romney knows hurricane clean up

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
so 2 questions were used to sum up all the results . . . .id love to hear this explained

how long was this report, 79 scientist 2 question . . . . .so half page

caught in a dead lie . . and you still cant admit you have no idea what you are talking about
It was written right in the middle of the paragraphs I quoted Dumbwell... I guess you didnt bother to read it.


  • Q1. When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
    Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?







  • So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.






 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
no, it's fact.

your floundering fuckwit buddy tried to say the scientists surveyed were "mostly not involved" with climate science. FACT.

the study only surveyed climate scientists who had MORE than 50% of their peer reviewed work on climate science. FACT.

your floundering fuckwit buddy lied. deal with it, you yapping halfwit.
Work with me here dickhead....

Over 3000 SCIENTIST WERE POLLED!!! - MOST OF THEM WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE FACT!!!

They had to cut it down to 79 scientists - THAT IS NOT 97% OF SCIENTISTS YOU IDIOT!!

FFS, you can lead a buck to water but you cannot make him think....
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Work with me here dickhead....

Over 3000 SCIENTIST WERE POLLED!!! - MOST OF THEM WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH CLIMATE SCIENCE FACT!!!

They had to cut it down to 79 scientists - THAT IS NOT 97% OF SCIENTISTS YOU IDIOT!!

FFS, you can lead a buck to water but you cannot make him think....
why would i want the opinion of a geologist on the climate? that's something i would want a climate scientist to answer, preferably one who had a majority of their peer-reviewed work (very important that it be peer-reviewed) to be on the subject of climate.

if i want to know about rocks and shit, a geologist might do. climate calls for a practicing climate scientist.

so, are you going to admit that you got caught in another lie? yes or no?
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
why would i want the opinion of a geologist on the climate? that's something i would want a climate scientist to answer, preferably one who had a majority of their peer-reviewed work (very important that it be peer-reviewed) to be on the subject of climate.

if i want to know about rocks and shit, a geologist might do. climate calls for a practicing climate scientist.

so, are you going to admit that you got caught in another lie? yes or no?
How am I lying? 79 scientists that happen to have written alot about climate change do not = 97% of climate change scientists... If you cannot understand the distinction I am really not interested in continuing to try to make my point because you are not going to get it....
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How am I lying?

  • here's the lie, yet again, for everyone to see...


    • “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”






    • scientists mostly not involved in climate change science​




 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member

  • here's the lie, yet again, for everyone to see...


    • “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”






    • scientists mostly not involved in climate change science​




So, we can see that UB thinks there are less than 100 climate scientists in the whole world and that 97% of them agree so since science is based upon consensus and not the scientific method that him and algore agree that the issue has been settled.

*golfclap*

You just dropped the average redneck IQ by 10 points UB...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So, we can see that UB thinks there are less than 100 climate scientists in the whole world and that 97% of them agree so since science is based upon consensus and not the scientific method that him and algore agree that the issue has been settled.

*golfclap*

You just dropped the average redneck IQ by 10 points UB...
30 is statistically significant. so 79 peer-reviewed climate scientists is more than sufficient to be called statistically significant.

learn 2 science, fuckwit.

are you going to own up to that lie you tried to pull on us? or are you going to ignore your own pathological lying?
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
So, we can see that UB thinks there are less than 100 climate scientists in the whole world and that 97% of them agree so since science is based upon consensus and not the scientific method that him and algore agree that the issue has been settled.

*golfclap*

You just dropped the average redneck IQ by 10 points UB...
Oh shit
I jsut realized
You are talking about the heartland institute
The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget,[SUP][37][/SUP] although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan.[SUP][38][/SUP] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[SUP][39][/SUP]
MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[SUP][40][/SUP] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.[SUP][14][/SUP] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[SUP][41][/SUP]
Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[SUP][42][/SUP] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[SUP][20][/SUP] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[SUP][42][/SUP][SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[SUP][42][/SUP]
The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[SUP][29][/SUP] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[SUP][38][/SUP] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[SUP][10][/SUP]
As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[SUP][45][/SUP] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[SUP][45][/SUP] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[SUP][45][/SUP]
In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak (see below) and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year. The shortfall led to the Illinois coal lobby sponsoring the institute's May 2012 climate conference – the "first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry".[SUP][28][/SUP]
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
30 is statistically significant. so 79 peer-reviewed climate scientists is more than sufficient to be called statistically significant.

learn 2 science, fuckwit.

are you going to own up to that lie you tried to pull on us? or are you going to ignore your own pathological lying?
So, now "statistically significant" is 97%???

