I'm just leaving this in case someone might be fooled by something as stupid as considering 2500 scientists as "isolated" which is a complete nonsense as science is ONLY peer to peer. Scientists can't be isolated, that makes no sense. But just in case: http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePageYes, isolated. As in isolated to the USA, because they only polled people in the USA. Lets ignore the fact that you totally ignore fundamentals of sources, reading them, or accurately representing them, and get to something more fundamental. Where in this poll is the part that humans are the cause? oh right... "By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public. Public attitudes about whether global warming represents a serious problem have changed little in recent years." So if you actually bothered to read your own source, you would see your claims reduced, even further, as 84% argue humans are the cause, not 94%. Additionally science is not a popularity contest. A poll of scientists is not a substitute for PEER REVIEWED EMPIRICAL DATA of which, you have none, by your own admission. King reading comprehension declares the debate over, it must be over! That's a cool youtube video... and it only took about 10 seconds before I was listening to a late night talk show host. DEBATE CLEARLY OVER! Your source material: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002A retort: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ |
|
|
|
"The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009" Page 11, your "study" (poll) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/528.pdfIt represents 2533 people. If you have evidence that further supports your assertions present it. Otherwise stop claiming this source supports your assumptions. xD *Drops the mic* Yes you are a joke. 2500 geographically isolated people is an efficient sample size for a global group you say? Sounds good to me. Lets laugh and pretend its obvious you are right and I am wrong rather than attempt a reply. Oh right... you have no reply. |
|
|
|
My point is what I say my point is, not what you say my point is.
But... IT IS A PROOF OF GLOBAL CONSENSUS!!!! It is EXACTLY what I said it is >< And your ad hominem attack doesn't change anything! "The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009" Page 11, your "study" (poll) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/legacy-pdf/528.pdfIt represents 2533 American scientists. If you have evidence that further supports your assertions present it. Otherwise stop claiming this source supports your assumptions. P.S. learn what an ad hominem attack actually is. |
|
|
|
Un-giving up so soon? My point is you are lazy and you don't even bother to read YOUR OWN SOURCE material, and claim it says things it does not say. Probably doesn't matter, what matters is YOU are making the claim and YOU have the burden of proof. Just guessing and assuming is not science.
No no I'm not debating. You're completely right. My source doesn't support anything. It's useless and has no link to my claim. You're right on everything you've said. Well I am glad you can passive aggressively and in a sad attempt at irony admit that. What do you want in the end? Science is a global peer to peer work. Scientists exchanges with others all around the world all the time. There is a reason why any scientific work is done in English... I put a source saying 94% American scientists believe climate change is real and your point is "it's not a global consensus because it's only America"  What can I answer to that? My point is what I say my point is, not what you say my point is. |
|
|
|
Un-giving up so soon? My point is you are lazy and you don't even bother to read YOUR OWN SOURCE material, and claim it says things it does not say. Probably doesn't matter, what matters is YOU are making the claim and YOU have the burden of proof. Just guessing and assuming is not science.
No no I'm not debating. You're completely right. My source doesn't support anything. It's useless and has no link to my claim. You're right on everything you've said. Well I am glad you can passive aggressively, and in a sad attempt at sarcasm admit that. |
|
|
|
|
Not that I think Putin is above doing such a thing, but it is just as possible some 3rd party state actor is dosing these athletes in an attempt to cause them embarrassment and national division. It wouldn't be that hard to sneak things into their food or drinks.
|
|
|
|
Sigh... its sad that so many lazy and or ignorant people demand to be spoon fed all the time rather than actually taking the time to analyze really simple stuff. I promise using your brain stops hurting after a while once you get used to it.
He is claiming that his source represents a GLOBAL consensus among scientists, which is not at all what his source says. His source is a POLL of a small portion of ONLY AMERICAN scientists, but not like any of you take the time to read your own sources right?
Yes, we are done here.
Omg do you know how scientific fields actually work? >< Just... Just... Oh man I don't know anymore. Ok let's say you're right. Only American scientists believe that global warming is man made. Rest of the world is probably believing something else. I don't care at this point, in sight of so much bad faith no one can do anything. It's litteraly impossible. Un-giving up so soon? My point is you are lazy and you don't even bother to read YOUR OWN SOURCE material, and claim it says things it does not say. Probably doesn't matter, what matters is YOU are making the claim and YOU have the burden of proof. Just guessing and assuming is not science. |
|
|
|
Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it.
Last time I checked 84+10=94 Read the article he posted again. You know, I keep reading it over and over again, and I don't see any reference to globally... Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it.
Last time I checked 84+10=94 Read the article he posted again. You know, I keep reading it over and over again, and I don't see any reference to globally... Scientists do live outside of America. Learn to read and get back to me. You just like to argue with random people on the Internet, for no apparent reason. Do you need validation? Is that it? As for the article, it says 94% of scientists agree that global warming is happening. I think we are done here. Sigh... its sad that so many lazy and or ignorant people demand to be spoon fed all the time rather than actually taking the time to analyze really simple stuff. I promise using your brain stops hurting after a while once you get used to it. He is claiming that his source represents a GLOBAL consensus among scientists, which is not at all what his source says. His source is a POLL of a small portion of ONLY AMERICAN scientists, but not like any of you take the time to read your own sources right? Yes, we are done here. |
|
|
|
Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it.
Last time I checked 84+10=94 Read the article he posted again. You know, I keep reading it over and over again, and I don't see any reference to globally... Scientists do live outside of America. Learn to read and get back to me. |
|
|
|
Last time I checked 84+10=94
Read the article he posted again.
