|
InfoMan -> RE: Trump Pulled Out (6/3/2017 4:27:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
If possible, you should really try to stop being so fucking retarded... but I have my doubts about whether or not you're capable of rising to the task.
The only thing that would make me 'fucking retarded' is to continue to subject myself to your uneducated insulated ignorant position on defending a lie and let you continue to propagate that lie thinking that it is some sort of fact. If i where smarter - i would just simply laugh at you because what you are doing here is letting yourself be manipulated by popular opinion. Taking what people said at face value and only accepting the facts that just so happen to coincide with the opinion you've been told is 'true' by your 'Pro-AGW' advocates.
I should just let you continue to live the fucking joke of a life you have... finding happiness in a lie because you honestly have nothing else to live for. Gotta fight that big fight against them evil shadowy overlords or what ever.
But i dunno - there is a type of catharsis in watching your ilk writhe about and get so aggitated when fact interferes with your fragile existance.
So to answer that question... No- I cannot stop being 'fucking retarded'.
Not while some one is wrong on the Internet!
[image]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/image]
But i digress.
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
My point wasn't that it was a rebuttal to that specific paper, but that this journal is actually willing to publish what is essentially a back-and-forth series of personal attacks.
The one you linked to was part of the series, and is not much more than name-calling on the part of the denialists.
That's kind of odd because the First paper:
Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9588-3
Is a criticism of using 'Consensus' as part of teaching curriculum or discussion and not a personal attack...
Specifically:
One-sided presentations of controversial topics have little place in the classroom as they serve only to stifle debate and do not further knowledge and enhance critical thinking.
You could argue that Cook's rebuttal is a personal attack.
Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9608-3
As his paper effectively reads as 'He is wrong, He just doesn't understand' excuse paper you'd expect from a High School Student... but that would mean that the person that is mounting personal attacks was the 'AGW Advocate' and not the Denialist. Which is counter to the position you've been constantly trying to present to us as fact.
Of course - being an Academic Journal - It is a courtesy they can provide to allow opposing positions and rebuttals to be published in their works. As it is supposed to be a Journal which expands knowledge and provide alternative points of view. Although you could say that Cook's paper was little more then a childish 'Nuh-uh' response to criticism, it is constructed to defend the statements made by the original paper.
But this is getting away from the point you where trying to make... Attempting to diminish the validity or value of one Journal because it published a rebuttal. I guess i you're all for Censorship... then yes, i guess this would reduce the validity of the publication... because you know... they let them pesky kids publish works which disagree with main stream opinion in an attempt to further understanding and expand critical thinking. They should just censor the crap out of everything You disagree with and only write papers that coincide with the facts you want to believe. Am I Right?
It would behoove you to know that subsequent Rebuttals for either of these papers where not published because the Journal, while allowing for disagreement and rebuttals to be expressed, is not willing to engage in petty argumentation. In fact, many of Cook's rebuttal work which attempt to counter criticisms made of his works usually do not get published.
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Yes... More competition leads to higher standards - because the paper has to have more merit or importance to it in order to justify it's publication. Because Science & Education Journal is an Academia Journal, it covers a wide variety of subjects ranging from all fields of science. This means that papers published there have to prove themselves more important, pertinent, and worthwhile then the hundreds of other papers which are all also competing for inches in the journal in any other category of science. Even more generic or popular Scientific Journals which cover a wider variety of subjects or professions, and in turn forces authors to compete for space between those pages will produce a higher standard of paper.
Environmental Research Letters on the other hand is an Electronic Publication on a very very narrow field of consideration.
As an example, if 2 papers where submitted for consideration :
'Observation of structural structural stability in Carbon Nanotubes and potential applications'
Is a well produced, 200 page study with displays a myriad of graphs, data points, and experimental conclusions.
Verses
'Is it warmer in here?'
A 3 page study that reads like a High School Science Experiment in which a person looks at a thermometer each day and measures for 3 months and draws a vague pointless conclusion.
Which one is more likely to get published in Environmental Research Letters?
'Is it warmer in here?' - Because it is a paper which is concerning the Environment... Despite the length and depth the 'Carbon Nanotube' paper goes into being well articulated, researched, and presented... because it involves a category not interested by the Editor of the Journal - it does not find itself a publication there.
But you're probably going to blow this off because You couldn't come to this reasonable assessment yourself and needed it to be explained to you... Not that intellect is a strong suit of yours. Don't worry i look forward to reading a drafted argument of personal attacks and out of context 'science' which you think disproves everything i said here... It is all you're good for in this instance.
Or maybe it could be because the standards are so low that they attract more submitters, anxious to get published because they know they actually have a shot... as opposed to a journal with high standards, where they couldn't possibly hope to get in?
