Somebody falsify my logic

[Chom Noamsky]

Start with a sample size of 11,994.

Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.

Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.

Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> Start with a sample size of 11,994

The number of scientists. Yes.

> Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.

Huh? No. Over 4,000 peer reviewed science papers published in science
journals, representing nearly 12,000 scientists.

> Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.

No. 100% of the papers did the exact opposite.

> Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.

Huh? The study showed, once again, over 97% consensus. How the bloody
hell do you get "no consensus" when the very numbers you wrote above
show otherwise?


--
"I'm often irrelevant. It confuses people." --- Archie Goodwin

[Chom Noamsky]

You already posted the numbers in another story, so quit being a ninny:

"The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in
11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position
on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of
academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate
change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining
2.2% unclear."

11,994 academic papers were sampled, just over 4,000 were found to
support AGW. That's 33%, not 97%.

SkS Cook has become the laughing stock of the blogosphere.

[Sleepalot]

Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:

>Start with a sample size of 11,994.

Papers? Then approximately 6,000 are wrong.

>Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.

Of which 3,999 merely assume the AGW paradigm to be true.

>Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.

1/12,000 support AGW.

>Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.

Yes.

[gordo]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

It has been explained to you. Statistics is beyond your ken.

[Chom Noamsky]

If you go really slow I might understand. Now explain to me, how do
4,000 samples from a total sample size of 11,994 result in 97% agreement.

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:46:05 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 7:06 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Start with a sample size of 11,994.
>>>
>>> Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.
>>>
>>> Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.
>>
>> It has been explained to you. Statistics is beyond your ken.
>
>If you go really slow I might understand. Now explain to me, how do
>4,000 samples from a total sample size of 11,994 result in 97% agreement.

Are you asking that of a man that counts
on his fingers?

[Chom Noamsky]

Poor gordo just doesn't grasp how limited his intelligence is.

[gordo]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:00:53 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

Nice try but my intelligence is not in question and the peer reviewed
study is not either. 97% has your shorts all in a knot. The last study
was 98%. You are acting quite silly. Seek help for your problems with
reality.

[gordo]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:46:05 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

wrote:

>On 5/17/2013 7:06 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Start with a sample size of 11,994.
>>>
>>> Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.
>>>
>>> Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.
>>
>> It has been explained to you. Statistics is beyond your ken.
>
>If you go really slow I might understand. Now explain to me, how do
>4,000 samples from a total sample size of 11,994 result in 97% agreement.

First you have to remove those studies that have no relevance to the
question.Second you have to take a course on statistics 101. Try your
local junior college.

[Rodney Graham]

You are batshit crazy. And you once agreed that global warming was
destroying the forest outside of your own home.

You are not a capitalist, you are not an MBA grad.

You are a simpleton, a hypocrite and a liar.


You trust the words of bullshit artists instead of science.

You vote for Harper, yet he admits that there is a problem.

You live in your own pathetic little world, along with the company you
keep.

You haven't measured yourself against the company that you keep, have
you?

Nutters, racists, right wing dingbats and fools!

Is it true that you pray to Lord Monckton?

Hell, one of the posters here is a bona fide sex offender, and he's on
your side.

(Hello Keith from Oklahoma).


Your kind, not ours.

You assholes are as capitalist as a street urchin. Stop pretending.

[Dawlish]

Why doesn't the nutbar actually read the paper? It's bizarre how they get stuck on one thing which they have interpreted wrongly and thus the wrong conclusion sticks with them.

It's got to be their denier visors. What else could it be? No-one in science gets these conclusions out of that paper - mainly because they read it without a denier visor turned up to; "find something to try to deny I'm in a tiny little corner here".

[Dawlish]

A denier projecting......

[Paul Aubrin]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:24:52 -0700, gordo wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:00:53 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>

>> [...]

>
> Nice try but my intelligence is not in question and the peer reviewed
> study is not either. 97% has your shorts all in a knot. The last study
> was 98%. You are acting quite silly. Seek help for your problems with
> reality.

The answer to your question is given by Pr. William Happer near the
end of this debate (7'18"): the 97% agreement comes from the deceiving
way the question was asked and its answer interpreted.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html

The 97% doesn't mean they agree with your hysteria, just that they
acknowledge that the last 30 years were a warm period.

[Falcon]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:20:28 -0700, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>
[..]

>
> "The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in
> 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position
> on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of
> academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate
> change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining
> 2.2% unclear."
>
> 11,994 academic papers were sampled, just over 4,000 were found to
> support AGW. That's 33%, not 97%.
>
> SkS Cook has become the laughing stock of the blogosphere.

The hysterics have been peddling the false 97% statistic for the last five
years and fellow hysterics like Dessert Piles still lap it up. It's the
classic way people usually misrepresent statistics and it's the way this
particular piece of comedy has been presented in sympathetic and slightly
dim parts of the media. Again.

Roger Pielke Jr. calls it 'the annual ritual of celebrating the deficit
model in climate advocacy'.

You'll love this collection of screen-shots.

Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made
climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out.
http://bit.ly/Z2IRsd

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
GISS Global Temperature Anomaly
http://i.imgur.com/mT7UE6X.png

[Dawlish]

Is that true? Well would you believe it? And there's me thinking this just paints you further into your tiny little deniers' corner. Silly me!

[gordo]

I have no hysteria. I do not go to bishop hill for my science and
neither should you. I do have a list of shills obtained from the work
of Dr Gleick ( just too too funny )
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

Can you post one peer reviewed paper from Happer on AGW. I can show
you his position with the George C. Marshall Institute. I would guess
that you had no idea of his connection to the disgraced Heartland
Institute. He is a very powerful voice in US politics.He is a
professor and I am not. He is also a shill to stop regulations of diry
coal and gas and I am not. .

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:20:28 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

wrote:

> On 5/17/2013 6:10 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Start with a sample size of 11,994
> >
> > The number of scientists. Yes.
> >
> >> Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.
> >
> > Huh? No. Over 4,000 peer reviewed science papers published in science
> > journals, representing nearly 12,000 scientists.
> >
> >> Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.
> >
> > No. 100% of the papers did the exact opposite.
> >
> >> Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.
> >
> > Huh? The study showed, once again, over 97% consensus. How the bloody
> > hell do you get "no consensus" when the very numbers you wrote above
> > show otherwise?
>
> You already posted the numbers in another story, so quit being a ninny:
>
> "The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in
> 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position
> on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of
> academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate
> change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining
> 2.2% unclear."

