Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The point missed appears to be that 33% doesn't make a consensus.
Does 33% make a consensus to you? Yes or no?
I'm still waiting for him to admit he lied.
This new definition of consensus has been submitted to the Oxford Dictionary?
member Locutus already tried... why are you lapping in? Would you also like my peripheral image graphic?
here's the thing, gerryh... I'm not sure why you immediately took the simple question/request to you in a most defensive manner. There's no reason for it. I wasn't challenging you; I simply called for an understanding on what you interpret the consensus means. To me, both you and the sorry Cappy, don't appear to know what the consensus is. You're calling for proof but you refuse to qualify what proof you're looking for. You deflected back to the original post from member Zipperfish; however, as I said, he knows what it means and he used that number accordingly. By your adamant refusal to state what the consensus means to you, one can only ascertain that you simply don't know what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, you could just state that... that would be very easy for you to do... just state you don't know what it is!
I can not comment on a "consensus" when there has been no context given. I questioned the very premise of the statement and said I wanted proof of the statement. Provide proof of the statement. I am leaning, at this time, towards what petros supplied only because he is the only one that has presented any context to the statement. Using what Petros supplied means that the statement IS bullshyte as it is NOT 97% of the worlds scientists that support AGW. Now, if you have something that rebuts that, I am more than happy to look at it.
I didn't interpret you asking for clarification! No, you came out swinging with your "bullshyte" labeling. Hence, the reason I asked you for clarification; asked you to provide your understanding/interpretation. I also provided the context in how deniers typically have no actual understanding of the consensus. You had... you have... an opportunity to qualify why you called "bullshyte". You are quite hesitant to do so.
This is how this all started...
And now see how Waldo interprets it with his reading comprehension problem...
And he wonders why nobody respects him!
I had him pegged from day one. There is no way in hell a creep gets my respect.
Mu.
That's Japanese. Learned it when I was studying Zen, and it means you must unask the question to obtain the truth you seek.
which means nothing to me as I won't read anything from that degenerate. So, in effect, you called bullshyte and subsequently point to a post from another member as to why you did so. None of which, again, offers any insight into what you personally understand and interpret the consensus to mean... to mean to you.
pro-tip (to allow floundering deniers an actual point of reference as to what the consensus is, reflects upon, associates with, etc.:
in the actual domain the consensus position applies to, "some percentage" of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, accepts that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
endorsement expressions of "some percentage" of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, reflects upon a past, current and active research of climate science and a past, current and active publication of climate science related papers. Additionally, an endorsement expression also reflects upon related official position statements taken by world-wide country national science academies/bodies, scientific organizations and academia; positions that state most of the earth's recent global warming can be attributed to human activities.
qualification expressions of "some percentage' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associate to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, "some percentage" of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities.
of course, the actual domain of the consensus position does not encompass the wizardry that emanates from and appears on "the blogs" of the favoured gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier "blog scientists"... or from tabloid-type newspapers... or from less than knowledgeable "journalists" shilling for page views/newspaper sales.
It's quite ludicrous to read deniers calling out "bullshyte" when they have no actual understanding of what the consensus is... as has been shown most pointedly by the latest posts in this thread. As for what the "some percentage" number is, that number is usually tagged at the 90%+ level. The mad barking over "66% of 33%" is gold, real gold! :mrgreen:
endorsement expressions of "some percentage" of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, reflects upon a past, current and active research of climate science and a past, current and active publication of climate science related papers. Additionally, an endorsement expression also reflects upon related official position statements taken by world-wide country national science academies/bodies, scientific organizations and academia; positions that state most of the earth's recent global warming can be attributed to human activities.
qualification expressions of "some percentage' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associate to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, "some percentage" of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities.
of course, the actual domain of the consensus position does not encompass the wizardry that emanates from and appears on "the blogs" of the favoured gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier "blog scientists"... or from tabloid-type newspapers... or from less than knowledgeable "journalists" shilling for page views/newspaper sales.
It's quite ludicrous to read deniers calling out "bullshyte" when they have no actual understanding of what the consensus is... as has been shown most pointedly by the latest posts in this thread. As for what the "some percentage" number is, that number is usually tagged at the 90%+ level. The mad barking over "66% of 33%" is gold, real gold! :mrgreen:
"How to win friends and influence people"...............
in our developing common ground :mrgreen:, I trust you appreciate there are some here who have absolutely no interest in genuine discussion. They are here only to: stir the shyte, insult and attack, bury legitimate discussion, foster a board culture that aligns with their most selective clubhouse mentality, attempt to marginalize perceived opponents and to generally disrespect the board and it's membership at large. I'm also not here to "win anonymous friends"!
Yes, definitely. Most papers wouldn't need to re-state a position on some topic, even though they're discussing the topic. Vaccines, take a survey of abstracts that include the word vaccine. There's a strong consensus in the medical field on the importance of vaccines, but not every paper is going to re-state that. If I develop a novel adjuvant, I talk about the adjuvant and the immune response it elicits, the safety of the substance, and probably the mechanisms involved. Mentioning the importance of vaccines in the past century adds nothing to the discussion, and my audience knows that anyways.
Among position papers in a keyword search, 97% responding in one way? That's a definite consensus.
This point isn't even worth arguing.
Scientists don't argue, they just want to get along so they can go along and collect the next gubmint hand-out.
:lol: Sure sure. Tell yourself whatever you will to feed that conspiracy ideation.