Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 8, 2015
2:40am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Who made you God of what's acceptable?

That depends on if you are interested in propaganda or not.

My only interest is in uncovering the Truth. I have no preconceived notion about it. That's why I suggested YOU look at the real data....because you are obviously better qualified to evaluate it. I'm not interested in nitpicking a method. I'm interested in what we can really say with confidence about the data. Right now, that's not very much. There are too many question marks. But with some good analysis and working with both you and Dr. Powell, I hope we can come up with something that everyone may agree to.

Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
I suggested he might have to adjust his claim that ALL of the articles are peer reviewed. Do you even read the stuff you're quoting?

Not "might", he does unless he checks that every single document type is peer-reviewed in its respective journal.

Well, at least you've softened your demand that "I will not accept any statistical sampling and I will not accept anything less than 100% verification." See we're already making progress. If we can get Dr. Powell to change his claim away from ALL articles being peer reviewed, perhaps a statistical sampling can give us confidence about what percentage actually are.

Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
You failed to answer these questions:

1. Is Powell claiming all of the papers are peer-reviewed?

2. Please quote and cite his selection criteria he used to determine if his Web of Science queried results accepted or rejected AGW.

1. Yes he certainly is. And it appears to be wrong on it's face....If he cannot answer how he assured that all results were peer-reviewed. If/when we can show him that's untrue, then I'm hoping to convince him to adjust his claim.
2. I'm not sure. I am however sure that you have found a flaw in it....so to save us time, why don't you just tell us what that criteria is, why it is invalid and what would be a more reasonable query....Maybe you can test this as well once you get the actual data.

Poptech
Poptech
Apr 8, 2015
3:36am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
My only interest is in uncovering the Truth. I have no preconceived notion about it. That's why I suggested YOU look at the real data....because you are obviously better qualified to evaluate it. I'm not interested in nitpicking a method. I'm interested in what we can really say with confidence about the data. Right now, that's not very much. There are too many question marks. But with some good analysis and working with both you and Dr. Powell, I hope we can come up with something that everyone may agree to.

I have looked at the data available and it is full of erroneous nonsense. Regardless, I will never help Powell with his propaganda. What I will do is completely and utterly expose and discredit his propaganda.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Well, at least you've softened your demand that "I will not accept any statistical sampling and I will not accept anything less than 100% verification." See we're already making progress. If we can get Dr. Powell to change his claim away from ALL articles being peer reviewed, perhaps a statistical sampling can give us confidence about what percentage actually are.

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion but I will not accept anything except 100% verification of each result regarding which articles are peer-reviewed. My comment was relating to removing any claim that they are peer-reviewed as a whole without complete verification.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
2. I'm not sure. I am however sure that you have found a flaw in it....so to save us time, why don't you just tell us what that criteria is, why it is invalid and what would be a more reasonable query....Maybe you can test this as well once you get the actual data.

2. His criteria is defined as "...that reject AGW as I define reject."
alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 8, 2015
6:30am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
Regardless, I will never help Powell with his propaganda. What I will do is completely and utterly expose and discredit his propaganda.


Well there goes my dream of advancing the science at LVA and collaborating with both sides to create a statement that both can agree to be true. I had such high hopes. Maybe I can find a less controversial topic next time...Like whether being gay is a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition.

Don
Don
Apr 8, 2015
9:20am
Block User
There's nothing poor old DonDiego enjoys more than a good ol' debate on the interne - . . . z-z-z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z . . .

chefantwon
chefantwon
Apr 8, 2015
9:37am
Block User
Forkster,

I do have a question, how many of those scientists are or have been funded by environmental groups/concerns?

Based upon your previous arguments, those who have, must be discredited as their data is biased. (as you have already discredited Mc Intyre for working for the mining industry)

Oh, you still haven't answered the question. How many of those scientists who believe in global warming are receiving government grants and how many who don't are receiving government funding?

remember this?
linky
forkushV
forkushV
Apr 8, 2015
10:39am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Forkster,

I do have a question, how many of those scientists are or have been funded by environmental groups/concerns?