> 11,994 academic papers were sampled, just over 4,000 were found to
> support AGW

... and not support AGW. 0.7% rejected the consensus, 97.1% accepted
the consensus.

> That's 33%, not 97%.

That's 97.1%, idiot.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 02:26:49 -0700, gordo wrote:

>> The answer to your question is given by Pr. William Happer near the
>>end of this debate (7'18"): the 97% agreement comes from the deceiving
>>way the question was asked and its answer interpreted.
>> http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html
>>
>>The 97% doesn't mean they agree with your hysteria, just that they
>>acknowledge that the last 30 years were a warm period.
>
> I have no hysteria. I do not go to bishop hill for my science and
> neither should you. I do have a list of shills obtained from the work of
> Dr Gleick ( just too too funny )

Gleick the guy who published a fake document with false informations? He
pretended not to have made it himself but received it by an anonymous
mail.
I never heard of him before, but he appears to be a renown physicist
specialist of interactions between matter and electromagnetic radiations:
"Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern
optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules,
and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as
Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his return
to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics and Chair
of the University Research Board."

By the way, isn't the GHG supposed to result from the interaction of CO2
molecules and Infra-red electromagnetic radiations?
At the end of the interview, this Princeton University professor says
that most of his colleagues have a similar position relative to AGW: they
don't trust it.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/17/2013 11:35 PM, gordo wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:46:05 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2013 7:06 PM, gordo wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Start with a sample size of 11,994.
>>>>
>>>> Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.
>>>
>>> It has been explained to you. Statistics is beyond your ken.
>>
>> If you go really slow I might understand. Now explain to me, how do
>> 4,000 samples from a total sample size of 11,994 result in 97% agreement.
>
> First you have to remove those studies that have no relevance to the
> question.

ALL of the studies are relevant, the 11,994 papers represent the total
sampling of science involved in the "study". Cook is basically saying
2/3rds of the papers aren't relevant to the question of cause because
they have a neutral position. Do you honestly think that 8,000
peer-reviewed academic studies suddenly disqualify as climate science
because they have a neutral position? It's unbelievable, really.

[gordo]

On 18 May 2013 14:28:46 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 02:26:49 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>>> The answer to your question is given by Pr. William Happer near the
>>>end of this debate (7'18"): the 97% agreement comes from the deceiving
>>>way the question was asked and its answer interpreted.
>>> http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html
>>>
>>>The 97% doesn't mean they agree with your hysteria, just that they
>>>acknowledge that the last 30 years were a warm period.
>>
>> I have no hysteria. I do not go to bishop hill for my science and
>> neither should you. I do have a list of shills obtained from the work of
>> Dr Gleick ( just too too funny )
>
>Gleick the guy who published a fake document with false informations? He

Dr. Gleick published nothing. He passed the information on.

>pretended not to have made it himself but received it by an anonymous
>mail.
>I never heard of him before, but he appears to be a renown physicist
>specialist of interactions between matter and electromagnetic radiations:
>"Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern
>optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules,
>and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as
>Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his return
>to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics and Chair
>of the University Research Board."
>
>By the way, isn't the GHG supposed to result from the interaction of CO2
>molecules and Infra-red electromagnetic radiations?
>At the end of the interview, this Princeton University professor says
>that most of his colleagues have a similar position relative to AGW: they
>don't trust it.

Dr. Peter Gleick is an expert of water and climate issues. He works at
the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California.

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:49:04 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

They did not disqualify as climate science.

[Chom Noamsky]

Correct. And if the question was "is there a consensus among the body
of academic studies" then they absolutely count. The fact that 2/3rds
of the papers had no position proves categorically that there is no
consensus.

I note that some of the more intelligent posters here, like Tom P, won't
even comment on Cook's study because they know it's an analytical fraud.

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:57:59 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

No. Only those studies that have a position count. If you read the
paper you would know that the authors were contacted as well.The study
itself was very time consuming and done freely. The study was peer
reviewed of course and accepted.The fact is, that the study really was
not necessary to show that there is consensus.

>
>I note that some of the more intelligent posters here, like Tom P, won't
>even comment on Cook's study because they know it's an analytical fraud.

One of the least intelligent posters here pretends to know what Tom P
thinks. You don't.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:50:48 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>>end of this debate (7'18"): the 97% agreement comes from the deceiving
>>>>way the question was asked and its answer interpreted.
>>>> http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html
>>>>
>>>>The 97% doesn't mean they agree with your hysteria, just that they
>>>>acknowledge that the last 30 years were a warm period.
>>>
>>> I have no hysteria. I do not go to bishop hill for my science and
>>> neither should you. I do have a list of shills obtained from the work
>>> of Dr Gleick ( just too too funny )
>>
>>Gleick the guy who published a fake document with false informations? He
>
> Dr. Gleick published nothing. He passed the information on.

He made the information public. Among which a fake. He thus spread false
information. As he made no excuses for the fake, he can be considered to
have willingly published false information.

>
>>pretended not to have made it himself but received it by an anonymous
>>mail.
>>I never heard of him before, but he appears to be a renown physicist
>>specialist of interactions between matter and electromagnetic
>>radiations:
>>"Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern
>>optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules,
>>and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as
>>Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his
>>return to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics
>>and Chair of the University Research Board."
>>
>>By the way, isn't the GHG supposed to result from the interaction of CO2
>>molecules and Infra-red electromagnetic radiations?
>>At the end of the interview, this Princeton University professor says
>>that most of his colleagues have a similar position relative to AGW:
>>they don't trust it.
>
> Dr. Peter Gleick is an expert of water and climate issues. He works at
> the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California.

William Happer is a physicist specialised in the interaction between
electromagnetic energy and matter. Isn't this kind of interaction at the
base of the GHG theory?

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:04:11 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>ALL of the studies are relevant, the 11,994 papers represent the total
>>sampling of science involved in the "study". Cook is basically saying
>>2/3rds of the papers aren't relevant to the question of cause because
>>they have a neutral position. Do you honestly think that 8,000
>>peer-reviewed academic studies suddenly disqualify as climate science
>>because they have a neutral position? It's unbelievable, really.
>
> They did not disqualify as climate science.

If they are neutral, it's weather not climate.

