Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Science, Math, and Philosophy Discussions regarding science, math, and/or philosophy.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2017, 02:57 PM   #101
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Anyway this is bad for my blood pressure. I gave up arguing with religious people a while ago, so no more. Plus we need a kinder, gentler polity here. More African posts please Zeno. World news is fascinating. American politics are like WWE at this stage.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 03:49 PM   #102
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
I gave up arguing with <insert any group here> a while ago, so no more.
I don't think I've ever read such an outlandish claim.
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 03:52 PM   #103
samsonh
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Belmont Alum
Posts: 3,309
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Please explain to me what part of this text your brain is unable to parse. Thanks.

This was in response to the outright shameless lie by Trolly that this was "weathermen and school teachers".

As for you, I have no idea what trip you're on. 78% is not 61%! Congratulations. Now why don't you expound wtf that has to do with anything?

I promise you that if you do, the point you imagine you're making will evaporate like mist. It's happened before.
TruthSayer,

Looks like I was right about you being banned from Poltics B Forum for being racist. Score!

The problem with your above post is that everyone can view the chart for themselves. It doesn't say what you say it does. Also, Obama isn't President anymore.
samsonh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 04:34 PM   #104
Trolly McTrollson
Under your bridges
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Midwestern America
Posts: 19,027
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

I mean, I'm doing you a favor here. Highlight the 78% figure and hope to god no one actually reads the article and your bull**** will be much harder to see through.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 04:35 PM   #105
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Please be nice folks. Reading the part where the article states that the numbers in the charts are percentages (and not number of respondents in each category) is REALLY hard work for people who aren't so good at reading for comprehension.
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 05:15 PM   #106
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,314
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

He's right(Tooth..), your wrong, no matter how you cut it. For those who really want to seize the matter the politicization of "global warming" is similar to Al Gore stating he "invented the internet".

Give them an inch and they take a mile ;I fully expect that the next "scientific revival" would be that the planets are going off orbit because we flush our toilets in the AM.

Its OK to want to have clean air and Pittsburgh is an example of that happening due to loss of industry but to take the entire meteorological exegesis and place it in our hands is a facile megalomania .

Awhile back I think there was something about one of these islands in the Pacific stating that their island was going to be submerged because of "global warming". Everyone with an issue will find it easy to blame "global warming" for their problems .

Its poor science , at best, but worse yet thinking of the abominable snowman type; the scientists (using this term loosely) just follow along like Pavlov's rats hoping to obtain satisfaction from their peers who find this aberrant generalization easy to follow but not scientifically verifiable.

I've seen the Obama lie but that's another issue but wait!! this is a political issue mulled up in the congressional out houses, white and otherwise.

Yada,yada,yada....

And another thing; the need for "authority" to plan ones life ,thoughts, and thinking is unbelievably strong in our times and has been for some time; this is especially true in "America" . Deny the authoritarians even if you're wrong for its the way of "future man" individuals, always, and tomorrow.

Last edited by carlo; 02-14-2017 at 05:35 PM.
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 06:58 PM   #107
chezlaw
Limey Bastard
 
chezlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 31,913
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonh View Post
TruthSayer,

Looks like I was right about you being banned from Poltics B Forum for being racist. Score!
That might be misleading as he wasn't banned by politics v7.0. It's not really clear why he can post here but not there.
chezlaw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:29 PM   #108
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,314
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post
He's right(Tooth..), your wrong, no matter how you cut it. For those who really want to seize the matter the politicization of "global warming" is similar to Al Gore stating he "invented the internet".

Give them an inch and they take a mile ;I fully expect that the next "scientific revival" would be that the planets are going off orbit because we flush our toilets in the AM.

Its OK to want to have clean air and Pittsburgh is an example of that happening due to loss of industry but to take the entire meteorological exegesis and place it in our hands is a facile megalomania .

Awhile back I think there was something about one of these islands in the Pacific stating that their island was going to be submerged because of "global warming". Everyone with an issue will find it easy to blame "global warming" for their problems .

Its poor science , at best, but worse yet thinking of the abominable snowman type; the scientists (using this term loosely) just follow along like Pavlov's rats hoping to obtain satisfaction from their peers who find this aberrant generalization easy to follow but not scientifically verifiable.

