Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Global Warming & Earths Global Temperature Measurement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RealityCheck01" data-source="post: 67176323" data-attributes="member: 317334"><p>Wrong, <strong>andypro7</strong>: We know you cited some guys in a <em>blog</em> article asserted that they were misrepresented. They may have been lying. You are the one with the continuous insults about Cook et al. <strong>This is your theory. You need to provide the evidence that their results are wrong.</strong></p><p><strong>15th March 2015 andypro7</strong>: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.</p><p></p><p>ETA: The usual bad scholarship of no link to these statements in your <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-64/#post67162855" target="_blank">post</a>, <strong>andypro7</strong>!</p><p>What we have is an obviously biased reporter writing on Popular Technology.net:</p><p><a href="http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_05_01_archive.html" target="_blank">97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them</a></p><p></p><p>And who does the reporter list out of the hundreds? sampled - 7 people, 4 of them climate scientists and so probably in that 97% <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" />!</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso" target="_blank">Craig D. Idso</a>: "An outspoken global warming skeptic ..."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta" target="_blank">Nicola Scafetta</a>: Not a climate scientist.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv" target="_blank">Nir J. Shaviv</a>: An astrophysicist and climate scientist with the usual bais of the Sun/cosmic rays drives global warming.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol" target="_blank">Richard S.J. Tol</a>: an economics professor!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner" target="_blank">Nils-Axel Morner</a>: A climate change skeptic ("Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming.[5]")</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon" target="_blank">Willie Soon</a>: A climate change skeptic with some conflict of interest problems currently.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Carlin" target="_blank">Alan Carlin</a>: an economist.</li> </ol><p> </p><p>Think logically about this, andypro7: Not one person listed replied that their paper(s) were classified correctly. That is physically impossible with a random sample. If the classification was as bad as say 50% off then some (50%!) people must have replied that their paper was correctly classified. There are some possibilities</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reporting bias: The reporter is lying by only listing incorrect classifications.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Selection bias 1: Only people who thought that their paper was incorre3ctly classified replied.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Selection bias 2: Popular Technology.net has a biased reputation in climate science and so only people who agreed with its bias replied.</li> </ul><p>Or an insane choice - the classifications that has been published and checked with 2000 self classifications is somehow wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RealityCheck01, post: 67176323, member: 317334"] Wrong, [B]andypro7[/B]: We know you cited some guys in a [I]blog[/I] article asserted that they were misrepresented. They may have been lying. You are the one with the continuous insults about Cook et al. [B]This is your theory. You need to provide the evidence that their results are wrong.[/B] [B]15th March 2015 andypro7[/B]: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong. ETA: The usual bad scholarship of no link to these statements in your [URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-64/#post67162855"]post[/URL], [B]andypro7[/B]! What we have is an obviously biased reporter writing on Popular Technology.net: [URL="http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_05_01_archive.html"]97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them[/URL] And who does the reporter list out of the hundreds? sampled - 7 people, 4 of them climate scientists and so probably in that 97% :eek:! [LIST=1] [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso"]Craig D. Idso[/URL]: "An outspoken global warming skeptic ..." [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta"]Nicola Scafetta[/URL]: Not a climate scientist. [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv"]Nir J. Shaviv[/URL]: An astrophysicist and climate scientist with the usual bais of the Sun/cosmic rays drives global warming. [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol"]Richard S.J. Tol[/URL]: an economics professor! [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner"]Nils-Axel Morner[/URL]: A climate change skeptic ("Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming.[5]") [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon"]Willie Soon[/URL]: A climate change skeptic with some conflict of interest problems currently. [*][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Carlin"]Alan Carlin[/URL]: an economist. [/LIST] Think logically about this, andypro7: Not one person listed replied that their paper(s) were classified correctly. That is physically impossible with a random sample. If the classification was as bad as say 50% off then some (50%!) people must have replied that their paper was correctly classified. There are some possibilities [LIST] [*]Reporting bias: The reporter is lying by only listing incorrect classifications. [*]Selection bias 1: Only people who thought that their paper was incorre3ctly classified replied. [*]Selection bias 2: Popular Technology.net has a biased reputation in climate science and so only people who agreed with its bias replied. [/LIST] Or an insane choice - the classifications that has been published and checked with 2000 self classifications is somehow wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Global Warming & Earths Global Temperature Measurement
Top
Bottom