[gordo]

On 18 May 2013 19:02:43 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:50:48 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>>>>end of this debate (7'18"): the 97% agreement comes from the deceiving
>>>>>way the question was asked and its answer interpreted.
>>>>> http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html
>>>>>
>>>>>The 97% doesn't mean they agree with your hysteria, just that they
>>>>>acknowledge that the last 30 years were a warm period.
>>>>
>>>> I have no hysteria. I do not go to bishop hill for my science and
>>>> neither should you. I do have a list of shills obtained from the work
>>>> of Dr Gleick ( just too too funny )
>>>
>>>Gleick the guy who published a fake document with false informations? He
>>
>> Dr. Gleick published nothing. He passed the information on.
>He made the information public. Among which a fake. He thus spread false
>information. As he made no excuses for the fake, he can be considered to
>have willingly published false information.

He did not make the information public He passed it on. Your
allegations of fake information is false as well.

>>
>>>pretended not to have made it himself but received it by an anonymous
>>>mail.
>>>I never heard of him before, but he appears to be a renown physicist
>>>specialist of interactions between matter and electromagnetic
>>>radiations:
>>>"Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern
>>>optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules,
>>>and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as
>>>Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his
>>>return to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics
>>>and Chair of the University Research Board."
>>>
>>>By the way, isn't the GHG supposed to result from the interaction of CO2
>>>molecules and Infra-red electromagnetic radiations?
>>>At the end of the interview, this Princeton University professor says
>>>that most of his colleagues have a similar position relative to AGW:
>>>they don't trust it.
>>
>> Dr. Peter Gleick is an expert of water and climate issues. He works at
>> the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California.
>
>William Happer is a physicist specialised in the interaction between
>electromagnetic energy and matter. Isn't this kind of interaction at the
>base of the GHG theory?

"Among the leading lights of the clueless crew is William Happer, a
Princton physicist, who as Chairman of the George Marshall institute,
presides over one of America’s leading cheerleaders for Tobacco and
oil addiction. Two videos on this page deal with Dr. Happer."
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/31/the-wall-street-16-hapless-happer-leads-clueless-geriatrics-in-wsj-fiasco/

[gordo]

No.

[Dawlish]

It is quite incredible what nutbars can convince themselves of.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/18/2013 11:27 AM, gordo wrote:

> No. Only those studies that have a position count.

66% of the papers didn't endorse AGW.

[Unum]

Your logic has been falsified.

[Chom Noamsky]

You couldn't falsify your grandmother's dentures.

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:35:28 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 11:27 AM, gordo wrote:
>
>> No. Only those studies that have a position count.
>
>66% of the papers didn't endorse AGW.

No 66% were irrelevant to the study. Jump up and down and say it just
is not fair. Scientists did a major study, on their own dime, for over
a year and the results are published in a peer reviewed journal.It is
open season on the study, for anybody who wants to spend a year trying
to duplicate it.
>

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:54:45 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

Lets see your study. What,all you have is someones grandmother's
dentures?

[Chom Noamsky]

8,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science were irrelevant to the
study? Why is that, gordo?

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:24:37 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

Easy. Read the bloody peer reviewed published paper or look at some of
the answers you have already received.

[Unum]

The little twit seems to have a thing about dentures.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:25 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>> Dr. Gleick published nothing. He passed the information on.
>>He made the information public. Among which a fake. He thus spread false
>>information. As he made no excuses for the fake, he can be considered to
>>have willingly published false information.
>
> He did not make the information public He passed it on. Your allegations
> of fake information is false as well.

He made made this information public, and he included a document which he
later pretended to have received from another source and proved to be a
fake.
Why should anybody have confidence in a person who manipulates so
strangely informations and publishes them using a pseudonym?

And you ask us to trust this person? You even ask to trust us to trust
him on subjects of radiation physics more than a high profile specialist?
According to Wikipedia Peter Gleick is an expert "in economic
development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity,
with a focus on global freshwater challenges" why should we trust him
more on the radiative GHG phenomenon than an specialist of scientific
ethics and integrity who negligently published a fake document with the
avowed intention to discredit.

If you trust more 97.1% of people like Peter Gleick than 2.9% of persons
like Happer on the radiative GHG theory you are really misguided.

[Paul Aubrin]

The study included an initial set of 11,000? If the answer is yes,
then they were in the sample space of the study.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:36:32 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>> No 66% were irrelevant to the study. Jump up and down and say it just
>>> is not fair. Scientists did a major study, on their own dime, for over
>>> a year and the results are published in a peer reviewed journal.It is
>>> open season on the study, for anybody who wants to spend a year trying
>>> to duplicate it.
>>
>>8,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science were irrelevant to the
>>study? Why is that, gordo?
>
> Easy. Read the bloody peer reviewed published paper or look at some of
> the answers you have already received.

From this sample we know the greater part of published documents on
climate don't even mention the possible influence of the GHG effect, if
GHG had been a significant factor, the papers would have mentioned it.
So 66% of the climate science paper used as the sample space base in this
study did feel useful to acknowledge AGW as significant phenomenon.

[Paul Aubrin]

If a scientific paper on climate doesn't mention AGW, Gordito
discards it as a valid climate science paper? Now I understand better how
the 97.1% figure has been obtained. In Gordito's logics if a scientist
doesn't act as an environmentalist activist his work is not counted as a
scientific work. Gordo's behaviour matches with what we learned on peer
review in climate science from the climategate emails.

[Chom Noamsky]

I'm asking you.

[Chom Noamsky]

The sample size was 11,994. They discarded 8,000 samples because they
didn't agree with the predetermined conclusions of the study.

[Chom Noamsky]

Cook's "study" is a classic case of start with the conclusion first,
then work backwards to make the data fit.

[gordo]

On 19 May 2013 05:18:58 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:25 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>>>> Dr. Gleick published nothing. He passed the information on.
>>>He made the information public. Among which a fake. He thus spread false
>>>information. As he made no excuses for the fake, he can be considered to
>>>have willingly published false information.
>>
>> He did not make the information public He passed it on. Your allegations
>> of fake information is false as well.
>He made made this information public, and he included a document which he
>later pretended to have received from another source and proved to be a
>fake.

What do you mean pretended? You are making crap up with no evidence.
The information was correct and the Heartland Institute threatened to
sue but did not. The names of the shills were revealed, the recipients
of the money were revealed. One of the big ones was Anthony Watts who
claimed he was not funded by dirty coal and then never apologized when
his lie was revealed.

This is too too funny.