I've seen the Obama lie but that's another issue but wait!! this is a political issue mulled up in the congressional out houses, white and otherwise.

Yada,yada,yada....

And another thing; the need for "authority" to plan ones life ,thoughts, and thinking is unbelievably strong in our times and has been for some time; this is especially true in "America" . Deny the authoritarians even if you're wrong for its the way of "future man" individuals, always, and tomorrow.
This is foolish as I didn't say it properly but Toothsayer is right and u guys are wrong. He gives good reason and understanding to the matter and I can't see how one can gainsay what he's saying; its a matter of the real and not one's feelings or desires .
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 09:38 PM   #109
lastcardcharlie
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
lastcardcharlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: QED, I think
Posts: 7,333
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Pity he's pathologically incapable of being wrong about anything ever.
lastcardcharlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:15 PM   #110
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Maybe they do percentages differently in our vassal state and a chart that clearly states 78% means 61% there.
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:24 PM   #111
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,314
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastcardcharlie View Post
Pity he's pathologically incapable of being wrong about anything ever.
Unkind, and doesn't follow from the evidence. This (these) discussions should stay away from the ego of another and the hate and foul play that comes from the politics forum and again in this thread is mind numbing.

If the pecker birds can't take the heat then they should sit on their hands ; they might learn something. I admire Toothsayer's work and the effort thereof and he doesn't need me as an apologist.

Its enough; its getting icky. The best to you, Charlie.
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:30 PM   #112
FoldnDark
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
FoldnDark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: St. Louie
Posts: 11,577
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

To be clear, the charge is that the majority of climate change scientists who conclude global warming is happening, influenced by man, and dangerous are doing bad science? They're influenced by big money coming from... where? Or they're biased because they're all liberals who want to undermine the economy? Something else? Seems like conspiracy theory.
FoldnDark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2017, 11:52 PM   #113
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Come on FnD, everyone knows that it is economics that makes smart people take those high-paying university associate professor positions!
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 01:36 AM   #114
Trolly McTrollson
Under your bridges
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Midwestern America
Posts: 19,027
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark View Post
To be clear, the charge is that the majority of climate change scientists who conclude global warming is happening, influenced by man, and dangerous are doing bad science? They're influenced by big money coming from... where? Or they're biased because they're all liberals who want to undermine the economy? Something else? Seems like conspiracy theory.
What's truly bizarre is that climatologists are self-interested clowns influenced by this sinister Koch bros. bias and should be dismissed offhand, but according to TS, "atmospheric physicists"* are totally reliable sources.



* -- Actually, his reference describes them as "meteorologists and atmospheric science" people, but blatantly lying about his own reference is par for the course.


Also:

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post
similar to Al Gore stating he "invented the internet".
You're putting that in quotes, but Al Gore never said that.
Trolly McTrollson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 01:58 AM   #115
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo View Post
This is foolish as I didn't say it properly but Toothsayer is right and u guys are wrong. He gives good reason and understanding to the matter and I can't see how one can gainsay what he's saying; its a matter of the real and not one's feelings or desires .
They're just angry and ignorant (for example, above you see Trolly implying that publishing meteorologists aren't atmospheric physicists -an absolute howler that exposes his ignorance). Sadly this debate has approached a religion, and people like trolly act with cult-level zeal in sliming and hating on anyone who points out false claims made by cult members. It's all emotion, and even the intelligent like Trolly get caught up in the hate.

I'm not sure who's responsible for this zeal. Certainly the anti-science attitudes of the ignorant bible belt plays a part in hardening the more rational side, but I think ultimately it flows out of ignorant journalists, bloggers and twitters jumping on the bandwagon of mass moralistic fearmongering - because it gets clicks, and because the loudest voices tend to be the most self interested or irrationally passionate. Then you create self sustaining religious zealots like Trolly.

This kind of lower-brain-stem existence has even filtered into science a little - long standing professors with good reputations have been fired for questioning global warming or elements of it. If someone offers a rational critique - like mine above - they are slimed by people living in their lower brain stem. Deplatformed. Universities are harassed and protested until the person is fired.

It's a worrying trend, this growing bigotry. Not sure what to do about it. I think the Internet amplifies it.

