For the record, I'm not accusing you of lying. Just wanted to put that out there.
Basis for the claim is here, it would seem, drawn from:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change
Not really overly interested in getting into rebutting your favorite blog posts, tbh, but I will be happy to show what data set the claim appears to be based on.
I will say, for someone whose argument for voter ID is "this could be a problem, so let's spend money to prevent it", your choice of argument here, is ironically delicious.
Thank you.
I really do try very hard not to, whatever anyone thinks of my motivations or opinions. I really do try to further admit the weaknesses in my own arguments, and acknowledge mistakes, and when people make good points, even if I don't agree with them. Whether I reach this ideal or not, though...
I try.
I guess maybe I should have been more direct in my question.
Basis for the claim is here, it would seem, drawn from:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change
Not really overly interested in getting into rebutting your favorite blog posts, tbh, but I will be happy to show what data set the claim appears to be based on.
I will say, for someone whose argument for voter ID is "this could be a problem, so let's spend money to prevent it", your choice of argument here, is ironically delicious.
Are the two graphs, posted in the blog I linked, from legitimate sources and datasets?
And, are the methodologies that generated that data more accurate than the one upon which the claim "2014 is going to be the hottest year ever" is based?
I didn't want to debate messengers with you but, whether or not the data presented is accurate and whether or not it tends to counter what you're proposing. That's all.
Delicious delicious wikipedia...Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.
You attempt to excuse or obfuscate this cherry picking is by to hiding behind your stated purpose, as if it shields you somehow:
http://www.populartechnology.net/200....html#Criteria
Yet nowhere, do you acknowledge or provide any links to anything that does not agree with you, or to any paper that does not.
Essentially:
"I'm not cherry picking because I state up front that I am cherry-picking, but I since I say that is my purpose, I'm really not cherry picking, nuh-uh."
Just to get back to the OP. Thanks PopTech. Go stand in the corner with Cosmored. He bounces around forums about as much as you seem to.Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-05-2014 at 02:09 PM. Reason: grammar, spelling, clarity.
Seriously, had I known I was going to instigate some grade school squabbling, I would have found another source.
That is his intent and you are falling for it. If you think you are going to get intellectually dishonest people (especially stoners) to conceded something you are delusional. My article - '97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them' absolutely destroys the credibility of the Cook et al. (2013) paper. It effectively demonstrates that their methods are fatally flawed and their conclusions worthless.
As for my list of papers, AGW proponents and Alarmists delusionally believe they hold the intellectual high ground with the peer-reviewed literature so they want to make your life as miserable as possible for citing something they want to pretend does not exist = peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. My resource is the best and most comprehensive on the Internet for peer-reviewed papers that skeptics can use to debate. RandomGuy knows it as do all other Alarmists, which is why they relentlessly attack it with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. It is all hand-waving to avoid accepting that these papers exist.
Notice how bad you have to try and poison the well with your trolling.
...or you are a computer illiterate who applies psychobabble when you do not understand something but want to make yourself feel intelligent.
See, you can stop there. I'm really not interested in the personal animus between you two or anyone else in this forum.
I posted what I thought were legitimate points. That they happen to appear in your blog was irrelevant to me. I didn't post your opinions, I merely linked to your blog because it contained quotes from scientists that claim they were misrepresented in the report that was the genesis for the whole "consensus" argument forwarded by the AGCC proponents. It seems obvious to me there are other problems with the report related to how the 97% number is derived, etc... but, I thought the actual quotes were the most compelling.
Seriously, had I known the quotes were being carried on a blog authored by someone who is specifically controversial in this forum, I wouldn't have bothered. I would have looked elsewhere for the information.
Actually to be accurate I am politically independent. You are not going to get anything out of me insulting Ron Paul.
So Poptart did you ever go get help? Have you seen a mental health professional about your mental illness. Did you at least make sure that it was 'only' aspergers and not an antisocial personality disorder like the survey you filled out indicates? Has anyone I emailed about your sickness brought it up to you?
You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide. You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.
They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.
Welcome back to RandomGuy's ad hominem thread. Watch out for FuzzyRumpkiss. If you piss him off, he might write another strongly-worded email to the kids at SkS.
BTW, it wa around page 119 of the previous thread that I started to patronize him and eventually got him to fill out that survey. Classic Axis 1 narcissist as he is he went back and edited all of his posts admitting to mental illness and replaced them with anti-marijuana propaganda and assertions. When he gets upset with us that is his go to defense mechanism. He is a sick for sure.
Powerpuff Girl here is one of my puppets, too brain-damaged by drugs to know he is being controlled. He still thinks I honestly filled out a survey something I never do online.
try debating the science some more. Post more UAH stuff whatever. You know we will argue on merit particularly RG who in my eyes has a vast amount of patience dealing with your deceit.
Just because after years of debate we have your methodology pegged and rub your face in it does not mean much beyond what it is.
I didn't present it as a survey. I listed it as proof of mental illness which after 2 days of having you mechanically produce your canned arguments, you 'refuted.' We both know this and it's why you dislike me so much. I imagine you have a hard time reconciling all that despite your facade.
I don't care if I'm respected in an anonymous forum. Nor do I care if they laugh.
Okay but, I'm not sure any of that is related to why I post in this forum. And, that you explain this as the reason you left, it begs the question, why are you back?
Color me uninterested in what they want to do to you.
If the quotes you posted are actual, I would still like to see a response to them. It seemed to me there were more than a couple of scientists that believed John Cook misrepresented their papers. I was hoping to get a response. I think RandomGuy made a stab at it but, I was less interested in what he had to say because he was also attacking you in the post.
What a dumb ass you have no idea how bad I trolled you. I came up with the asbergers thing from a book I had sitting on my desk knowing puppet boy would link to it and then I trolled him with marijuana links. His brain is so fried and I executed it so perfectly he still believes it is true. ROFLMAO.
Hey Yoni read the survey I have above and tell me you cannot see it. It's ing hilarious how demented he is.
And of course he edited all his posts because he meant it to be that way.
What part of "I'm not interested in your petty grade school snipping" don't y'all understand?
Hey Yoni read the survey I have above and tell me you cannot see it. It's ing hilarious how demented he is.
I only come back to correct misinformation stated about my work. The last time I had left, they had long since avoided discussions of my work and resorted to personal attacks against me, at which point there was nothing of importance for me to respond to.
They are very real and you can contact the scientists yourself. You are not going to get an honest response from people here, why do you think they attacked me as a diversion?
Last edited by Poptech; 12-05-2014 at 04:08 PM.
I don't think there is anything petty about axis 1 and antisocial disorders.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
