Al Gore Disses Global Warming Skeptics

Gee in all the history of the internet no site has EVER been hacked - or had undesirable pictures posted on it. So - again where is the proof that Cook himself posted the picture?

 

The site wasn't hacked. It was just sitting one his blog in a non-secure image cash.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

The whole thing is completely meaningless to the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC.

It is kind of amusing that the denier cultists who are flipping out over that picture haven't seemed to notice that that symbols on the hat are penguins, the mascot figure for SkepticalScience, and not an spread winged eagle. Here what a real Nazi uniform hat looks like for comparison.



OK....so the pic isn't showing up. I don't know why. This forum lists 'jpg' images as an accepted form but this one won't load. So, go to Wikipedia if you want to see it.

 

Yes it has the skeptical science emblems. Its photoshopped.

The original picture is Himmler.





You backed the wrong horse livefree.

When engaging in a political debate best to chose sources who dont like to have pictures of themselves photoshopped as famous Nazis.

 

As I said, this whole little bit of distraction has no bearing on the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW/CC that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.

Moreover, it is unknown whether John Cook photoshopped that image himself as a joke or whether someone else did who then either sent it to him as a joke or as hate mail, or who planted it in his files. It is the usual meaningless tempest in a teapot your propagandists are famous for.

 

Your evidence of a consensus is an analysis done by Mr. Cook. When you reference consensus you aren't really referencing scientists you are referencing Mr. Cook.

 

No actually - referencing NASA

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

BTW love to see a critique of the SCIENCE on SKS instead of personal attacks on the owner

 

Did NASA do the study or are they referencing someone else?

Yes there is no science here. A paper count is not science in any way. Its 100% an appeal to authority, that being the authority of the reviewer. If the reviewer is not trustworthy, qualified, and/or credible the review is worthless. In the case of Cook he fails at all three. The man was discussing the conclusion of the reviewer and how to market it before the review even began and he reviewed a paper a minute while exercising.

The reviewer is a joke so the review is a joke.

 

Well, the first reference is a study about public perception. W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change"

Does not take a survey but the second reference compares public opinion to other referenced surveys. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

The third paper is the only one that actually took a "survey of papers" 10 years ago. In it's conclusion is this, "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. "

 

well, everyone is entitled to an opinion I suppose

 

And that opinion can be reinforced by sketchy advocates with an agenda, such as SKS.

 

And so is John Cook but no one has to take it as fact. His paper count is just his opinion of papers he and his friends read at the rate of one per minute.