Last edited by ToothSayer; 02-15-2017 at 02:25 AM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 02:13 AM   #116
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark View Post
To be clear, the charge is that the majority of climate change scientists who conclude global warming is happening, influenced by man, and dangerous are doing bad science?
That far stronger statement is not in evidence imo, but I think it's very very likely to be true that the majority of climatologists would agree with that statement - probably around 60%.

The charge however is that the claim that 97% of scientists agree with this statement is a false claim. That's not even debatable; it is a false claim. If someone like Trolly can't admit that, their rational brains are gone; they're either deeply ignorant or this has become a religion for them.

Do I think they're doing bad science? Not really. The science is the science and says very little so far; the science is ok apart from the normal problems of the low reliability of science in uncertain fields. To get to the public narrative from "the science" requires a huge amount of reaching. The same thing happened in say, the saturated fat consensus. Individually, the large number of highly reliable, high impact studies showing the evils of saturated fat weren't bad science either. They were wrong, however, because of publishing bias, groupthink, excessive extrapolation.

And epidemiology is far more concrete and reliable than climate modeling.
Quote:
They're influenced by big money coming from... where?
When you write a research grant proposal, what gets funded? One that talks up and investigates dire environmental issues? Or one that doesn't? When you go to model and examine data sets and publish what you find, what are you looking for? Lack of a signal or a signal?

When you want to write a book, or go to conferences or on speaking tours or on TV, who gets invited? The ones pushing the strongest messages, and dire warnings? Or the ones calling for calm, rationality, and calling out the huge uncertainty and unreliability inherent in the predictions?

This is an enormous problem in science, not just climatology, and the more uncertain and data-snooped the field, the worse it gets. I've quoted the example of saturated fat before in detail. Not sure if you read those. Another enormous example: PSA tests for prostate cancer. A vast whole medical industry developed around those, and both the science and the practices of the profession revolved around what brought in the most money/toward intervention. I highly recommend reading this article on PSA to see how both science and professional practice and consensus gets distorted. This is how the world works, man. "Follow the money" is a bigger thing than you think. The money isn't just in what the green lobby screams as evil.
Quote:
Or they're biased because they're all liberals who want to undermine the economy? Something else? Seems like conspiracy theory.
There's no conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory is in believing these are all noble individuals being kept down by big money interests like oil and Koch. In reality, in uncertain fields, groupthink, publishing bias, self interest, and ideological bent (a lot of the people who go into fields like climatology tend to want to "save" the environment), come together to create this kind of nonsense.

In the 1950s, scientists were certain - there was wide consensus - that it was absurd that human CO2 could ever have any effect on the climate. They had multiple extremely strong and very valid reasons for this belief. They were wrong, of course. But why were they wrong? And why were they so certain, despite being wrong? Answer that and you'll start to understand the biases in science and the low reliability of highly uncertain (and especially consensus in highly uncertain fields).

As for me, I'm strongly strongly pro emissions cuts. Not just for the climate risk, but for things like ocean acidification (which is overblown, but not something we should be messing with). It has to work, however. If the policy simply shifts manufacturing to countries with far lower energy efficiency, the policy has the oppposite effect to that intended and is a disaster. This is the current state of affairs, sadly. Legislation and agreements are pushed through that have the opposite effect to that intended, and and celebrated by the green warriors as "doing something". It's sick, frankly, if you actually care about the environment and CO2 emissions.

Bigots like Trolly though don't get as far as thinking through consequences and effectiveness. It's a religion for them. You're either WITH US and our narrative, or you're against us. Brain stem stuff. It's sad. People like that end up actually causing more damage. If there were more climate skeptics like me and fewer climate true believers/bigots like Trolly, I believe we'd have done more by now.

Last edited by ToothSayer; 02-15-2017 at 02:27 AM.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 02:26 AM   #117
FoldnDark
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
FoldnDark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: St. Louie
Posts: 11,577
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Well, one thing I can agree with on that. Trolly is a ****tard. He follows me around the forum calling me a Holocaust denier white supremacist and what not, comes in this science forum and argues for magic, and on the off chance he ever agrees with me, I'll immediately start worrying about my position
FoldnDark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 02:41 AM   #118
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Trump has broken some people's brains.

