The truth of global warming II

[Catawba]

No, I showed how what you posted was BS. And again, "You have debunked nothing and have refused to address the facts of my links".

When will you address the facts of my links?

Ptif doesn't do facts. Besides who needs facts when you have dissenting opinions from online blogs?

 

[iamitter]

What facts. The GW facts are not really facts but opinions.

I had to blink here.

The facts in this paper are not pro-global warming, you understand.
Read the paper and get back to me, they are about how those particular individuals falsified data and were intellectually dishonest.

 

[ptif219]

Ptif doesn't do facts. Besides who needs facts when you have dissenting opinions from online blogs?

So you have nothing I get it

 

[iamitter]

It does not make any better it just means they agree it proves nothing. If two agree and it is wrong it changes nothing

So what in your opinion makes something true in science?
When a majority of the public accepts it as true?

 

[ptif219]

I had to blink here.

The facts in this paper are not pro-global warming, you understand.
Read the paper and get back to me, they are about how those particular individuals falsified data and were intellectually dishonest.

What paper?

 

[ptif219]

So what in your opinion makes something true in science?
When a majority of the public accepts it as true?

When facts can be proven. When they don't have to use hysteria and doom and gloom, when they don't have to manipulate data to make it say what they want it to say.

 

[Catawba]

I gave many links and Mac refused to show that the peer review was not GW scientists

Peer Review Process -

"The arbiter of scientific quality
Developments in science and medicine are frequently the subject of news headlines and public discussion. With increasing amounts of scientific information being put into the public domain, and a growing number of organisations involved in promoting and discussing scientific research, it can be difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously.
With so much information it is often difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously. Which are ‘scares’? Sometimes scientists are reported as saying conflicting things. How do we know what to believe?
There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to decide which research results should be published in a scientific journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers) before they are made public.
More than one million scientific research papers are published in scientific journals worldwide every year. Despite its extensive use and recognition among scientists in assessing the plausibility of research claims, in the rest of society very little is known about the existence of the peer-review process or what it involves.

Sense About Science believes that peer review is an essential arbiter of scientific quality and that information about the status of research results is as important as the findings themselves. We have a very serious commitment to popularising an understanding of how scientific quality is assessed. To this end, we have recently published a short guide to peer review. The guide was one of the key recommendations of our Working Party on peer review, which was established in 2002. We have also developed, together with teachers, an education resource complete with worksheets, articles, and comprehension and role play exercises. It will arm students, and anyone else that uses it, with the tools to question science stories from the media."

Sense About Science | Peer Review

 

[iamitter]

What paper?

This one

 

[Catawba]

When facts can be proven.

How are they proven?

 

[marduc]

So then I am right it is GW scientist approving their own. You have no proof

I have no proof of what? things I have not claimed, or things I have not argued? I made one point to you, yet you either are deliberately trying to make a different argument for me, or you are essentially arguing at a comparable level to a parrot who has zero comprehension of what is said and can do nothing but squawk over and over "You have no proof, bwarrrk!!"

 

[ptif219]

Peer Review Process -

"The arbiter of scientific quality
Developments in science and medicine are frequently the subject of news headlines and public discussion. With increasing amounts of scientific information being put into the public domain, and a growing number of organisations involved in promoting and discussing scientific research, it can be difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously.
With so much information it is often difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously. Which are ‘scares’? Sometimes scientists are reported as saying conflicting things. How do we know what to believe?
There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to decide which research results should be published in a scientific journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers) before they are made public.
More than one million scientific research papers are published in scientific journals worldwide every year. Despite its extensive use and recognition among scientists in assessing the plausibility of research claims, in the rest of society very little is known about the existence of the peer-review process or what it involves.

Sense About Science believes that peer review is an essential arbiter of scientific quality and that information about the status of research results is as important as the findings themselves. We have a very serious commitment to popularising an understanding of how scientific quality is assessed. To this end, we have recently published a short guide to peer review. The guide was one of the key recommendations of our Working Party on peer review, which was established in 2002. We have also developed, together with teachers, an education resource complete with worksheets, articles, and comprehension and role play exercises. It will arm students, and anyone else that uses it, with the tools to question science stories from the media."

Sense About Science | Peer Review

Yet It is corrupted in the GW community.Can you show that GW peer review is not done by other GW scientist?

 

[ptif219]

This one

I am not going to wade through a PDF file

 

[ptif219]

How are they proven?

Easily with facts. For instance we ccan prove 1+1 =2.

You can not prove what percent of warming is caused by man

 

[Catawba]

Yet It is corrupted in the GW community.Can you show that GW peer review is not done by other GW scientist?