>Why should anybody have confidence in a person who manipulates so
>strangely informations and publishes them using a pseudonym?
>
>And you ask us to trust this person? You even ask to trust us to trust
>him on subjects of radiation physics more than a high profile specialist?
>According to Wikipedia Peter Gleick is an expert "in economic
>development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity,
>with a focus on global freshwater challenges" why should we trust him
>more on the radiative GHG phenomenon than an specialist of scientific
>ethics and integrity who negligently published a fake document with the
>avowed intention to discredit.
>
>If you trust more 97.1% of people like Peter Gleick than 2.9% of persons
>like Happer on the radiative GHG theory you are really misguided.
>
>>>William Happer is a physicist specialised in the interaction between
>>>electromagnetic energy and matter. Isn't this kind of interaction at the
>>>base of the GHG theory?

I notice that you deleted Happers attachment to dirty oil and tobacco.
Do you think for a moment that these facts will go away. You also
deleted the cite showing what a crock Happer is.

A little food for thought. Among all the thousands of peer reviewed
paper in science journals on AGW there is not one from Happer.

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:43:00 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

I answered you and so have others.Take a course in statistics.Read the
bloody paper. Spend a year on your own dime and correct the errors and
send it to an appropriate science journal.

I am afraid Chompski,the consensus was realized a long time ago.When
you see a new peer reviewed study,that corrects what has been known
for over a hundred years,let everyone know.To say that this is not
possible would be wrong.It is possible, but no scientist seems to be
involved in trying to find evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
and the main reason for the present warming.

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:46:12 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 10:23 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:10:14 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:35:28 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 11:27 AM, gordo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No. Only those studies that have a position count.
>>>>
>>>> 66% of the papers didn't endorse AGW.
>>>
>>> No 66% were irrelevant to the study. Jump up and down and say it just is
>>> not fair. Scientists did a major study, on their own dime, for over a
>>> year and the results are published in a peer reviewed journal.It is open
>>> season on the study, for anybody who wants to spend a year trying to
>>> duplicate it.
>>
>> The study included an initial set of 11,000? If the answer is yes,
>> then they were in the sample space of the study.
>
>The sample size was 11,994. They discarded 8,000 samples because they
>didn't agree with the predetermined conclusions of the study.

No. Stop being silly.
>
>

[Dawlish]

The record is stuck. nutbar won't read the paper without his denier glasses on, therefore comes to a different conclusion *to the actual paper* and won't change his mind.

Hey ho. That's the denier way.

[gordo]

Wow, so you examine all the evidence and see what evidence is
applicable to the question. You knew that already so stop being silly.
>

[Chom Noamsky]

You keep evading the question... why were 8,000 peer-reviewed studies on
climate science irrelevant to the study?

[Chom Noamsky]

Why were 8,000 peer-reviewed climate papers not relevant to the study,
gordo?

[Chom Noamsky]

[gordo]

My Grandson is Gordito. I did not do a scientific paper. The one you
refer to is a peer reviewed published paper.All we learned from the
stolen emails was that the Merchants of Doubt( thats the name of a
book you should get and read )caused 8,9 investigations that cost
millions to show that the scientists did nothing wrong.

Do you have it straight now? The paper is peer reviewed and
published.Attacks on me or my name do not have anything to do with it.
So jump up and down and bite your lip. The consensus is real and the
study was not necessary to show it.
>

[gordo]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:48:41 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

It is a classic peer reviewed science paper.

" Every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing
global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so
obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note
in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the
sun?"

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:49:54 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>He made made this information public, and he included a document which
>>he later pretended to have received from another source and proved to be
>>a fake.
>
> What do you mean pretended? You are making crap up with no evidence. The
> information was correct and the Heartland Institute threatened to sue
> but did not. The names of the shills were revealed, the recipients of
> the money were revealed. One of the big ones was Anthony Watts who
> claimed he was not funded by dirty coal and then never apologized when
> his lie was revealed.
>
> This is too too funny.

One document WAS a fake, not the slightest doubt here. And Peter Gleick
willingly PUBLISHED the fake. Unable to do even the most basic checks on
his sources, his credibility as a scientist is destroyed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-
heartland
"Following the expose, Heartland acknowledged most of the documents were
genuine. But the thinktank claimed the most explosive document, a two-
page strategy memo summarising plans spelled out in detail elsewhere, was
a fake."
"Heartland also accused Gleick of forging the document and published
findings of computer forensics experts that the memo did not appear to be
a genuine strategy document."
"Gleick, for his part, has consistently denied forging the document."

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:08:54 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>I'm asking you.
>
> I answered you and so have others.Take a course in statistics.Read the
> bloody paper. Spend a year on your own dime and correct the errors and
> send it to an appropriate science journal.

Rants and ad hominem are no answer. 66% of the sampled climate
science paper for the study didn't even mention the GHG hypothesis, how
can you suppose this not to be meaningful regarding the relations of GHG
and climate science? 66% of climate scientists don't need the GHG
hypothesis and don't feel complied to pay lip service to it.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:12:00 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>> The study included an initial set of 11,000? If the answer is
>>> yes,
>>> then they were in the sample space of the study.
>>
>>The sample size was 11,994. They discarded 8,000 samples because they
>>didn't agree with the predetermined conclusions of the study.
>
> No. Stop being silly.

You are wrong there, if they initially selected 11994 climate paper,
their initial selection biased their sample toward their predetermined
conclusion. Why don't those people who pretend to be scientists and who
make a heavy use of statistics don't get the help of professional
statisticians. Is there a lack of statisticians in the universities?

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:21:17 -0700, gordo wrote:

> My Grandson is Gordito. I did not do a scientific paper. The one you
> refer to is a peer reviewed published paper.All we learned from the
> stolen emails was that the Merchants of Doubt( thats the name of a book
> you should get and read )caused 8,9 investigations that cost millions to
> show that the scientists did nothing wrong.

The investigation found nothing wrong in their scope of investigation.
But the interested reader could learn a lot about the actual way peer
review was conducted in the climate science realm during those years. No
investigation will change the words used by the email writers themselves,
and they are unambiguous: they did all they possibly could do to screen
out papers which didn't agree with their preconceived conclusions. They
were very efficient at that. This is the reason why they try now to
capitalise on this effort while it is still time. This is what you will
learn from "Merchants of doubts" if you read it with a critical mind.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:26:02 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>Cook's "study" is a classic case of start with the conclusion first,
>>then work backwards to make the data fit.
>
> It is a classic peer reviewed science paper.

It is a classical climate science done by amateur statisticians paper:
methodologically flawed. When will those people spend the time required
to get their statistical work validated before being publicly ridiculed?

