Hang 10... or as they now say...hit the lip!

2nd Light Forums
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: The 3%
Topic Summary:
Created On: 09/07/2017 09:15 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 09/07/2017 09:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


WG

Posts: 33585
Joined: 03/10/2005

"It's often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions - it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers - a common way to test scientific studies - and found biased, faulty results."

..

"Every single one of those analyses had an error - in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis - that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,"

qz
 09/08/2017 06:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


somebodyelse

Posts: 5706
Joined: 06/29/2006

hahaha,

So, IF...

if the %3 say that the %97 are biased and are slanting science because they are following the money.

AND... then the %97 say you %3 have faulty assumptions..

Won't the %3 say... PROOF, the %97 are just saying that our assumptions are faulty BECAUSE they are still following the money and they have to discredit us to continue getting more money???

Won't the %3 say 'OF course if you change 'correct' the 'error' it lines up with the %90, the %90 have already 'corrected' their data to show that there is global climate change. Only the raw, unedited data shows the truth and when the %97 edit the data, correct the data, only then does global climate change get paid for'???



-------------------------
 09/08/2017 06:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


jdbman

Posts: 9230
Joined: 07/28/2003

hahaha,


Empirical knowledge is obviously an impossible concept for the addled minded to comprehend. Your dream world is just about to fall.

-------------------------
So if you are a surfer I wish you the prosperity that allows you more time to pursue the salt water dream, and the true happiness that comes from warm water, clean waves and the companionship of your fellow surfers. If you are an internet troll just spewing bs then f off.
 09/08/2017 08:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


somebodyelse

Posts: 5706
Joined: 06/29/2006

The 97% say: "Every single one of those analyses had an error - in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis - that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,"

 

So that you can comprehend:

The 3% have been saying that the 97% have already corrected their analysis IN ORDER to bring the result into the decided upon scientific concensus.



-------------------------
 09/08/2017 10:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Cole

Posts: 31481
Joined: 07/22/2003

Empirical knowledge.

Would someone get somebody a fricken dictionary!

And where is all this money the scientists want?

-------------------------
Trump/Putin 2016!
 09/08/2017 10:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Greensleeves

Posts: 9634
Joined: 07/22/2003

Nobodyesle seriously "the money"?  The "money" is in denial and denialist sellouts and schills and bullshit science show up when the "money" needs them.  For example they served tobacco's interests, they served the NFLs interests (concussions) and now they make money off of fossil fuel's interests. 

Only in the GOP can you find this brand of beligerant loon that would look the other way while the planet goes to $hit with the single purpose of serving the rich.

 



-------------------------
 09/08/2017 02:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


somebodyelse

Posts: 5706
Joined: 06/29/2006

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

 

 

Just because you don't see it in your experiment doesn't mean that others don't see it in their experiments...

The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers - a common way to test scientific studies - and found biased, faulty results."

IF a researcher is running the same experiment, he may experience different RESULTS.

IF, like this review claims, the researchers were trying to replicate RESULTS, I question their scientific methods. Emperical Knowledge is NOT about trying to duplicate the RESULTS, it is about running the experiment and OBSERVING the result.

 I again point out that the review says that IF you correct the data the results agree with the scientific consensus. That is the exact thing the 3% have been saying for 10 years, the 97% correct the data in order to reach a consenses rather than report the EMPERICAL EVIDENCE that they observe without the data being corrected.

 



-------------------------
 09/10/2017 02:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


WG

Posts: 33585
Joined: 03/10/2005

Just stop already, it's embarrassing.
 09/10/2017 02:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


LBLarry

Posts: 3885
Joined: 05/25/2004

Originally posted by: Greensleeves

Nobodyesle seriously "the money"?  The "money" is in denial and denialist sellouts and schills and bullshit science show up when the "money" needs them.  For example they served tobacco's interests, they served the NFLs interests (concussions) and now they make money off of fossil fuel's interests. 




Only in the GOP can you find this brand of beligerant loon that would look the other way while the planet goes to $hit with the single purpose of serving the rich.




 



Logic is ineffective on these assclowns.



-------------------------
"Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do." - Bertrand Russell


"Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.


If I do not answer you .... nothing personal, I just have you on ignore.
 09/10/2017 02:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Fish Killer

Posts: 33554
Joined: 10/09/2005

Originally posted by: LBLarry


Logic is ineffective on these assclowns.


Agreed!

...and you're one of those assclowns!



-------------------------
Group Dinner
2nd Light Forums » N S R » The 3%

Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics
136282 users are registered to the 2nd Light Forums forum.
There are currently 5 users logged in.

FuseTalk Basic Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

Hello to Matt B