Alan Carlin, formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has
criticised Cook et al.’s classification of his paper as explicitly endorsing, but not
minimising global warming, noting that the abstract makes clear his belief that
carbon dioxide will produce very little warming:

The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate
sensitivity factor…is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because
feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions
reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.11​

The treatment of the Shaviv paper is particularly interesting: its author did not
actively downplay global warming in the text because this would have made it
difficult to get the paper through peer review. So because of this silence on the
extent of manmade influence, its classification as endorsing the consensus was
correct according to the protocol set out for the raters.

It can be seen from these comments that both these authors accept that carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but believe that climate sensitivity – the amount of
warming we should expect – is low. The example of endorsement given in the
guidelines – ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes
contribute to global climate change’ – would not have been contradictory in either
paper. Again, one is left with the impression that the classification was correct,
confirming the shallow nature of the consensus.​

Like the rest of climate science, this study was simply badly done.

But, hey -- the suckers fell for it.

Didn't you?

 

[Abraham3]

The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......

But don't take my word for it......see what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says >
The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."

Lets remember.......the climate crusaders have a need to be in a perpetual state of angst over this stuff.....a search for meaning in their lives leads them to obsessing about shit that virtually nobody else cares about!!

Webster's

RUSE: a trick, stratagem, or artifice.

Is that what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation actually said? Why NO. And what is the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Let's look and see what sort of places Skooker goes when he wants a good quote:

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Hmmm... tch, tch tch. We are not impressed... or amused.

Montford wrote the paper; it was published by the GWPF.

Here's the paper: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf -- not that you'll read it.

It's an interesting paper. It shows how Cook et. al. started with their conclusion, then looked for data to support it. The didn't mind outright lying, either:

This understanding of the Cook paper is confirmed by some surprising
categorisations of individual papers, with publications by the most prominent critics
of mainstream climate science said to endorse the consensus. For example, a paper
by Nir Shaviv,8 in the past described by Skeptical Science as a ‘denier’,9 was classified
as ‘Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise’ global warming.

Shaviv has rejected this classification of his work entirely:

…it is not an accurate representation [of my work]. The paper shows that…
climate sensitivity is low…I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the
paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach
these conclusions from the paper.10​

Similarly, Alan Carlin, formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has
criticised Cook et al.’s classification of his paper as explicitly endorsing, but not
minimising global warming, noting that the abstract makes clear his belief that
carbon dioxide will produce very little warming:

The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate
sensitivity factor…is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because
feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions
reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.11​

The treatment of the Shaviv paper is particularly interesting: its author did not
actively downplay global warming in the text because this would have made it
difficult to get the paper through peer review. So because of this silence on the
extent of manmade influence, its classification as endorsing the consensus was
correct according to the protocol set out for the raters.

It can be seen from these comments that both these authors accept that carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but believe that climate sensitivity – the amount of
warming we should expect – is low. The example of endorsement given in the
guidelines – ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes
contribute to global climate change’ – would not have been contradictory in either
paper. Again, one is left with the impression that the classification was correct,
confirming the shallow nature of the consensus.​

Like the rest of climate science, this study was simply badly done.

But, hey -- the suckers fell for it.

Didn't you?

Out of over four thousand papers judged in this regard, your side of the argument has come up with a total of three authors that disagree. And, of course, this says nothing about the author's self-assessment, which almost exactly matched Cook's survey of the literature.

But, hey, some folks just don't want to believe the evidence in front of their very eyes.

And why ANYONE would take Andrew Montford's word for ANYTHING is beyond belief. He has no training or expertise in statistics or any of the climate sciences.

GWPF is a mouthpiece for Exxon/Mobil and lacks the scientific credentials to mow your grass.

 

[Abraham3]

That's right.......clearly, there are zero special interests involved in climate change science

Clearly there is zero value in a Skooker post.

And anyway.......presenting bogus data as scientific fact is gay.

Skooker, on top of your other impressive qualifications for lucid and intelligent debate, are you also a homophobe?

 

[Abraham3]

Weren't you whining about businesses writing off their expenses?

I don't whine*. I was explaining things to you that you appeared not to understand.

* But you snark almost constantly

Excellent! Business write off does not equal subsidy.

Glad we're on the same page.