[Dawlish]

Says a nutbar, deluded enough to think he recognises something that no-one else does. Batshit crazy that deniers can think this way, but they really do think they know more than PhD+ scientists who lecture and write on the subject.

Batshit crazy.

[gordo]

On 19 May 2013 07:47:06 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:49:54 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>>>He made made this information public, and he included a document which
>>>he later pretended to have received from another source and proved to be
>>>a fake.
>>
>> What do you mean pretended? You are making crap up with no evidence. The
>> information was correct and the Heartland Institute threatened to sue
>> but did not. The names of the shills were revealed, the recipients of
>> the money were revealed. One of the big ones was Anthony Watts who
>> claimed he was not funded by dirty coal and then never apologized when
>> his lie was revealed.
>>
>> This is too too funny.
>
>One document WAS a fake, not the slightest doubt here. And Peter Gleick
>willingly PUBLISHED the fake. Unable to do even the most basic checks on

He never PUBLISHED anything.

>his sources, his credibility as a scientist is destroyed.

He is back at work as a scientist and the disgraced Heartland
Institute held its last phony meeting in Germany. I understand they
are not going to hold any more.

>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-
>heartland
>"Following the expose, Heartland acknowledged most of the documents were
>genuine. But the thinktank claimed the most explosive document, a two-
>page strategy memo summarising plans spelled out in detail elsewhere, was
>a fake."

The most explosive documents were the names of the shills and who was
funding them. Their plan to infiltrate the school systems was also
revealed.

>"Heartland also accused Gleick of forging the document and published
>findings of computer forensics experts that the memo did not appear to be
>a genuine strategy document."
>"Gleick, for his part, has consistently denied forging the document."

The disgraced Heartland Institute would rather that you forget the
whole thing. It won't go away .I am pleased that I can point out,that
it was not Dr. Gleick who was exposed,but the Insurance Industry, Bill
Gates, GM, Coke,Pepsi,the Koch brothers, Exxon, etc. and etc.

[gordo]

Stop being silly. It was peer reviewed and published.

[gordo]

If you read the book I would be very surprised. If you did can you
explain why Dr. Singer would not refute any of the things said about
him?
>

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:13:49 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>One document WAS a fake, not the slightest doubt here. And Peter Gleick
>>willingly PUBLISHED the fake. Unable to do even the most basic checks on
>
> He never PUBLISHED anything.
>
>>his sources, his credibility as a scientist is destroyed.
>
> He is back at work as a scientist and the disgraced Heartland Institute
> held its last phony meeting in Germany. I understand they are not going
> to hold any more.

From Webster unabridged dictionnary (1913) : Publish

Publish \Pub"lish\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Published}; p. pr. &
vb. n. {Publishing}.] [F. publier, L. publicare, publicatum.
See {Public}, and {-ish}.]
1. To make public; to make known to mankind, or to people in
general; to divulge, as a private transaction; to
promulgate or proclaim, as a law or an edict.

Peter Gleick made public a fake document. He obviously knew its content.
If he knew it was a fake, it was a lie; if he ignored it it was an
unbelievable negligence. Whatever may be the case, who could have
imagined that a teacher in scientific ethics and integrity of a renown
institution could act in such a reckless way? He lost any legitimacy.

[Paul Aubrin]

The methodology used in Cook's study is amateurish, what is really silly
is to deny it.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:25:54 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>The investigation found nothing wrong in their scope of investigation.
>>But the interested reader could learn a lot about the actual way peer
>>review was conducted in the climate science realm during those years. No
>>investigation will change the words used by the email writers
>>themselves,
>>and they are unambiguous: they did all they possibly could do to screen
>>out papers which didn't agree with their preconceived conclusions. They
>>were very efficient at that. This is the reason why they try now to
>>capitalise on this effort while it is still time. This is what you will
>>learn from "Merchants of doubts" if you read it with a critical mind.
>
> If you read the book I would be very surprised. If you did can you
> explain why Dr. Singer would not refute any of the things said about
> him?

What is said on Dr. Singer in this book doesn't change what was said
about the peer review process in the climategate emails: "We “will keep
them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is!”. A clear advocacy of cherry picking and obstruction.
Cook's study is nothing but a redefinition of what peer-review literature
is.

[Dawlish]

Again, says a deluded nutbar. Why do you think anyone with a brain would believe you, pauly?

[SunDancer]

Unum wrote :

> On 5/18/2013 5:35 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 11:27 AM, gordo wrote:
>>
>>> No. Only those studies that have a position count.
>>
>> 66% of the papers didn't endorse AGW.
>

> Your logic has been falsified.

You wouldn't recognize logic when it hit you in the face.

--
(No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. However,
a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.)

[gordo]

Keep it up,I am enjoying the topic.

"Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained
by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its
current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what
DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years."
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

And what did DeSmogBlog say about the documents?

"The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and
foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch
Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and
more."

You see it was not Dr Gleick who published it. Too Too funny.

>

[gordo]

Immediately removed from the study,were the studies on climate,by
William Happer. Wait,he never published anything in a peer reviewed
journal on climate.
"William Happer appears to have only published one paper on climate
change, titled "Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection."

Note that while the paper appears in Google Scholar, it was published
by the George C. Marshall Institute and not by any peer-reviewed
journal."

http://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer

[gordo]

You should probably read the full paper,before making an ass of
yourself.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the
scientific literature

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:08:39 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>Peter Gleick made public a fake document. He obviously knew its content.
>>If he knew it was a fake, it was a lie; if he ignored it it was an
>>unbelievable negligence. Whatever may be the case, who could have
>>imagined that a teacher in scientific ethics and integrity of a renown
>>institution could act in such a reckless way? He lost any legitimacy.
>
> Keep it up,I am enjoying the topic.

You are an admirer of Peter Gleick. I suppose that you like the way
he teach scientific ethics to his students by the example.
Peter Gleick obtained the Heartland documents added the fake and
published the whole. Many suspect he made the fake himself, because of
the references to Gleick in it. But even if he didn't make it, he
willingly published fabricated information.
I don't trust people who publish fakes except on the first of April.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/19/2013 10:04 AM, gordo wrote:
> On 19 May 2013 12:48:32 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:25:54 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>> The investigation found nothing wrong in their scope of investigation.
>>>> But the interested reader could learn a lot about the actual way peer
>>>> review was conducted in the climate science realm during those years. No
>>>> investigation will change the words used by the email writers
>>>> themselves,
>>>> and they are unambiguous: they did all they possibly could do to screen
>>>> out papers which didn't agree with their preconceived conclusions. They
>>>> were very efficient at that. This is the reason why they try now to
>>>> capitalise on this effort while it is still time. This is what you will
>>>> learn from "Merchants of doubts" if you read it with a critical mind.
>>>
>>> If you read the book I would be very surprised. If you did can you
>>> explain why Dr. Singer would not refute any of the things said about
>>> him?
>>
>> What is said on Dr. Singer in this book doesn't change what was said

>> about the peer review process in the climategate emails: "We �will keep
>> them out somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
>> literature is!�. A clear advocacy of cherry picking and obstruction.

