It is still only 34.8% endorsement of AGW that was found via Cook's assessment of the abstracts of the papers selected for that study.The part where 34.8% is the actual 100% of papers with a position on AGW, 97% of which said Yay. Wait, I can comprehend that confusing bit about 34% is the actual 100% of relevant papers.
Again, if we follow your logic, we might as well cite all scientific papers on all things ever published and say that 0.000000000001% if science holds no position on AGW.
It is still only 34.8% endorsement of AGW that was found via Cook's assessment of the abstracts of the papers selected for that study.
Cook's faulty methodology and personal bias is no excuse for the exclusion of 60+% of papers!
No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!No, it's not 34.8% endorsement. It's 34.8% of paper containing the keywords that upon examination hold any position on the cause of AGW. Of that 34.8%, 97% came to the conclusion of Yay, we're screwing up the place.
You sure that branch haven't fallen already, just you cannot remember what happen one windy day gardening?
What does FTSEing mean?No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!
Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!
34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!
It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!
34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!
Four letter acronym beginning with "F" with ing added to the end.What does FTSEing mean?
No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!
Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!
34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!
It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!
34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!
You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!32.6% of all abstracts.
BUT 97.1% of abstract with AGW position.
Why is that so hard to understand?
To follow your logic, it'd be like saying that only 50% of Males have a penis because both Males and Females are Males.
Again, it is obvious that research with keywords Cook and others used - contains "Climate Change" etc., - does not necessarily mean it take any position on AGW.
You cannot count a no position to be a position. No means No.
View attachment 71155
You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!
34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.
Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!
Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!No he didn't. Those 66.4% of papers that held no position were discounted in a study on what are the position on AGW.
It's in black, white, table and charts up there dude.
Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!
That is in black and white!!!
His conclusions could only be valid, if he could somehow demonstrate that those scientists, not recognised as holding an AGW position, were somehow in roughly 97 to 99% agreement with the AGW hypothesis.
He hasn't done that!!
He simply tried to justify his conclusions by opining that they probably were!
And by the way, your whale analogy from a post or two ago makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't even understand how it could possibly relate to my logic. This comes as no great surprise since this dialogue has alerted me to the fact that your concept of logic is clearly very different from mine.
Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.What whale analogy? Male?
Seriously, don't know how else to put it. You're nuts.
Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.
34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.
But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.
So!!You do realise that there's at least half a dozen other, independent, research papers that found similar results to Cook and others, right?
So... What percentage of human males have breasts? 50%. Right?
A lot??? Bull. Provide evidence.So!!
You do of course realise, that a lot of scientists have protested very loudly, that they are in disagreement with the claims to the existence of a scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW/CC.
Knobby I'm not so sure about this introduction of CC reality to such a cerebral (!!!) discussion. After all what's the point of showing just how quickly our world is melting when Cynic and co are absolutely certain it isn't real.
The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.
The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.
Actually you are quite correct to call me out on the inaccuracy of that post!A lot??? Bull. Provide evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?