Writer claims Trump raped her

[Subduction Zone]

Let's see if we can get past the cognitive dissonance. A consensus is like an election except there is no vote of official result. If one tries to disclaim any part of an election where one hates the result, then that person is saying that he did not vote. That he was not a voter. When they poll all climate scientists and find an amazingly strong consensus, and 97% is amazingly strong then to claim not to be part of the consensus whether one agrees or disagrees, is to state that one never have an opinion and that one was not part of the group.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am sorry for what you went through. And I am sorry you had to address the ignorant nonsense presented in this thread. But thank you.

Thank you. I very, very much appreciate that.
Just trying to shed some light.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No worries SkepticThinker, it happens sometimes. And I'm sorry to hear about your abominable experience, may life make it up to you with untold blessings.

Thank you, that is very kind of you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sure. That is why it is called dark/black humour


No you said it was the first thing he said which was wrong.


This is why you have no standard

Yes as accusations can not be used as evidence in a vacuum

Nope.

Irrelevant as I hold to the standard of evidence.


Accusations are not evidence.


Sure. You are for mob justice without evidence. That is why courts exist so people like you can "hang" people based on an accusation

Yes... and?


Wrong. If someone is sexually assaulted yet still works with their attacker they are not the victim. They have traded sex for the role. Now they regret it. Their problem.

Look up the word integrity


Wrong. There is a difference between say a few months or a year and 15 years. If someone sits around for 15 years to bring it up I am not going to believe them without evidence. Perhaps you should consider the lapse in time is not automatically fear. If she was crippled by fear for 15 years she needs to be institutionalized.


They traded sex for an acting role. That makes them a whore.

They traded sex for an acting role.


Trading sex for a role.

Hearsay. None of these supposed friend have said a word. Think about that.


Wrong. They traded sex for a role. If you work with your attacker after the supposed attack then the accusation has major issue. You are ignoring this factor.

For example Salma Hayek claims threats and sexual demands, including death threats, during the production of Frida. Yet she does not leave the cast. Never makes a police report. She finishes the movie and gets paid. Think about that

Saves me the time so I do not need to respond to fiction and babble. TY.

You really have a lot to learn about this subject matter. Maybe spend some time talking to human beings who have been sexually assaulted. Your assumptions are gross and inaccurate.
You sir, are someone who should have actually paid attention to the themes presented with the #MeToo movement. You might have learned something and perhaps we wouldn't have to sit here and watch you embarrass yourself as you mock victims and label them as "whores." I mean, you just told me that I'm "wrong" when I describe my rape experience as shameful, isolating, humiliating and scary and you suggested that another alleged rape victim wouldn't necessarily feel that way either and if she did, she should be institutionalized. In other words, she's crazy. There's that attitude again.

You've got a lot to learn.

 

[ecco]

Naturally agw alarmists disagree with Dr Curry, who shows that the science is not settled, no one is able to provide an accurate % number for the proportion of natural and human contributed CO2 caused warming.

Naturally, AGW deniers disagree with 97% of climatologists, who show that the science is settled.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).​

​

Consensus only exists among the agw alarmist scientists that humans are the main cause of catastrophic warming, all climate scientists agree that the warming has occurred but is not catastrophic, and most concede that human derived CO2 is a part, but the main difference between alarmists and most of the skeptics is the natural versus manmade contribution.

Nonsense.

the consensus project
THE CONSENSUS PROJECT measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus. Read the full paper here.​

When you look at the amount of warming, the vast majority of the IPCC future projections shown in past reports run above the observed temperature in time, so this is an indication they are putting too much emphasis on the anthropogenic contribution. Those that run closer to the observed trend mean the the warming at present does not reach the level of being of alarm to the end of the century, so no panic required.

I'm not panicked at all. I have plenty of time to wait for you to show scientific studies that support your claim.




You take showers and wash dishes. You have a leaky faucet. You still need to shower and wash dishes. Why wouldn't you fix the leaky faucet?

 

[ecco]

Mark Steyn is not a congressman, he is a Canadian author. My guess is there is some record of the state of the weather experienced by the pilgrims at the time, and if I am not mistaken, the senator was going on about the present wild weather there and using it as an example of climate change.

You say the senator was going on about the present wild weather there and using it as an example of climate change. That proves the Senator does not know the difference between weather and climate. That you support his comment, shows that you do not understand the difference between weather and climate. That being the case, you have even less standing in this discussion than I previously thought.

 

[ecco]

I can follow the obvious fact that she, as a climate scientist, is not a part of any consensus, but it must logically follow then that there is no consensus among all climate scientists.