>> Cook's study is nothing but a redefinition of what peer-review literature
>> is.
>
> You should probably read the full paper,before making an ass of
> yourself.
> Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the
> scientific literature
>
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

You can read the paper as many times as you like but it will never
support what the authors claim it supports. It states right in the
abstract that 66.4% of the papers expressed no position on AGW.
Therefore, there is no consensus among the total body of sampled
science. There is a minority of papers, 32.6%, that support the AGW
hypothesis. 32.6% will only ever be a consensus in the imaginations of
desperate climate crusaders who know they've all but failed.

Now answer the question you keep running away from: why were 8000
peer-reviewed climate studies not relevant to the question of AGW?

[Dawlish]

This really is a cracking thread. It's sent deniers like chomper over the edge.

[gordo]

What he passed on was not faked. It was the internal communications
sent to his email address.The next meeting of the disgraced Heartland
Institute saw over one hundred empty seats. They had coffee mugs with
Dr. Gleicks picture on them.Why do you not find it humorous that all
those shills were exposed? You like truth or do you like deceiving
yourself?

[gordo]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:45:21 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

>On 5/19/2013 10:04 AM, gordo wrote:
>> On 19 May 2013 12:48:32 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:25:54 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The investigation found nothing wrong in their scope of investigation.
>>>>> But the interested reader could learn a lot about the actual way peer
>>>>> review was conducted in the climate science realm during those years. No
>>>>> investigation will change the words used by the email writers
>>>>> themselves,
>>>>> and they are unambiguous: they did all they possibly could do to screen
>>>>> out papers which didn't agree with their preconceived conclusions. They
>>>>> were very efficient at that. This is the reason why they try now to
>>>>> capitalise on this effort while it is still time. This is what you will
>>>>> learn from "Merchants of doubts" if you read it with a critical mind.
>>>>
>>>> If you read the book I would be very surprised. If you did can you
>>>> explain why Dr. Singer would not refute any of the things said about
>>>> him?
>>>
>>> What is said on Dr. Singer in this book doesn't change what was said

>>> about the peer review process in the climategate emails: "We “will keep
>>> them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
>>> literature is!”. A clear advocacy of cherry picking and obstruction.

>>> Cook's study is nothing but a redefinition of what peer-review literature
>>> is.
>>
>> You should probably read the full paper,before making an ass of
>> yourself.
>> Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the
>> scientific literature
>>
>> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
>
>You can read the paper as many times as you like but it will never
>support what the authors claim it supports. It states right in the
>abstract that 66.4% of the papers expressed no position on AGW.
>Therefore, there is no consensus among the total body of sampled
>science. There is a minority of papers, 32.6%, that support the AGW
>hypothesis. 32.6% will only ever be a consensus in the imaginations of
>desperate climate crusaders who know they've all but failed.
>
>Now answer the question you keep running away from: why were 8000
>peer-reviewed climate studies not relevant to the question of AGW?

If you do a statistical count of all the animals on farms across the
US that are cows,here is what you do.
You gather up the data of all the animals. You throw out the
horses,the pigs,sheep and republicans.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:49:04 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> ALL of the studies are relevant, the 11,994 papers represent the total
> sampling of science involved in the study.

Idiot cultist has already been corrected on the subject. How the
bloody anal fuck can you justify including papers that don't even
mention that which was being counted? Fucking moron.

> Cook is basically saying
> 2/3rds of the papers aren't relevant to the question of cause because
> they have a neutral position.

No, Shit-for-brains. The majority of papers did *NOT* "have a neutral
position:" 2.2% of the 4,000+ did. Good fucking grief. Why the bloody
hell don't you actually *READ* the paper?

> Do you honestly think that 8,000
> peer-reviewed academic studies suddenly disqualify as climate science
> because they have a neutral position?

No: nobody believes that. Note that the papers with the neutra
position were counted: the sum is 2.2%

> It's unbelievable, really.

Your stupidity is, yes.


--
"I'm often irrelevant. It confuses people." --- Archie Goodwin

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:04:11 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:49:04 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>

> >On 5/17/2013 11:35 PM, gordo wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:46:05 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/17/2013 7:06 PM, gordo wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:24 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Start with a sample size of 11,994.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of those samples, 4,000 are found to support AGW.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore, roughly 1/3 of the samples support AGW.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Conclusion: Based on the total sample size, there is no consensus on AGW.
> >>>>
> >>>> It has been explained to you. Statistics is beyond your ken.
> >>>
> >>> If you go really slow I might understand. Now explain to me, how do
> >>> 4,000 samples from a total sample size of 11,994 result in 97% agreement.
> >>
> >> First you have to remove those studies that have no relevance to the
> >> question.

> >
> >ALL of the studies are relevant, the 11,994 papers represent the total

> >sampling of science involved in the "study". Cook is basically saying

> >2/3rds of the papers aren't relevant to the question of cause because

> >they have a neutral position. Do you honestly think that 8,000

> >peer-reviewed academic studies suddenly disqualify as climate science

> >because they have a neutral position? It's unbelievable, really.

> They did not disqualify as climate science.

Exactly; Dr. Cook never said they were. The papers that maintained the
Null Hypothesis *WERE* counted: they represent 2.2% of the total.
97.1% represented the consensus; the remainder represented the
rejection of the consensus. All papers were counted. Shit-for-brains
wants people to think he's too stupid to understand.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:57:59 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> Correct. And if the question was "is there a consensus among the body
> of academic studies" then they absolutely count.

That was not what was being counted, Shit-for-brains.

> The fact that 2/3rds
> of the papers had no position proves categorically that there is no
> consensus.

Idiot.

[Dawlish]

I honestly think chomper is mad. No-one in science would see the methodology here as wrong. Instead, they see it as another nail in the deniers' coffin and an excellent bolster to the obvious and well-documented consensus.

