greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8
th, 2013 at 2:08pm:
rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8
th, 2013 at 1:45pm:
He deliberately lied.
No he didn't "deliberately" lie,
Yes, he did.
He wrote that:
it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 respondedIt was sent to 10,257 people - not all scientists - and 3146 people responded.
If that is not a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation - I don't know what is
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8
th, 2013 at 2:08pm:
and the true figures have been revealed so it's totally irrelevant anyway.
The true figures show that he told a lie.
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8
th, 2013 at 2:08pm:
Now that your 97% "argument" has been exposed as a sham, you're just trying to deflect.
Did I have a "97%" argument?!?! What was that?!?!?
And how was Doran's figure of 97% a sham? 97% of the people that responded to that survey who who had both ‘nominated climate science as their area of expertise’ and ‘published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on... climate change’ agreed that ‘human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’. All 79 of them. Where is the "sham"?
This result was almost exactly the same as that arrived at in Lichter 2008:
97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scie...Is that a "sham" too?
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8
th, 2013 at 2:08pm:
Stay focused my friend, and stop worrying so much about the side issues and stop hurling around personal abuse. Your constant cries of "liar" (and "idiot") are doing you (or the AGW alarmist camp) no favours. Quite frankly, it's just making you look petulant.
It pains me very greatly to have to make these accusations. But when Gold Medal claims that glaciers have stopped receding and provides no supportive evidence, or when he deliberately spreads misinformation about a surveys methodology - what other conclusions can one draw?
There is no misinformation.
The 97% is just 76 respondants from 10000 sent out. You can disregard the others of the 3000+ because they didnt use them in the 97% figure.
You are just crying over symantics. Gold was accurate.