You are absolutely correct, "there is no consensus among all climate scientists".

the consensus project
THE CONSENSUS PROJECT measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus.

​

But 98.4% is a pretty decisive number. That means your Curry is in the 1.6% who are AGW deniers.

the consensus project
THE CONSENSUS PROJECT measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming.​

The overwhelming consensus is consistent with a number of other studies that have found similar results (follow the link below for more details). The Consensus Project is one indicator among many that there is a consensus of evidence and a consensus of scientists, all agreeing that humans are causing global warming.

​

Is it even accurate to call J. Curry a climate scientist? Can you show any actual scientific research she has done in the past five years? Understand, I am talking about research, not opinion pieces.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let's see if we can get past the cognitive dissonance. A consensus is like an election except there is no vote of official result. If one tries to disclaim any part of an election where one hates the result, then that person is saying that he did not vote. That he was not a voter. When they poll all climate scientists and find an amazingly strong consensus, and 97% is amazingly strong then to claim not to be part of the consensus whether one agrees or disagrees, is to state that one never have an opinion and that one was not part of the group.

There is no consensus, why do you think the alarmists are always being triggered by the so climate scientist 'deniers', there are those climate scientists who do not agree, you do not understand your own dictionary explanation. go back and read it again and tell me how you think it means that a consensus exists when a part of the whole does not agree. Btw, your election analogy does not work at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no consensus, why do you think the alarmists are always being triggered by the so climate scientist 'deniers', there are those climate scientists who do not agree, you do not understand your own dictionary explanation. go back and read it again and tell me how you think it means that a consensus exists when a part of the whole does not agree. Btw, your election analogy does not work at all.

Wrong again. You do not appear to understand what a consensus is . And you are back to false claims that you can't support. Unlike you I have supported my claims with valid sites that do not contradict me. You on the other hand .. . not so much.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Naturally, AGW deniers disagree with 97% of climatologists, who show that the science is settled.

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).​

​

Nonsense.

the consensus project
THE CONSENSUS PROJECT measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists,​

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You say the senator was going on about the present wild weather there and using it as an example of climate change. That proves the Senator does not know the difference between weather and climate. That you support his comment, shows that you do not understand the difference between weather and climate. That being the case, you have even less standing in this discussion than I previously thought.

I agree with you, the Senator does not understand climate science, I was not supporting him.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are absolutely correct, "there is no consensus among all climate scientists".

the consensus project
THE CONSENSUS PROJECT measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus.

​

But 98.4% is a pretty decisive number. That means your Curry is in the 1.6% who are AGW deniers.

the consensus project
THE CONSENSUS PROJECT measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming.​

The overwhelming consensus is consistent with a number of other studies that have found similar results (follow the link below for more details). The Consensus Project is one indicator among many that there is a consensus of evidence and a consensus of scientists, all agreeing that humans are causing global warming.

​

Is it even accurate to call J. Curry a climate scientist? Can you show any actual scientific research she has done in the past five years? Understand, I am talking about research, not opinion pieces.

Try to explain what a consensus is to Subduction Zone, I dare you?

Another refutation of the 97% claim...
That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama
Category: | Herald Sun

Here is a list of 459 scientific papers published, she has written mores since.. judith curry - Google Scholar Citations

One of her later papers.... https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10...il&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-a24cafd790-20156641&

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong again. You do not appear to understand what a consensus is . And you are back to false claims that you can't support. Unlike you I have supported my claims with valid sites that do not contradict me. You on the other hand .. . not so much.

But we are discussing your dictionary's definition, which is pretty much the same as all dictionaries, it does not support your understanding of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol

Try finding a reliable source. There was not just one study. There have been multiple studies that found a 97% consensus:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Subduction Zone]

But we are discussing your dictionary's definition, which is pretty much the same as all dictionaries, it does not support your understanding of it.

Why do you keep repeating nonsense?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Try finding a reliable source. There was not just one study. There have been multiple studies that found a 97% consensus:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I am not aware of another published study, please provide a link?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you keep repeating nonsense?

There is no consensus, no one believes that all climate scientists believe the world is doomed, certainly not the skeptics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not aware of another published study, please provide a link?

I did. Why did you not check out the given link?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no consensus, no one believes that all climate scientists believe the world is doomed, certainly not the skeptics.

Oh my, fractcally wrong again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I did. Why did you not check out the given link?

I did, I did not see any other then the Cook claim. On the other hand, here is a list of 133 papers published in 2016 alone that show Solar influence is more than that used by the alarmist agw crowd of scientists. These are not a part of any so called consensus.

Skeptic Papers 2016 (1)