Seriously, you are dealing with people who use the word 'agnotology' in a pathetic attempt to conceal their name-calling.
I could probably write a paper called 'A study of the Dunning-Kruger effect as it concerns every single one of InfoMan's posts' and get it published there.
Also, good job being pompous AND dumb... it's an uncommon combination.
Usually people at your level of critical thought tend to be a little 'earthier', but you actually say dumb things in a pretentious douchebag sort of way.
Would you look at that - you blew off what was said - proceeded to personally attack the individual rather then the point, and then tried to use some bit of science that you don't understand out of Context in order to disprove your opposition. Good that you're adequately trained as a lapdog.
Write a paper and get it Published?
Okay - do that.
If you think that the publication is dishonest then go about Providing PROOF of that effect.
Because in all honesty all you're doing right now is sitting here trying to dismiss an Academic journal that has been around for 2 decades, has published over 150 issues, and presents over 1500 articles purely on conjecture. I would call you a uneducated fuckwit 'denialist' because you are denying something simply because it doesn't coincide with your point of view... but you'l probably get all bitchy about it the meaning of 'denialist'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Because the abstract doesn't provide that information most of the time... The abstraction is a short description of the purpose, the the most important parts of information gained or used, and a general idea of the outcome. Some papers don't even provide an Abstraction - just as some books don't have a backflap to describe the basic plot.
Have you actually read the abstracts?
What do they say?
I know for a fact that you are currently just saying whatever you can to make yourself feel better about believing what you do.
Have I read over them?
No... I'm not going to read through 11944 papers just to prove that judging Research off of an abstraction is retarded.
But what do they say?
well:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
only 64 of the 11944 papers reviewed actually fulfills the condition of "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
or simply said - that Human Action is the primary cause for Global Warming.
2910 of the 3894 papers which are categorized as 'Endorses AGW' only implicitly endorse AGW - meaning that it is only a passing reference in said paper...
Such as the following paper:
Toxicity of water-soluble fractions of biodiesel fuels derived from castor oil, palm oil, and waste cooking oil.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21184529
Which does not explicitly endorse or take a conclusive position of global warming, but makes a passing mention of it as a basis to identify why said research is required or was conducted. In effect, any paper that uses the line 'Because of the concerns of (Global Warming)...' as justification for their research contributed implicitly as proof that AGW is real according to Cook.
I think it is only 986 of the 11944 papers -or 8%- actually directly claim that Global Warming as real...
but just bank on the idea that i only read a handful of the abstracts, and thus dismiss everything i say.
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
R. S. J. Tol, a global warming advocate, found that many of his papers where misrepresented or omitted. Papers which where intentionally written as neutral providing no real opinion where listed as 'Endorsing' while other papers he explicitly states his stance that AGW as real where filed as neutral or weak endorsement because those excerpts where found in the conclusion but not the abstraction.
How do you not see this as a huge red flag about the paper?
Because he actually works as an advisor for these guys:
http://www.thegwpf.org/professor-richard-tol/
which you can read about here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Funding_sources
A lot of your denialist friends are there too.
They are all part of this propaganda organization funded by right-wing politicians.
I'm sorry what?
Because he might be a Denialist - his papers where mishandled?
You know if that where true, that would completely invalidate Cook's work entirely... It is not scientific to intentionally misrepresent data as a means of revenge in a sort of vendetta against individuals which you may disagree with. To do so is to violate the integrity of the Scientific Method and calls all of your research into question. The question would have to be asked: "What else was misrepresented to fit your feelings rather then to fit the facts?"
Or are you trying to imply that YOU don't care because you think he is a Denialist in disguise...
To which the rebuttal would be - So what - that doesn't address the fact that his papers where mishandled. You could call him a CIS Gendered White Privileged Cuck... that doesn't invalidate his peer reviewed papers, nor make Cook's mishandling of those papers alright.
[Quote]The funny thing here is that you honestly think that what you're saying makes sense and has any bearing on the 'honesty' of Cook's paper.
So if you were going to do a survey on the health effects of smoking, would you interview a lot of non-smokers?
I guess it would be pretty dishonest not to include all of the non-smokers in a study on the health effects of smoking.
The conclusion of the study would say
% of smokers... not % of humans.
You see - there would be that little bit of clarification to provide context....
And it doesn't matter what you look at.
Car Accidents, Gun violence, Drug Abuse, Crime...
There is always a bit of clarification to denote the sample group which the number represents.
Of Americans, Of convicted criminals, of drivers, of violent offenders, etc.
But with AGW - it is always a blanket claim that lacks any sort of context...
