• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.

Like I said, if you are so certain that the majority of the earth's experts are wrong on this point, you should publish.
 
Like I said, if you are so certain that the majority of the earth's experts are wrong on this point, you should publish.
I trust that one day, these sciences will come around. This branch of science still has growing pains.
 
I trust that one day, these sciences will come around. This branch of science still has growing pains.

Yes, I'm sure you see the future quite clearly. And the world's experts over the last 60 years are all just really stupid.
 
Yes, I'm sure you see the future quite clearly. And the world's experts over the last 60 years are all just really stupid.
How can you possible say that?

I have been consistent in saying the scientists, in general, write good papers, and it's a very small number of them I have a problem with. I wish they could write them with more definite words, but the science isn't very precise. I have a problem with how the pundits lie about what the papers say.

Please don't forget this. Please start learning a thing or two about me instead of your default mode of saying I do something I do not.
 
How can you possible say that?

I have been consistent in saying the scientists, in general, write good papers, and it's a very small number of them I have a problem with. I wish they could write them with more definite words, but the science isn't very precise. I have a problem with how the pundits lie about what the papers say.

Please don't forget this. Please start learning a thing or two about me instead of your default mode of saying I do something I do not.

Oh, so all along your critiques have been solely aimed at the pundits? My bad! So your insistence that solar and other factors are being "ignored" was that the PUNDITS ignored these things, not the scientists? That makes much more sense because I showed you time and again how the scientists are NOT ignoring your favorite forcings.

Well, then, that's fine! Because I don't much care what the pundits say. I'm far more interested in what the SCIENTISTS say.

But I'm curious why you say something like this:

Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.

That doesn't sound like a critique of the "pundits" nor does it sound like you are complaining about a "small number" of the scientists with whom you disagree.

Sounds somewhat, shall we say, "imprecise" in your target.
 
Oh, so all along your critiques have been solely aimed at the pundits? My bad! So your insistence that solar and other factors are being "ignored" was that the PUNDITS ignored these things, not the scientists? That makes much more sense because I showed you time and again how the scientists are NOT ignoring your favorite forcings.

Well, then, that's fine! Because I don't much care what the pundits say. I'm far more interested in what the SCIENTISTS say.
Then why do you repeat reports from government agencies, which are often flawed. How about reading the actual papers instead of the IPCC cherry picked material.

But I'm curious why you say something like this:

Yes, the statistics out of the sciences when leaving out certain variables, with the broken models we have, says CO2 is a problem.

That doesn't sound like a critique of the "pundits" nor does it sound like you are complaining about a "small number" of the scientists with whom you disagree.

Sounds somewhat, shall we say, "imprecise" in your target.
First, keep in mind I said "the statistics." Statistics do not make facts. I'm not judging the scientists for leaving out variables they choose to leave out. I am not in their shoes and don't know their reasoning. Their work from what they use is correct. Keep in mind. How many papers go with things like "if we assume...." for the propert of something or a quantity of something. They do an exercise of "what if's" quite frequently. Then a pundit will come around and claim this what if scenario is reality.

Haven't you ever noticed things like that?
 
How about reading the actual papers instead of the IPCC cherry picked material.

Dude, please stop misrepresenting the facts. I have, on this forum itself, provided MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED CITATIONS when I make a point.

Please.

First, keep in mind I said "the statistics." Statistics do not make facts.

When you say things like that I sense you have no clue how statistics are actually used in science. No one (at least those of us who use statistics in our jobs) thinks statistics make "facts". Statistics, like most of science, merely point to the the most likely true data but are also the best means of avoiding biases. They are INDICATORS not proofs.
 
Dude, please stop misrepresenting the facts. I have, on this forum itself, provided MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED CITATIONS when I make a point.

Please.
I don't think I have, but for the record, you misrepresent what I say chronically.
 
Dude, please stop misrepresenting the facts. I have, on this forum itself, provided MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWED CITATIONS when I make a point.
Was your link in post #105 in this thread a peer reviewed citation?


This is about the extent most you guys do. Cite a writing by a journalist that misrepresents a peer reviewed paper.
 
Was your link in post #105 in this thread a peer reviewed citation?


This is about the extent most you guys do. Cite a writing by a journalist that misrepresents a peer reviewed paper.

I wish just a smidge of honesty would cross your posts from time to time.

Yes I occasionally post non-peer reviewed citations. But you HAVE TO ADMIT I'm OFTEN citing peer reviewed or legitimate science sources.

Do TRY to be honest from time to time.
 
I don't think I have, but for the record, you misrepresent what I say chronically.
What a load of crap!!

You are constantly lying and misrepresenting what people say. Especially the ones who prove you wrong. You love to attack, lie about, and troll people who regularly refute your lies and misinformation.

I don't know how many times you have claimed I don't actually read the literature when, in fact, I have used the literature to prove you wrong dozens of times.
 
Back
Top Bottom