You have been shown what the peer review process is here.

I can't help you with comprehension.

 

[ptif219]

I have no proof of what? things I have not claimed, or things I have not argued? I made one point to you, yet you either are deliberately trying to make a different argument for me, or you are essentially arguing at a comparable level to a parrot who has zero comprehension of what is said and can do nothing but squawk over and over "You have no proof, bwarrrk!!"

You said it is not peer reviewed by IPCC so I said prove it is not peer reviewed by GW scientists. Another words it it peer reviewed by their own or by climatologists that are not involved in GW research?

 

[ptif219]

You have been shown what the peer review process is here.

I can't help you with comprehension.

You have no proven the process for GW

 

[mbig]

ptif219.
Have you made a post in this string (or mb for that matter), that is longer than one sentence- maybe 2 if you're on a streak?
Check your last score or more of posts on the board and topic. ALL of them could fit into one good medium size post.
Same in our other encounter in Breaking News Blogs.

We know you have a political position, but others are making all the coherent posts here- while you play-Fox-News all over the board with No knowledge of this or ANY topic.

You've made 1200+ posts in this section (probably 100+ in this string alone), and yet you Haven't demonstrated ANY knowledge of the Environment or climate whatsoever. Just an effort to discredit acknowledged/widelyaccepted peer-reviewed science.
Talking points, Hackery/Harrassment with no meat.

 

[Catawba]

Easily with facts. For instance we ccan prove 1+1 =2.

You can not prove what percent of warming is caused by man

Empirical evidence is fact. This has been shown to you many times.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

 

[ptif219]

ptif219.
Have you made a post in this string (or mb for that matter), that is longer than one sentence- maybe 2 if you're on a streak?
Check your last score or more of posts on the board and topic. ALL of them could fit into one good medium size post.
Same in our other encounter in Breaking News Blogs.

We know you have a political position, but others are making all the coherent posts here- while you play-Fox-News all over the board with No knowledge of this or ANY topic.

You've made 1200+ posts in this section (probably 100+ in this string alone), and yet you Haven't demonstrated any knowledge of the Environment or climate whatsoever. Just an effort to discredit acknowledged/widelyaccepted peer-reviewed science.
Talking points, Hackery/Harrassment with no meat at all.

Nice deflection and rant that says almost nothing

 

[ptif219]

Empirical evidence is fact. This has been shown to you many times.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

So you want to change the subject because you have no answer for GW peer review.

So then you should be able to tell me how much has the temp increased because of man

 

[Catawba]

So you want to change the subject because you have no answer for GW peer review.

Do you not understand that empirical evidence is fact?

So then you should be able to tell me how much has the temp increased because of man.

1.5 degrees so far? Are you interested in no other facts?

 

[mac]

That is deceiving because in that 100 years there were cooling periods. Of course we expect deception fron Global warming promoters

There are gonna be ups and down, it's the trend that matters.

 

[zachjj]

OK, ptif219. I have read many of your posts and of others and do not agree with your point of view. However, what I am about to say has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you on this issue.

I can easily see that you are strongly against the point of view of the "alarmists". But when ANYONE tries to either 1) get you to read an article based on the opposite point of view or 2) give you cold, hard facts that support their side, you either completely deny that they have any valid points at all, when in fact YOU have not offered a rebuttal to at least half the logical GW points (because apparently, according to you, ALL GW scientists/promoters are corrupt, evil, and deliberately trying to deceive you), or you find them beneath your notice and keep going on your merry way until you CAN find something to dispute, and usually it's about alleged facts presented by GW scientists that are, if I were to only read your posts, always false and purposefully misleading.

The facts are that you have provided very little evidence to support your point of view and that your whole side of the story is based on the corruption and misinformation of the GW scientists. You are simply saying NO THATS NOT TRUE with your eyes closed. You won't even look at the evidence to the contrary. That is what really ticks me off about most of your posts.

I am not saying your point of view is wrong. To the contrary; a lot people agree with you and they have evidence and data to back up their side of the story. I just wish you would use rational reasons instead of caustically attacking anyone who is against you. (yes, I know, it's hypocritical as that is exactly what I'm doing right now)

But nothing else seems to get through to you. This is the only way I can think of. So I apologize for inevitably offending you (this was meant to be offensive so maybe you'd listen) but I am getting angrier and angrier with every post I read.

 

[ptif219]

Do you not understand that empirical evidence is fact?



1.5 degrees so far? Are you interested in no other facts?

If you have the evidence how much of the rise in temp is from man

 

[ptif219]

There are gonna be ups and down, it's the trend that matters.

No it is deception that it has all been warming. This is what the GW propagandists do that is why they have no credibility