As for climate science, the rational position is far superior to the position of people like Trolly, both in capturing truth, in advancing science (we do not yet know the truth about climate change), and in bringing along the skeptics. It's this:

- There is some evidence that man's activity is warming the planet. There's a high level of uncertainty, and we have poor understanding of the climate and its fluctuations, but the evidence is there and compelling for the weak case (some impact).
- Climate modelling is highly uncertain and has wide error bars, but one possible outcome is more warning than we imagine might happen. It's a meaningful tail risk
- Global warming is good for plant growth and crops and human prosperity, by a wide margin.
- However, it also introduces an element of (potentially serious) risk.
- We should start making serious large scale efforts ASAP to slow WORLDWIDE emissions growth
- These are efforts are pointless if they're not global
- Manufacturing leaving highly energy efficient efficient countries (the West), and going to highly energy inefficient countries (China et al), is a disaster
- Any policies which cause this must be opposed.
- Current green power (wind and solar) is largely worthless and inconsequential in tackling this enormous problem.

This is the rational position. Much of it is counter to people like Trolly. You could bring nearly everyone along if you took this rational position, as it is unarguable. The reason the public has remained so unconvinced is that the pro-climate lobby takes positions contrary to the above, overstates their cases, smears contrary opinions, fabricates data. And people can see this and have little trust in them as a consequence. You can't build political will doing the above - it will backfire.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 02:55 AM   #119
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Fortunately, there is a study that someone posted that stated that 78% (not 61%) of their sample of self-reporting publishing climate scientists thought that global warming exists and is mostly due to humans. Out of the remaining 22%, the vast majority believe that it is equally human and nature caused or said that they didn't know.

I know this because I actually read the study and the pretty chart they put in the middle of it. Especially the part where they said that it was 78% and didn't mention 61% at all.
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 03:14 AM   #120
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2 View Post
Fortunately, there is a study that someone posted that stated that 78% (not 61%) of their sample of self-reporting publishing climate scientists thought that global warming exists and is mostly due to humans.
You're either trolling or on drugs. Go back and reread. Here is what I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Here's the shorthand: only 61% of publishing atmospheric physicists, who mostly publish on climate - these people aren't weather men on the evening news - subscribe to the view that "global warming is happening and it is mostly caused by humans". When you look at the broader set of publishing atmospheric physicists, it's 57%
I mean, wtf, dude? This is why I ask you to state what you're getting at rather than ask silly rhetorical questions. Because once you do, your "point" evaporates.

The claim - widely repeated including by Obama - is that 97% of scientists (not climate scientists, not the most actively publishing climate scientists, but scientists) believe that global warning is real, caused by man, and dangerous. This statement is made and repeated to make it seems as if no scientist doubts this view of global warming. Yet it is outrageously false.

I show the data that proves that this is a false statement. You and trolly have a little meltdown, completely losing touch with reality.

The reason I quote the broader field is because it's interesting - of the people who work with the same equations, have the same education and credentials, work with the same models and software and hardware to solve the numeric equations that model both climate and weather - only 57% agree with the statement that it the climate is warming and that's it at least half manmade.

That is a shocking number for a claim of "consensus" - especially when contrasted against the claim that 97% think it real, manmade, and dangerous.

I'm not sure if you're high or trolling or out of your depth. I don't get it, man.

Quote:
Out of the remaining 22%, the vast majority believe that it is equally human and nature caused or said that they didn't know.

I know this because I actually read the study and the pretty chart they put in the middle of it. Especially the part where they said that it was 78% and didn't mention 61% at all.
Are you reading this on your phone and unable to see images or something? Do you have an image blocker? I posted the graph with the numbers right in this thread, next to the 61%:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
How is Trump anti-science? I don't get it. On climate change for example, he holds the same view as at least 30% of professional atmospheric physicists:

I don't know if you trolling or on a Vegas bender or what, but we could save a huge amount of idiotic back and forth if you just stated your problem instead of asking rhetorical questions post after post. All this idiotic back and forth just to discover you're either high or not loading images in your browser. I mean, the bolded is just weird, man. The image I posted is directly cut and pasted from the study I linked.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 03:16 AM   #121
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