Deniers have so little going for them, that they feel they have to criticise what is an excellent study.

The frothing at the mouth rather gives the game away, that they really hate the study's conclusions.

[Chom Noamsky]

Cook started with a conclusion, then eliminated 2/3rds of the science
which did not fit the conclusion. It's an analytical joke.

[Chom Noamsky]

I can see you're getting really upset, you're probably ready to beat
your dog in frustration because you can't win the point.

Now, I asked gordo this question but he's completely stuck for an
answer: why are 8,000 peer-reviewed climate studies -- 2/3rds of the
sampled science -- irrelevant to the question of AGW?

[prawnster]

On May 17, 7:46 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
> [...]

> If you go really slow I might understand.  Now explain to me, how do
> 4,000 samples from a total sample size of 11,994 result in 97% agreement.

Because, of course, 7,992 of the ones disagreeing with
globalclimatewarmingweatherchaoschange were flawed. And how do we
know they were flawed? Because they don't agree with
globalweatherchaosclimatewarmingchange, duh. It's like the circle of
life, ya know?

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn

[gordo]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:01:02 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

I gave you the answer. If you are going to have a statistical study of
cows, you throw out all the animals that are not cows. They would be
pigs , horses, sheep and republican denialists.

[Chom Noamsky]

What you just said amounts to methodological gibberish... why on earth
would you count non-cows if your objective was to study cows?

I'll give you one more chance at a non-gibberish answer: why are 8,000

peer-reviewed climate studies -- 2/3rds of the sampled science --
irrelevant to the question of AGW?

Take as many pages as you need.

[gordo]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:45:36 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

It is because in my hypothetical study you must start with all the
animals,because this is the data you have. Then you throw out all the
animals that are not cows. This included republican denialists,pigs
and horses.

>
>I'll give you one more chance at a non-gibberish answer: why are 8,000
>peer-reviewed climate studies -- 2/3rds of the sampled science --
>irrelevant to the question of AGW?
>
>Take as many pages as you need.

You start with all the animals. Ok? This happens to be the data you
are looking at. Did you think that a republican nut case qualified for
a cow? Now look at the study and see how it applies. Take as long as
you want and I am sure you will be working on this all night. Don't
give up. You probably can be educated. One caution. Do not rely on
unreliable sources for your science and stop biting your lip and
jumping up and down.

[Chom Noamsky]

WHY ON EARTH would you start with all animals if the scope of your
research was just cows? That's absolutely baffling, but you're so
intellectually challenged that you don't know any better

Now, what was the scope of Cook's study? The scope was peer-reviewed
climate science literature published in the last 20 years... 11,994
papers. What Cook did was conduct the survey then he realized the data
didn't say what he wanted it to say." So Cook invented arbitrary
criteria in order to reduce the scope of the data to that which
supported his predetermined conclusion.

I mean seriously, gordo, Cook and Nuticceli are amateur bloggers who run
a hardcore climate crusader website. That alone makes their intentions
biased and suspect.

[gordo]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:18:15 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

The most complete data base is from a base study of all the animals on
the farms of the US.If this is what you have to work with,then you
have to throw out the denialists republicans and the pigs at the
trough. Now do you get it?

>
>Now, what was the scope of Cook's study? The scope was peer-reviewed
>climate science literature published in the last 20 years... 11,994
>papers. What Cook did was conduct the survey then he realized the data
>didn't say what he wanted it to say." So Cook invented arbitrary
>criteria in order to reduce the scope of the data to that which
>supported his predetermined conclusion.
>
>I mean seriously, gordo, Cook and Nuticceli are amateur bloggers who run
>a hardcore climate crusader website. That alone makes their intentions
>biased and suspect.

I mean seriously,if you have read the peer reviewed study and
understood it, you would stop making an ass of yourself.A blog is one
thing and a peer review published paper is another. Who the hell do
you think you impress,with really stupid statements such as,climate
crusader website?

I suppose that people who call others "intellectually challenged" Fill
in the blanks are, ( maybe shit heads ) ,(intellectually challenged ),
Fill in the blank ( ).

[Dawlish]

All he needs to do is to read the study, but he won't.

The denier misinterprets from ignorance of the techniques, then convinces himself that he's right.


It's amazing what these people are capable of convince themselves is true.

[Chom Noamsky]

No, I don't get it at all. If the scope of study is cows, why the hell
would you include pigs? You're close being totally incoherent.

>>
>> Now, what was the scope of Cook's study? The scope was peer-reviewed
>> climate science literature published in the last 20 years... 11,994
>> papers. What Cook did was conduct the survey then he realized the data
>> didn't say what he wanted it to say." So Cook invented arbitrary
>> criteria in order to reduce the scope of the data to that which
>> supported his predetermined conclusion.
>>
>> I mean seriously, gordo, Cook and Nuticceli are amateur bloggers who run
>> a hardcore climate crusader website. That alone makes their intentions
>> biased and suspect.
>
> I mean seriously,if you have read the peer reviewed study and
> understood it, you would stop making an ass of yourself.A blog is one
> thing and a peer review published paper is another. Who the hell do
> you think you impress,with really stupid statements such as,climate
> crusader website?
>
> I suppose that people who call others "intellectually challenged" Fill
> in the blanks are, ( maybe shit heads ) ,(intellectually challenged ),
> Fill in the blank ( ).

The paper is a joke if you read it once or a hundred times. I only had
to read it once.

Read the comments section in the link below, scan for "Chrisgan". He
just absolutely shredded the study. Chrisgan was quite professional and
polite, but dana1981 (Data Nucciteli) ran off after issuing some ad-hom
attacks instead of dealing with some very good questions about the
study. What does that say when one of authors can't even defend his
study in a newspaper comments section?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:05:14 -0700, gordo wrote:

>> You are an admirer of Peter Gleick. I suppose that you like the way
>>he teach scientific ethics to his students by the example.
>>Peter Gleick obtained the Heartland documents added the fake and
>>published the whole. Many suspect he made the fake himself, because of
>>the references to Gleick in it. But even if he didn't make it, he
>>willingly published fabricated information.
>> I don't trust people who publish fakes except on the first of April.
>
> What he passed on was not faked.

One of the documents Gleick published was a proven fake.

This person receives an anonymous document by mail. He does nothing to
cross-check its veracity. He negligently adds it to a bundle of real
documents and post the whole pretending the whole bunch is true. And you
ask me to trust this person? And you ask me to consider that you are not
a deliberate liar?

