ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
You silly boy see the writing under those pie charts? They're called cites
Look
That's 3 seperate studies all coming to similar conclusion
That's what we're citing
Now tell us what's wrong with it
The horror of global warming!
- Thread starter kelly4
- Start date
Look
That's 3 seperate studies all coming to similar conclusion
That's what we're citing
Now tell us what's wrong with it
echelon1k1
New Member
Good call dumbass, show a picture citing paper's you've never read... You are a fucking retard...You silly boy see the writing under those pie charts? They're called cites
Look
That's 3 seperate studies all coming to similar conclusion
That's what we're citing
Now tell us what's wrong with it
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
So the only thing wrong with them is that you think I haven't read any of them?
Apart from that they're perfectly fine right?
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
Regardless whether or not "global warming" is a man made problem or
a natural cycle of the planet the debate is a good thing.
The debate is creating awareness to what we could be doing to ease pollution
and lessen our dependency on fossil fuels.
I can see both sides of the argument and both sides have worthy points. The debate
on global warming should be of benefit no matter who can claim their opinion to be factual
because we should be smart enough to take a better direction when it's all over.
We don't live in "Idiocracy" yet do we?
a natural cycle of the planet the debate is a good thing.
The debate is creating awareness to what we could be doing to ease pollution
and lessen our dependency on fossil fuels.
I can see both sides of the argument and both sides have worthy points. The debate
on global warming should be of benefit no matter who can claim their opinion to be factual
because we should be smart enough to take a better direction when it's all over.
We don't live in "Idiocracy" yet do we?
echelon1k1
New Member
you haven't nor could you possibly replicates cook.2013 without having access to webofknowledge.com. You fell short with Zimmerman as you don't have the source material.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
What a joke you are
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Now tell me what's wrong with cooks 2013?
echelon1k1
New Member
try and replicate what they did in that paper. then get back to me fucko...
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Lol you see those 3 pie charts from 3 separate studies?
That's called replication fuckwit
You go on and on about how we should read the studies then when it looks like we have what have you got
"Well now go replicate it"
Do you practice at being so pathetic or was it something you were born with?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
And what is your point?
echelon1k1
New Member
That you believe everything you read...
Here are the REAL results from his study;
explicit endorsement >50% - 65
explicit endorsement - 934
implicit endorsement - 2934
no position - 8269
implicit rejection - 53
explicit rejection - 15
explicit rejection <50% - 10
Cook et al says they looked at the abstracts of 11, 944 papers. Seeing as 8269 papers express NO POSITION on AGW I have no idea where this 97% is coming from.
NO ONE is disputing the EARTH is WARMING. The dispute arises when fuckheads like you and buck assert shit that isn't true because some liberal blog has force fed it to you or Obama has tweeted some more erroneous bullshit. 97% consensus based on cook et al? Please bitch... http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/24/undercooked-statistics/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search
Here are the REAL results from his study;
explicit endorsement >50% - 65
explicit endorsement - 934
implicit endorsement - 2934
no position - 8269
implicit rejection - 53
explicit rejection - 15
explicit rejection <50% - 10
Cook et al says they looked at the abstracts of 11, 944 papers. Seeing as 8269 papers express NO POSITION on AGW I have no idea where this 97% is coming from.
NO ONE is disputing the EARTH is WARMING. The dispute arises when fuckheads like you and buck assert shit that isn't true because some liberal blog has force fed it to you or Obama has tweeted some more erroneous bullshit. 97% consensus based on cook et al? Please bitch... http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/24/undercooked-statistics/
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Oh I see it's words that are confusing you
"97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming
Cook is specifically talking about the ones that are taking a position!!!
Here's a hint so that next time you know: he tells you with his words
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
I don't think there is enough data to prove the position of either side.
We don't know all of the trends or cycles the planet has gone through in it's 4.5 billion
years.
We don't know all of the trends or cycles the planet has gone through in it's 4.5 billion
years.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
how much data do you personally think we need?
echelon1k1
New Member
So 3933 say believe man causes global warming and 8269 say no position/more study and you think it equates to 97%. Cool story gov... Keep claiming 97% of scientists/climatologists etc... You've been caught out...Oh I see it's words that are confusing you
"97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming
Cook is specifically talking about the ones that are taking a position!!!
Here's a hint so that next time you know: he tells you with his words
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
The more the better.
There are far too many factors to consider in the global warming debate.
We don't have enough data across all contributing factors to be conclusive.
Geological & Meteorological data across 4.5 billion years as examples.
I just want to point out that we still have not proven conclusively what killed
the dinosaurs.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
No it's just no position your trying to sneak in "more study"
******
"Why did you not count those studies opinion on climate change"
******
"They didn't give one"
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Oh 4.5 billion years worth of meteorological data....
Nothing at all unrealistic about expectations like that
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
Right, "realistic".
We don't have the data needed for a conclusive answer.
I edited my previous post to point something out so I will share it here also.
We don't know what happened to the dinosaurs, something that has been researched extensively
over the years so I don't believe we can be 100% certain if global warming is man made or a natural
cycle.
I'm perfectly content admitting I don't know what may or may not be causing the
earth to warm. I don't mind asking for more widespread research to gain more knowledge.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
There is "widespread research" being done and the data in pretty much all cases points one way
At what point do we have enough data saying the same thing for you?