Sorry but no. My page lacks the free-ranging hallucinations yours seems to sport.

 

[daveman]

Webster's

RUSE: a trick, stratagem, or artifice.

Is that what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation actually said? Why NO. And what is the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Let's look and see what sort of places Skooker goes when he wants a good quote:

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Hmmm... tch, tch tch. We are not impressed... or amused.

Montford wrote the paper; it was published by the GWPF.

Here's the paper: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf -- not that you'll read it.

It's an interesting paper. It shows how Cook et. al. started with their conclusion, then looked for data to support it. The didn't mind outright lying, either:

This understanding of the Cook paper is confirmed by some surprising
categorisations of individual papers, with publications by the most prominent critics
of mainstream climate science said to endorse the consensus. For example, a paper
by Nir Shaviv,8 in the past described by Skeptical Science as a ‘denier’,9 was classified
as ‘Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise’ global warming.

Shaviv has rejected this classification of his work entirely:

…it is not an accurate representation [of my work]. The paper shows that…
climate sensitivity is low…I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the
paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach
these conclusions from the paper.10​

Similarly, Alan Carlin, formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has
criticised Cook et al.’s classification of his paper as explicitly endorsing, but not
minimising global warming, noting that the abstract makes clear his belief that
carbon dioxide will produce very little warming:

The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate
sensitivity factor…is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because
feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions
reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.11​

The treatment of the Shaviv paper is particularly interesting: its author did not
actively downplay global warming in the text because this would have made it
difficult to get the paper through peer review. So because of this silence on the
extent of manmade influence, its classification as endorsing the consensus was
correct according to the protocol set out for the raters.

It can be seen from these comments that both these authors accept that carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but believe that climate sensitivity – the amount of
warming we should expect – is low. The example of endorsement given in the
guidelines – ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes
contribute to global climate change’ – would not have been contradictory in either
paper. Again, one is left with the impression that the classification was correct,
confirming the shallow nature of the consensus.​

Like the rest of climate science, this study was simply badly done.

But, hey -- the suckers fell for it.

Didn't you?

Out of over four thousand papers judged in this regard, your side of the argument has come up with a total of three authors that disagree. And, of course, this says nothing about the author's self-assessment, which almost exactly matched Cook's survey of the literature.

But, hey, some folks just don't want to believe the evidence in front of their very eyes.

And why ANYONE would take Andrew Montford's word for ANYTHING is beyond belief. He has no training or expertise in statistics or any of the climate sciences.

GWPF is a mouthpiece for Exxon/Mobil and lacks the scientific credentials to mow your grass.

Yep, I can tell you didn't read the paper.

Why are you so afraid of conflicting views? I though you welcomed discussion. You don't, actually. You're terrified of it.

You're dismissed.

 

[Snookie]

Oil depletion allowance.

The company spent the money first

See the difference

What Abraham3 said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't whine*. I was explaining things to you that you appeared not to understand.

* But you snark almost constantly

Excellent! Business write off does not equal subsidy.

Glad we're on the same page.

Sorry but no. My page lacks the free-ranging hallucinations yours seems to sport.

Your confusion about subsidies suggests the LSD user was you.

 

[Abraham3]

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies. If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion. It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies. If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion. It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.

If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?

 

[Snookie]

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies. If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion. It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.

If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?

Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form. Why should businesses get special treatment for their expenses?

 

[Abraham3]

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies. If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion. It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.

If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?

Of course it is. Note, however, that I did not condemn such practices. I simply said citizens should be aware of them and should voice their opinion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies. If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion. It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.

If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?

Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form. Why should businesses get special treatment for their expenses?

Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form.

What work expenses do you have that you feel you should be able to deduct?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies. If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion. It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.

If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?

Of course it is. Note, however, that I did not condemn such practices. I simply said citizens should be aware of them and should voice their opinion.

Of course it is.

Every business in the country is a restricted group?

I simply said citizens should be aware of them and should voice their opinion.

Based on the discussion here, the ones complaining about them have voiced their opinion and, for the most part, exposed their poor understanding.

 

[Snookie]

If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?

Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form. Why should businesses get special treatment for their expenses?

Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form.

What work expenses do you have that you feel you should be able to deduct?

Work clothes, tools, transporatation, lunches, whores.