Based upon your previous arguments, those who have, must be discredited as their data is biased. (as you have already discredited Mc Intyre for working for the mining industry)...
Nope, I simply pointed out that McIntyre isn't a scientist. Because he isn't.

chef, whether it comes to climate, evolution, GMO's, or vaccine safety, I generally trust what the vast majority of respected scientists have to say on the subject.

You, on the other hand, apparently decide what to believe, and then find outlier scientists and almosts to back your position. I find your way very hard to respect.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 8, 2015
2:38pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
There's nothing poor old DonDiego enjoys more than a good ol' debate on the interne - . . . z-z-z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z . . .

I was hoping that DonDiego would volunteer to lead a Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming Thread Data Validation Research Team that would explore James Powell's claims in detail. That would have been exciting, wouldn't it?

Don
Don
Apr 8, 2015
10:52pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
I was hoping that DonDiego would volunteer to lead a Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming Thread Data Validation Research Team that would explore James Powell's claims in detail. That would have been exciting, wouldn't it?
DonDiego opines that alanleroy overestimates poor old DonDiego's threshold and, pr'bly capacity, for excitement.

Ain't it curious how even in this heh' sophisticated 21st Century folks still persist in talking' 'bout the weather? If'n the weather up heh' in the hills holds DonDiego is a-hopin' to get his vegetable plants in well before the published last-frost date; that seems like mighty fine weather to poor old DonDiego.

"Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."__Charles Dudley Warner


chefantwon
chefantwon
Apr 10, 2015
12:04pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Forkster,

I do have a question, how many of those scientists are or have been funded by environmental groups/concerns?

Based upon your previous arguments, those who have, must be discredited as their data is biased. (as you have already discredited Mc Intyre for working for the mining industry)...
Nope, I simply pointed out that McIntyre isn't a scientist. Because he isn't.

chef, whether it comes to climate, evolution, GMO's, or vaccine safety, I generally trust what the vast majority of respected scientists have to say on the subject.

You, on the other hand, apparently decide what to believe, and then find outlier scientists and almosts to back your position. I find your way very hard to respect.


You can't think for yourself Forkie or a simple analysis of the facts would open some very large holes in the "climate change" mess

What caused co2 levels to be 100 times higher during the time of the dinosaurs
the annual California forest fires spew out enough co2 to make the top 200 list of countries co2 emissions for the year and that is PER fire.
There is not any data of what the sun's output should be during this part of its lifetime. (solar output comparison of like stars and the rate of change)

I ask yet again Forkie, what amount of these 2,000 scientists are receiving money from environmental groups and how many are receiving money from government grants?

Historical note:

the Vikings named Greenland, why did they call it by that name?

Ever hear of continental drift and what effect does it have on world wide climate?

Why was the term Global Warming changed to Climate Change?

Lastly, whats up with Al Gore's prediction that the the Arctic ice would be gone by now?
forkushV
forkushV
Apr 13, 2015
2:58am
Block User
chef, how narcissistic do you have to be for you to claim that scientific consensus is wrong? You probably couldn't pass a first week quiz in beginning statistics, calculus, geophysics, or climatology, and yet you feel yourself qualified to decide just which outlier scientists and almost scientists are correct, and to tell other scientists that they are wrong.

chef, most of the science deniers on the left and right are narcissists just like you. The evolution deniers cluelessly argue about moon dust and magnetic fields, the outlaw all GMO-ers use big words like RNA and DNA, and the anti-vaccine crazies cite lone discredited unscientific studies. And remember those who claimed that scientific consensus was wrong on the cancer-tobacco connection? How'd that work out?

But there's good news, chef. There's a cure for narcissism, and it's called humility. You should try it, since you obviously have so much to be humble about.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now