I don't trust people who deny proven facts, acknowledged even by the
exact person who did them. Here is a cite from Gleick himself where he a
acknowledges the different origin of the fake.
"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail
describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's
climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders
and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about
climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original
document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with
Heartland and because I was named in it."

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:45:21 -0700, Chom Noamsky wrote:

>>> What is said on Dr. Singer in this book doesn't change what was said

>>> about the peer review process in the climategate emails: "We “will
>>> keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the
>>> peer-review literature is!”. A clear advocacy of cherry picking and

>>> obstruction. Cook's study is nothing but a redefinition of what
>>> peer-review literature is.
>>
>> You should probably read the full paper,before making an ass of
>> yourself.

Besides being rude and ignorant, you keep dodging and trying to deviate
the conversation, with your very disingenuous diversion tactics.
You like very much Cook's paper because it flatters your cognitive bias
and you will never admit that it is based on a sloppy data collection
procedure. 8000 of the 11,000 papers don't care about any form of
consensus, the authors are right here: in the scientific realm a
consensus means nothing. Peer reviewed or not, the papers who proclaim an
allegiance to or against "the consensus" are advocacy which is the
opposite of science.

[gordo]

On 20 May 2013 07:49:40 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:05:14 -0700, gordo wrote:
>
>>> You are an admirer of Peter Gleick. I suppose that you like the way
>>>he teach scientific ethics to his students by the example.
>>>Peter Gleick obtained the Heartland documents added the fake and
>>>published the whole. Many suspect he made the fake himself, because of
>>>the references to Gleick in it. But even if he didn't make it, he
>>>willingly published fabricated information.
>>> I don't trust people who publish fakes except on the first of April.
>>
>> What he passed on was not faked.
>
>One of the documents Gleick published was a proven fake.

Dr Gleick published nothing but keep it up. No one cares if you trust
him or not. The documents he received were internal documents that
exposed most of the donors and the recipients.What happened next was
astounding. The donors fled the sinking ship like rats .

>
>This person receives an anonymous document by mail. He does nothing to
>cross-check its veracity. He negligently adds it to a bundle of real
>documents and post the whole pretending the whole bunch is true. And you
>ask me to trust this person? And you ask me to consider that you are not
>a deliberate liar?
>
>I don't trust people who deny proven facts, acknowledged even by the
>exact person who did them. Here is a cite from Gleick himself where he a
>acknowledges the different origin of the fake.
>"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail
>describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's
>climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders
>and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about
>climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original
>document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with
>Heartland and because I was named in it."

The above says it all. "It contained information about their funders

and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding
about climate science and policy. "

The above is what you posted and it is too funny.Not really, causing
you or anybody else confusion is not in our best interest.
Now how about that fake whatever. Keep it up.

[gordo]

I neither like or dislike a peer reviewed paper. What you must do is
to learn to overcome your childish emotional feelings. It might be
hard in the beginning.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:12:52 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

A very good article from the Guardian. I do hope you read it.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:54:52 -0700, gordo wrote:

> On 20 May 2013 07:49:40 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:05:14 -0700, gordo wrote:
>>
>>>> You are an admirer of Peter Gleick. I suppose that you like the
>>>> way
>>>>he teach scientific ethics to his students by the example.
>>>>Peter Gleick obtained the Heartland documents added the fake and
>>>>published the whole. Many suspect he made the fake himself, because of
>>>>the references to Gleick in it. But even if he didn't make it, he
>>>>willingly published fabricated information.
>>>> I don't trust people who publish fakes except on the first of
>>>> April.
>>>
>>> What he passed on was not faked.
>>
>>One of the documents Gleick published was a proven fake.
>
> Dr Gleick published nothing but keep it up.

He made it public. He published it.

> No one cares if you trust
> him or not. The documents he received were internal documents that
> exposed most of the donors and the recipients.What happened next was
> astounding. The donors fled the sinking ship like rats .

One of the documents was a proven fake. Gleick himself acknowledged that
he got it separately. Nevertheless he shamelessly joined the document
from unknown origin and unverified content to documents for which he knew
the origin and the content and he published the bundle without a notice
about the difference of credibility between them.
Gleick willingly published a fake. Don't ask me to trust him any more.
You deny that he published the fake: your reputation as a liar is clearly
established.

>>I don't trust people who deny proven facts, acknowledged even by the
>>exact person who did them. Here is a cite from Gleick himself where he a
>>acknowledges the different origin of the fake.
>>"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail
>>describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's
>>climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders
>>and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about
>>climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original
>>document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with
>>Heartland and because I was named in it."
>
>
> The above says it all. "It contained information about their funders and
> the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about
> climate science and policy. "

I have no link with the Heartland institute, I don't care what they do,
what they say or if they want to seek reparation for the prejudice caused
by Gleick. But actually, adding a fake to real documents is an indication
of some malignant intention from Peter Gleick.

> The above is what you posted and it is too funny.Not really, causing you
> or anybody else confusion is not in our best interest.
> Now how about that fake whatever. Keep it up.

The demonstration of the concepts of scientific ethics by Peter Gleick
was a full success. Everybody knows now what scientific ethics mean for a
specific group of climate scientists.

[Dawlish]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:12:52 AM UTC+1, Chom Noamsky wrote:

> No, I don't get it at all. If the scope of study is cows, why the hell
>
> would you include pigs? You're close being totally incoherent.

Pigs?? And gordo is potentially being incoherent???

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:04:28 -0700, gordo wrote:

>>>> Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the
>>>> scientific literature
>>>>
>>>> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/
>>pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
>
> I neither like or dislike a peer reviewed paper. What you must do is
> to learn to overcome your childish emotional feelings. It might be hard
> in the beginning.

You are the emotional one here. Cook is childish to look for an *opinion*
in scientific papers. If 66% of scientific papers don't mention AGW, it
reflects the fact that it is not as central as you believe.

[Tom P]

http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0516-hance-climate-consensus.html

<quote>
In addressing the fact that two thirds of papers expressed no opinion,
the study's authors write, "Of note is the large proportion of abstracts
that state no position on anthropogenic global warming. This result is
expected in consensus situations where scientists '. . . generally focus
their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered
rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72)."

This is similar to the fact that most biology papers don't stake out a
stance on evolution, but take it as a given.
</quote>

[Chom Noamsky]

A sizable segment of the climate crusading population couldn't give a
poop about climate change, it's just a means to carry out an agenda, and
their ethical position is the end justifies the means.