details regarding the 97% consensus paper from Peter Cook.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Sorry, it should have said that you MIS-read the results. My apologies for implying that you got something right.

See other response and apologise for that too.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Excuse me? The abstract mentions global warming as a problem and reducing energy usage and emissions as part of the solution.

And, as WTFH points out, looks like you may have confused the 'endorsement level' and 'category' columns.

Google tautology & circular reasoning.

I explained it in the original post.

Your reasoning makes the whole survey pointless in the first place.

[pjclarke]

Google tautology & circular reasoning.

I explained it in the original post.

Your reasoning makes the whole survey pointless in the first place.

Nothing remotely circular about it. The paper describes Level 3 as Implies humans are causing global warming' , this abstract states GW but not explicitly state AGW, which would put it at a higher level of endorsement, however, as it mentions reducing emissions and energy use as desirable outcomes it does imply AGW. Not difficult, really.

There's no debate that the increase in CO2 and other GHGs is manmade btw.

[WTFH]

2010,Influence Of Antistripping Additives On Moisture Susceptibility Of Warm Mix Asphalt Mixtures,Journal Of Materials In Civil Engineering,Xiao| Fp; Zhao| Wb; Gandhi| T; Amirkhanian| Sn,3,3


Category 3, endorsement 3.

Already explained above, shame you are unable to read!

Any more lies?

From you, plenty I'm sure. You don't like science, your dogmatic religious viewpoint blinds you to anything that contradicts your belief.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Already explained above, shame you are unable to read!

You said it's endorsement level 4. It's not - it's 3. I posted the original source right there.

As such it's not my understanding of the data that's a tad wrong, but yours. Right?

[SpontaneousOrder]

The main problem with any scepticism is that it presumes there's nothing wrong with spewing vast amounts of CO2 and other noxious gases into the atmosphere in the first place. Is the suggestion that we should just go back to filling the skies with soot like they did in the 19th century? I'd say they're just breathing too many petrol fumes - take the tailpipe out of your mouth and try some fresh air for a change!

That doesn't make sense because

1) scepticism doesn't presume anything other than a lack of evidence. And it certailnly doesn't presume anything like that.

2) CO2 and soot are not the same thing. Also note that CO2 is good for the environment - the earth is greener (where we don't chop it down) than it's been in a very long time. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the industrial revolution. And so is the water.

Also note that this thread has nothing to do with scepticism.

[SpontaneousOrder]

He doesn't come across as the sharpest tool in the box TBH.

The data is there for you to read. He is lying. This is why I posted the thread.
Just grep the abstract title in the file to see.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Again, you don't appear to be able to read. The second article (peer reviewed and approved in 2000) was given a 3. Why? Well it would help if you read even the abstract.
The "natural" CO2 change could only account for perhaps 2 out of the 7 day change. That means nature does not account for 5 out of the 7 days of change.

If nature isn't responsible for it, then what has caused the change?

Ok...

(peer reviewed and approved in 2000)

Either a straw-man (which I would guess as you've lying elsewhere that the number 3 is actually the number 4), or a gross misunderstanding of the paper. Whether it is peer reviewed or not is irrelevant as it's validity is not what is being measured - only it's explicit or implicit endorsement of man made global warming.

Secondly you're adding words into the abstract which don't exist, and even if were as such all that implies is that CO2 increase is not entirely natural. It says nothing about whether that drives warming.

You too should good tautologies & begging the question.

[WTFH]

Ok...



Either a straw-man (which I would guess as you've lying elsewhere that the number 3 is actually the number 4), or a gross misunderstanding of the paper. Whether it is peer reviewed or not is irrelevant as it's validity is not what is being measured - only it's explicit or implicit endorsement of man made global warming.

Secondly you're adding words into the abstract which don't exist, and even if were as such all that implies is that O2 increase is not entirely natural. It says nothing about whether that drives warming.

You too should good tautologies & begging the question.

You're using terms you have no idea about, you have presented no rebuttal to the facts, you have not accepted your failures in basic comprehension. You don't even know the difference between O2 and CO2.
As for me "putting words into" a document, you are the one who pulled the abstract from another website somewhere, but failed to quote the year that it was approved for publication. I thought I would assist you by completing your incomplete abstract.

So, have you any rebuttal that doesn't revolve around you projecting your straw man argument, your use of "tautology" and your religious hatred of scientific facts?

Do you accept that you incorrectly read the category as the endorsement?
Do you accept that you failed to provide the year of approval of the second abstract you quoted?
Do you accept that you have as yet failed to provide any proof that contradicts John Cook et al?

[SpontaneousOrder]

<--- pretty much all of this --->

Not an argument. And note that pointing out your tautology & question-begging *is* a rebuttal.


But lets ignore that stuff for a moment and get to your easiest to prove/disprove lie, because then everyone can assume you're making the rest up too...

Do you accept that you incorrectly read the category as the endorsement?

Why don't you copy/paste the line directly from the data for us all to see?

Then if you do and it says 4 instead of 3, anyone wgas can just go to the webpage a grep the line for themselves.