You try to convince yourself I am lying because my life makes yours look paltry by comparison and so you sit on a pot website and spew bile all day...

Anyone reading this thread can figure out easily how the numbers are cooked and the 97% is meaningless.

Bill O'Reilly runs polls on fox news all the time. I should start quoting them like they represent 97% of America.... LOL!!! You are the emperor of bias flounder...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So, now "statistically significant" is 97%???

You try to convince yourself I am lying because my life makes yours look paltry by comparison and so you sit on a pot website and spew bile all day...

Anyone reading this thread can figure out easily how the numbers are cooked and the 97% is meaningless.

Bill O'Reilly runs polls on fox news all the time. I should start quoting them like they represent 97% of America.... LOL!!! You are the emperor of bias flounder...
a sample size of 30 or more is statistically significant, you floundering fuckwit.

and are you ever going to own up to your lie where you tried to lie about the climate scientists being mostly involved in climate science?

are you going to own up to your lie, or are you going to run away from it like the gigantic vagina that you are?
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
a sample size of 30 or more is statistically significant, you floundering fuckwit.

and are you ever going to own up to your lie where you tried to lie about the climate scientists being mostly involved in climate science?

are you going to own up to your lie, or are you going to run away from it like the gigantic vagina that you are?
You keep ignoring the conversation to focus on technical details where you think you have found a point that you can win on... This shows how pathetic your life is... Please spend 10000 more posts trying to prove someone is wrong on the internet... I am sure it is fulfilling... Flounder
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You keep ignoring the conversation to focus on technical details where you think you have found a point that you can win on... This shows how pathetic your life is... Please spend 10000 more posts trying to prove someone is wrong on the internet... I am sure it is fulfilling... Flounder
a statistically significant sample size is an important detail when disputing the validity of the study.

are you ever going to own up to the lie you tried to tell in this thread? yes or no?
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
You keep ignoring the conversation to focus on technical details where you think you have found a point that you can win on... This shows how pathetic your life is... Please spend 10000 more posts trying to prove someone is wrong on the internet... I am sure it is fulfilling... Flounder
"You keep ignoring the conversation to focus on technical details"

like two questions out of who knows how many . . . . . .
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
a statistically significant sample size is an important detail when disputing the validity of the study.

are you ever going to own up to the lie you tried to tell in this thread? yes or no?
Buck.. It wasnt a study.... You keep lying about that. It was 2 questions.... 2 questions asked of over 3000 scientists that they had to whittle down to 79 to get the % they wanted to post a bullshit statistic.

But please, continue to nitpick on my wording as if it makes a damn bit of difference in the context of the discussion because clearly it is all you have got.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Buck.. It wasnt a study.... You keep lying about that. It was 2 questions.... 2 questions asked of over 3000 scientists that they had to whittle down to 79 to get the % they wanted to post a bullshit statistic.

But please, continue to nitpick on my wording as if it makes a damn bit of difference in the context of the discussion because clearly it is all you have got.
i am not nitpicking your wording. i am pointing out your pathological lying.

you said they were "mostly not involved" in climate science. the study only chose people who had 50% or more of their peer-reviewed research in the field of climate science.

own up to the lie already, kiddo. you'll feel a lot better.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
i am not nitpicking your wording. i am pointing out your pathological lying.

you said they were "mostly not involved" in climate science. the study only chose people who had 50% or more of their peer-reviewed research in the field of climate science.

own up to the lie already, kiddo. you'll feel a lot better.
I said the scientists that they asked were mostly not involved in climate science. That is TRUE...

How many scientists did they ask?? let me help you... IT WAS OVER 3000....

Stop trying so hard to be an annoying dick UB... You will feel a lot better.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
caught in yet another lie!

do you ever get tired of being a pathological liar?

  • They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self‐identified as climate scientists.






Done talking to you tonight bucky... blowjob chick is much more fun....

Enjoy your alternate reality flounder...
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Done talking to you tonight bucky... blowjob chick is much more fun....

Enjoy your alternate reality flounder...
used vs. asked, kiddo.

if you stop telling lies, i will stop catching you in lies.

of course, that will not happen, as you are a pathological liar.

have fun with your imaginary friend.
 

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Bumped to help with trap which is proven in the 'if you vote for romney you are a racist' thread. post #178
 
Top