No it's pointless. Give it up. I should have done it years ago... But everytime I tell myself "ok this time you stop answering this pitty individual" he goes on with something bigger. The worst thing is that contrary to BADECKER he doesn't have the honesty to say he's just being a religious fanatic. He tries to argue there is some sccientific logic behind what he says and he spits so much NONSENSE about scientific methodology and science in general... My years of studies in scientific field and the tons of people I know currently doing research is just making me eager to kick his ass for his disrespect... Yes, scientific methodology is such nonsense right? xD You know people who do research...well gee I guess their knowledge is magically imparted to you now isn't it? Ah yes, right as you are faced with admitting your statistic does not represent the "global consensus" you claimed it did, now you "give up", again, for like the 5th time now... uh huh. Buddy, if you ever even set eyes on me you would turn tail and run. |
|
|
|
Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it.
Last time I checked 84+10=94 Read the article he posted again. You know, I keep reading it over and over again, and I don't see any reference to globally... |
|
|
|
What is the goal of all leftist movements?
Let me spell it out since both of you have problems with reading comprehension and English. I said "I don't just understand the left, I actually took the time to learn the source material, philosophical origins, and goals of all of these movements." I did not say "I know the unified goal of all of the left", which is the question you are asking me to answer. I don't even believe the left have one unified goal. They do however have one unified result... |
|
|
|
ALL SCIENTISTS... GLOBALLY... mmkay. I will let you have fun on a snipe hunt trying to source that like a good little monkey. Now go... source your claim Mr. smarty pants.
Like... That was litteraly my post one page ago? Do you suffer from short term memory loss? Cause that would explain a lot. Quote me exactly the line from your source please where it says 94% scientists globally support your claim. This is your claim... you produce it. |
|
|
|
dumb games from dumb people
Let me know when you have some facts  Fact: You claim you know "the leftist goals" I actually took the time to learn the source material, philosophical origins, and goals of all of these movements.
Yet you refuse to reveal what are those goals: Furthermore the generalization of the goals of ALL THE LEFT? Could you possibly generalize any more? Not a loaded question at all.
Hence leaving wide open the possibility (mind you it's just a possibility of course, I'm not saying you could possibly make a mistake dear me) that you don't quite understand the goals of "the left". He is leaving wide open the possibility he will get into a an 8 page diatribe about the vast differences in various forms of leftism, and why all his Postmodernist deconstructivism is just so nuanced I just simply don't get it. ALL OF THE LEFT? A unified goal? Not a generalization at all. Also not an incredibly dumb loaded question, no, of course not. I might as well have a debate with an evangelical on my differing opinions of Jesus. Neither of you care about facts, you only care about reassuring your existing bias. |
|
|
|
You keep believing your glowing idiot box until Macron is ripped right out of his holiday chalet and ripped apart by a mob.
Sure. Again, you say that while not living in France because you know better I guess. The fact that violences are decreasing, number of protestors are decreasing, support of the movement inside the population is decreasing, are not at all the sign that the movement is dying and that Macron has already won. Please share with us the infinite wisdom that allow you to know for a fact that contrary to all evidences, in fact, French people aren't bending the knees once again and are going to take the dictator down. I was there, I was in the protests, I was one of those who wanted to take the guillotine out again to get rid of him. Nobody wants that, most of the people just want a peaceful protest. I do know better. Being in France doesn't help you if you are brain dead and have your head buried in the sand. You don't have the slightest clue what is going on right now. |
|
|
|
|
ALL SCIENTISTS... GLOBALLY... mmkay. I will let you have fun on a snipe hunt trying to source that like a good little monkey. Now go... source your claim Mr. smarty pants.
|
|
|
|
dumb games from dumb people
Let me know when you have some facts |
|
|
|
Macron doesn't give a damn and he'd be right to.
What can happen? Yellow vest movement is dead and he's not afraid of anything. People from everywhere are screaming "no violence" and most of the violent protestors have been arrested already. When someone acts like the boxer champion who took out 4 policemen alone, everyone is yelling "he shouldn't be violent", "violence isn't the answer".
Well guess what dipshit? If violence isn't the answer and you want no violence then government has nothing to fear.
Moreover France has been a dictatorship since 2016 with the end of the separation of the 3 powers, Macron can arrests whoever he wants without any reason and send him to 10 years jails without having to justify himself. And he will, what does he has to lose?
Stop thinking about France as a democracy where the leader has to play smart. France is an elective dictatorship where the leader does whatever he wants for 5 years without risking anything.
Our ancestors where revolutionnaries but today French are just sheeps. Let them die already.
You keep believing your glowing idiot box until Macron is ripped right out of his holiday chalet and ripped apart by a mob. |
|
|
|
Welp. So much for that.
And wait for the denial. Option 1: "I don't have time to explain your own political goal to you, this is completely out of the subject" Option 2: "Stop dodging the discussion and actually try to provide some proof of your stupid belief" Option 3: "And here is against the leftist with their [pick your logical fallacy] again" I'd bet option 2, but that's just my guess. Oh, look who it is, the Frenchineer here to enable his ideologically aligned pal with dumb predictions after a refusal to answer a loaded question. Don't worry buddy I will get back to spanking you later. I actually took the time to learn the source material, philosophical origins, and goals of all of these movements.
Welp. So much for that. And wait for the denial. Option 1: "I don't have time to explain your own political goal to you, this is completely out of the subject" Option 2: "Stop dodging the discussion and actually try to provide some proof of your stupid belief" Option 3: "And here is against the leftist with their [pick your logical fallacy] again" I'd bet option 2, but that's just my guess. Tell me, why do I owe you an explanation of an ideology you clearly don't even understand? So we can go round and round in a meaningless debate about "what leftism is" to you. I already know what you think leftism is, and you are wrong. Me telling you what it really is just to have you pretend you know better is asinine. Furthermore the generalization of the goals of ALL THE LEFT? Could you possibly generalize any more? Not a loaded question at all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