This allows for misrepresentation and the use of deceptive information to be touted as fact.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Endorse how? Implicitly? explicitly?
Causing? how? by having more then 50% influence, or by contributing enough influence to imbalance the system?
This blanket statement with no context paints a gloomy picture and blames Humans for it while simultaneously using a position of authority to demand obedience to all those that could potentially disagree...
I disagree with the Consensus as it is patently unscientific.
It is subjugation of thought through populism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
It is an intentional misrepresentation of data in order to present narrow perspective of information which is intentionally misleading.
Look at what you parroted when prompted:
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
97.2% of papers published on the subject of climate change by people who know what they're talking about agree...
97% of papers published not 97% of papers that provide an opinion...
of papers published
This is the message that is repeated by idiots and politicians.
And they keep saying it because when you read '97% of papers published' it presents the concept that it is so agreed upon by people that know what they are talking about that disagreeing with it means your an idiot. It is intentionally constructed to be that way, to twist the minds of the uneducated and skewer counter arguments presented by many because of the idea 'people smarter then them or that have access to more information then them all agree.'
But this is a Lie.
The truth would be:
32.6% of papers published on the subject of climate change by people who know what they're talking about agree global warming is happening and humans have an influence.
Doesn't exactly carry the same weight as '97%' does it?
Doesn't convince the uneducated or ill informed of your stance.
Doesn't convey your desired message of 'I'm right - people agree with me'
Even in political poles they don't say "48% of Americans voted Hillary, while only 46% voted Trump"
They give the context 'of people that voted', 'of ballets submitted', 'of the popular vote'
This is because it is a well known fact that in the United States not everyone votes. Only 50-60 percent of eligible voters actually submit their ballot... so saying 'Of all Americans' is not valid because a large portion of American's didn't vote for either.
And it's POLLS.
And it's BALLOTS.
If you're going to call people uneducated and ill informed, you should really try not to come off like a drooler.
So... Mountain of Evidence, logical conclusions, reasonable deductions, and display of facts which call into question your position...
and you reply with just a personal attack on the grammar of 2 words while Completely Ignoring the rest of it.
This is the typical argument technique of a child, which does not have the capability to produce complex executive functions to allow for a multi-tiered discussion, instead responding to the simplest easiest to engage component under the guise that disproving That disproves everything.
How can i call you anything but uneducated and ill informed when you behave like a child and cannot properly engage with the topic at hand?
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Because some one out there might be getting a check from a Big Oil company and thus are not completely unbiased... I guess that means you get to ignore it all right?
Because fuck dissenting opinion.
Ignore that reasoning, rational, logic, information, and data.
LOL... I'll pay attention to it when I see it.
But it's definitely not coming from you right now.
I'm sure that $1.2 million had absolutely no bearing on Mr. Soon's integrity.
Why would it?
The oil and gas companies just want to hear the truth, no matter how much it hurts their profits.
You're so educated! Did you go to Really Smart Guy University?
Pay attention to what?
Because you've in so far ignored reasoning, rational, logic, information, and data.
I guess asking you to be clear is a little much for you because you genuinely believe the 97% bullshit line and eat it up like a good little sheep.
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
You done gone and proved me all kinds of wrong because you attacked credibility of one of the writers.
Ad Hominem? what's that? Ah we speak English here, so ignore that too!
Is this all you're really capable of doing?
Parroting lies, attacking people rather then their stances, and avoiding the truth?
Unless you have actually studied climatology yourself and are in a position to make a qualified, first-hand opinion, then you are going to have to rely on the people who actually know what they're talking about.
This is why integrity is everything.
I know for a fact you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you've merely chosen the argument that aligns with your politics.
You are so convinced of your own genius that you're incapable of honestly evaluating your own sources.
So no, I am not going to agree with or respect you.
Keep calling me a 'parrot' while patting yourself on the back for correctly interpreting and repeating denialist bullshit... which btw is designed to be easily interpreted and used in pointless arguments like this one.
You think i care for your respect?
What makes you think you're even worth it?
The only thing that you've been able to do is to try and mount countless personal attacks which all fail because you're a worthless ignorant wretch. You have no facts, you have no science, you have no backing.
The only thing you can do is run back to your little 'consensus' because like all the other weak willed pathetic groveling idiots of the world - you lack the strength, mental fortitude or conviction to actually think for your self. Science is not about the majority vote, it is not a popularity contest, it is not a democracy. Something which you fundamentally cannot understand.
All you can do is make stuff up...
Claim i'm a denialist, that i'm arguing from my political point of view, that i'm reading line for line from some pre-processed big-oil produced shill line.
|
|
|
|
