He is lying again and it will be your fault he lied and you called a liar.
¿?¿?
Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
He is lying again and it will be your fault he lied and you called a liar.
of course, member Zipperfish knows what the consensus is... and he knows how the 97% number applies, what it reflects upon and how it relates. As I said, most deniers don't... and I said that I expected that also included you. However, I gave you the opportunity to provide your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you. I didn't ask you to prove anything... in spite of your deflection in that regard. I simply asked you to provide a reference point that would allow a common point of discussion around. You refuse to even provide a simple and basic response... you refuse to provide your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you! Of course you do...
Sadly for you, I do know exactly what I am talking about.
This is why you are the butt-end of so many jokes... We all know what a consensus is, and in your little truther world, you believe that a 'consensus' of a handful of AGW club members equates to the entire opinion of the globe.
Enjoy the fantasy bud
Hilarious, absolutely hilarious... YOU condemning anyone for avoiding a question when you have no basis of fact upon which to found a position.
Tell ya what, you answer gerryh's question/request for proof of this 97% consensus and then we'll think about moving onto your pathetic little demands.
Til then, you are, as always, talking out of your azz
if so, why are you so hesitant, so resistant, to answering the request. It might take you a couple of sentences... if that! Just state your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you. I mean, jeezaz, you can even use your reply as an avenue to further trash it... but at least you'd be so doing in the presence of your actual understanding/interpretation of what the consensus means to you.
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW(32.6%), 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Somebody quote me so drywaldo can see.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW(32.6%), 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Somebody quote me so drywaldo can see.
Last edited:
Making little worms like you twist is kinda a hobby of mine... I consider it as my service to the public in that I keep tards like you off the street where you might run out in front of a bus whilst chasing a butterfly or whatnot
Insane/feral/jib rat people who chose to not do their meds or won't quit sucking the glass cock piss me off.
Can you see it drywaldo?
Can you see it drywaldo?
I don't know about any 97%, but anecdotally it's rare I meet any scientist who deosn't accept that human emissions of CO2 and greenhouse gases are changing the planetary climate measurably, with potentially serious consequences. The 97% was a social science study conducted by an advocacy group so I'm not sure I'd trust that number. That said, I have noticed over the years that deniers are mostly made of mostly right wing ideologues with little training in science.
That should tell folks something right there,
That should tell folks something right there,
you think I'm twisting? When you refuse a simple request, when you can't actually answer and provide your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you, when you alternatively resort to deflection/distraction/insult to avoid the request... that sir, that IS YOU TWISTING!
Most papers on climate don't have to endorse claimte change one way or the other. I wouldn't, unless it was a necessary hypothesis to draw my conclusion. I think you are missing the point.
agreed; as I stated, I'm not particularly bothered with an absolute labeled number... it still remains a consensus. But of what? Seems I can't get a one of these rubes to actually step up and define "the what" that they're just so having difficulty with!!!
Right right right. Anecdotal trumps reality every time.
No it doesn't. Lying to yourself is pathetic.
again, another nice try, member Locutus... but again, my peripheral vision checked in! 2... 2... 2-in-1 IGNORES!
is does beg the question on why you feel the need to, once again, attempt to get me to read a post from someone I have ON IGNORE! And you do so in a most disturbed and challenging manner! Is that also a part of the CC Moderator's handbook?
but sorry to burst your bubble; ya see, as soon as my peripheral vision saw the names on your purposeful quotes, I didn't read them. Oh my, that's a manual IGNORE of a CC automated IGNORE! Two... two... two IGNORES in one! :mrgreen:
Yep, you are twisting furiously to deflect the questions put to you... All of them realistic and legitimate... You don't answer because you can't - it's that simple.
That said, until such time you decide to respond to a direct question I won't be complying with your demands that are nothing more than misdirection
yeah, that was hilarious...even by 2012 standards and he sure hasn't been very active of late.
'cause he's chicken.
dewaldo's circular dislocation is spinning out of control. I sense a meltdown is imminent. no friends, no back-up, no clue. :lol:
no - you're simply avoiding the simple request. As is the case shown by most deniers, they have absolutely NO understanding of the consensus. When challenged to state their understanding, their interpretation of what the consensus means to them, they react just as you have here... deflect/distract/insult. Again, it's a simple request for you to provide a reference point. You refuse.
thank you for your... moderation.