The chart says 78%
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 03:18 AM   #122
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Are you like trolly and don't know what an atmospheric physicist is? Maybe I should just stop debating science with people who have politics and psych degrees who don't even know basic terms. I literally lay out why I'm quoting this number:
Quote:
The reason I quote the broader field is because it's interesting - of the people who work with the same equations, have the same education and credentials, work with the same models and software and hardware to solve the numeric equations that model both climate and weather - only 57% agree with the statement that it the climate is warming and that's it at least half manmade.
The consensus of scientists is a fraud. Yes, belief is high among the tiny self-interested group of "climate" researchers (although nowhere near 97% for that statement), but among the broader community of those with the same training, support is shockingly low. Over 1/3 of atmospheric physicists have similar views to Trump on how reliable this stuff is.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 03:30 AM   #123
BrianTheMick2
Need a ride?
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 13,750
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer View Post
Are you like trolly and don't know what an atmospheric physicist is? Maybe I should just stop debating science with people who have politics and psych degrees who don't even know basic terms. I literally law you why I'm quoting this number:

The consensus of scientists is a fraud. Yes, belief is high among the tiny self-interested group of "climate" researchers (although nowhere near 97% for that statement), but among the broader community of those with the same training, support is shockingly low. Over 1/3 of atmospheric physicists have similar views to Trump on how reliable this stuff is.
No. I am telling you that the chart you posted says that 78% of publishing members of the AMS with a focus on climate change who also have expertise in climate change responded to an email survey (that you cited as evidence for your nutty beliefs) said that climate change was mostly due to humans. I added a small claim (easy citation from the study you decided to cite) about the vast majority of the other 22% of the respondents to the survey being in the camps of 1) being equally man-made and natural or 2) undecided.

You keep thinking that it is 61% for some reason. I don't claim that I know with certainty the reason why you are making up that number, but I made what I think was an excellent hypothesis about your inability or failure to actually read the chart. The 61% that you keep citing are the equivalent of taking a survey of cement mixers on their views are on chemistry, or a technical analysts their views on macroeconomics.

Last edited by BrianTheMick2; 02-15-2017 at 03:41 AM.
BrianTheMick2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 03:42 AM   #124
yukoncpa
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: ID
Posts: 2,821
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2 View Post
The chart says 78%
The chart says 78% for climate science. It says 61% for meteorology and atmospheric science. Please refer to Nate Silver's, "The Signal and the Noise," to understand why the meteorologists at MIT and at the United States National Weather Service, are in a better position to structure models of reality than say, whoops, a climate scientist.
You're acting like someone who thinks that Freud got everything right.

Last edited by yukoncpa; 02-15-2017 at 03:59 AM.
yukoncpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2017, 04:01 AM   #125
ToothSayer
Pooh-Bah
 
ToothSayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 4,219
Re: The politarding thread of SMP, for really really really sorting things out

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2 View Post
No. I am telling you that the chart you posted says that 78% of publishing members of the AMS with a focus on climate change who also have expertise in climate change responded to an email survey (that you cited as evidence for your nutty beliefs) said that climate change was mostly due to humans
The beliefs of 43% of publishing atmospheric physicists are nutty? lol @ you, dude. If so, science is in a crisis.
Quote:
I added a small claim (easy citation from the study you decided to cite) about the vast majority of the other 22% of the respondents to the survey being in the camps of 1) being equally man-made and natural or 2) undecided.
Sure, which is my position.

Quote:
You keep thinking that it is 61% for some reason.
It's 57% for the broader field of publishing atmospheric physics. The 61% is the "mostly climate" publishing focus.
Quote:
I don't claim that I know with certainty the reason why you are making up that number, but I made what I think was an excellent hypothesis about your inability or failure to actually read the chart. The 61% that you keep citing are the equivalent of taking a survey of cement mixers on their views are on chemistry, or a technical analysts their views on macroeconomics.
Are you seriously claiming that

Cement mixers : professional chemists

is comparable to

Atmospheric physicists : atmospheric physicists more heavily specializing in climate?

Dude, put a fork in it, you're done. You've successfully beclowned yourself. I understand you've never been near a physics department, but those who have are laughing their asses off at you.
ToothSayer is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online