PDA

View Full Version : 750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm




Poptech
07-12-2010, 06:57 AM
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)


The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

reillym
07-15-2010, 06:48 PM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptic s/3183069/story.html


"If you look at the statistics on how many of them are climate scientists, they just don't stack up," Prall said. "The people putting those statements out are having to reach far and wide. They're having to lower the bar to pad out their list. So they can't get very many top climate scientists, because very few out of that selection agree with them."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptic s/3183069/story.html#ixzz0tnloeibA

I found this article discrediting them in 26 seconds. Google has myriad more debunking the "credentials" of the skeptics. Independent reviews confirm that many skeptics don't have much experience when compared to real (read: climate change supporters) scientists.

Poptech
07-15-2010, 07:00 PM
I found this article discrediting them in 26 seconds. Google has myriad more debunking the "credentials" of the skeptics. Independent reviews confirm that many skeptics don't have much experience when compared to real (read: climate change supporters) scientists.
You haven't found anything discrediting anybody. Your silly "review" has been discredited,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors.

Searching for Climate Patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion = the study is worthless and does not change the overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed publications against AGW alarm.

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

dannno
07-15-2010, 07:32 PM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptic s/3183069/story.html



I found this article discrediting them in 26 seconds. Google has myriad more debunking the "credentials" of the skeptics. Independent reviews confirm that many skeptics don't have much experience when compared to real (read: climate change supporters) scientists.

LOL, there is only like one person on this entire forum who believes in the climate change fantasies as presented by the IPCC and their ilk.

Sorry, we've done the research already and have seen through the bullshit.

Do you know anything about the Medieval Warming Period or the mini-ice age that occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries? Do you know how these correlate with changes in sea level? Do you understand how the expansion of cities has helped lead to bad climate data? Are you aware of all of the years and years of raw data that has been tossed in the trash can by agencies of good repute? Take all that into consideration with climate gate and the emails, then add that into the multi billion dollar cap and trade market that the elite intend to manipulate and profit from, and it's pretty obvious what is going on here.

dannno
07-15-2010, 07:45 PM
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel

Global Warming Hoax - The Other Side Video - sevenload (http://en.sevenload.com/videos/LrNfuxb-Global-Warming-Hoax-The-Other-Side)

reillym
07-27-2010, 01:49 PM
You haven't found anything discrediting anybody. Your silly "review" has been discredited,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors.

Searching for Climate Patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion = the study is worthless and does not change the overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed publications against AGW alarm.

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

Not sure what you are talking about google scholar in there for, there is no mention of that in the story, to my searching.

And there is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed publications against AGW "alarm". The story shows that the deniers are in the overwhelming minority, and have much less experience in the scientific field. They are political tools, that's it.

Oh, and "climategate" was a bunch of nonsense. All the scientists involved were exonerated.

reillym
07-27-2010, 01:59 PM
LOL, there is only like one person on this entire forum who believes in the climate change fantasies as presented by the IPCC and their ilk.

Sorry, we've done the research already and have seen through the bullshit.

Do you know anything about the Medieval Warming Period or the mini-ice age that occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries? Do you know how these correlate with changes in sea level? Do you understand how the expansion of cities has helped lead to bad climate data? Are you aware of all of the years and years of raw data that has been tossed in the trash can by agencies of good repute? Take all that into consideration with climate gate and the emails, then add that into the multi billion dollar cap and trade market that the elite intend to manipulate and profit from, and it's pretty obvious what is going on here.

Climategate scientists were completely exonerated. And they are a small portion of EVERY SINGLE REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION that has yet to demonstrate a counter argument to man made climate change. They all agree. Every single one. Worldwide.

They must be all part of this conspiracy to tax our carbon! OH NOES!

It's silly, really.

Nobody denies that the earth has changed climate in the past. But that's irrelevant. The industrial revolution is happened. Crazy, I know.

The "billion dollar cap and trade market" PALES in comparison to the energy market, so please, if you are going to use that silly argument, keep in mind that are even more powerful lobbies in play. Of COURSE there are people who are going to profit from stronger environmental laws. That is the essence of a free market. What, do you expect people to just sit by and watch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

This argument gets nowhere when people are unwilling to accept that all scientists agree. There is a huge misleading in America that "the debate is still out" on climate change. It isn't. At all. Small groups of people will ALWAYS dissent anything. That's human nature. It moves us forward. Dissent is good. When it's validated.

Poptech
07-27-2010, 02:01 PM
Not sure what you are talking about google scholar in there for, there is no mention of that in the story, to my searching.

And there is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed publications against AGW "alarm". The story shows that the deniers are in the overwhelming minority, and have much less experience in the scientific field. They are political tools, that's it.

Oh, and "climategate" was a bunch of nonsense. All the scientists involved were exonerated.
No kidding you don't know what I am talking about because you never read the paper that the story is about. The story doesn't show anything and just repeats the talking points for the press release of the paper. I have already extensively explained why the paper that the story is based on is bogus. The fact that you don't even know the basic facts about the nonsense you are repeating just shows you are tool for the alarmists to push their propaganda.

Climategate was not nonsense,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63) (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

and the show trials a total whitewash,

Penn State Report
Penn State Probe into Mann's Wrongdoing a 'Total Whitewash' (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/penn-state-probe-michael-mann-total-whitewash/) (Fox News, February 5, 2010)
Penn State’s integrity crisis (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/14/penn-state%E2%80%99s-integrity-crisis/) (The Daily Caller, July 14, 2010)

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
'Climategate': what a pointless investigation (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8368/) (Spiked, UK, March 31, 2010)

Science Assessment Panel
Climategate: the whitewash continues (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100030905/climategate-the-whitewash-continues/) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, March 22, 2010)
MPs begin the Climategate whitewash (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550325/MPs-begin-the-Climategate-whitewash.html) (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 3, 2010)
Climate whitewash: British farce (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_674863.html) (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, April 5, 2010)
ClimateGate Whitewash (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/climategate_whitewash.html) (American Thinker, April 14, 2010)
Climate-Gate Gets A Whitewash (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530423) (Investors Business Daily, April 15, 2010)
The Non-Inquiry of Climategate (http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/04/15/lawrence-solomon-the-non-inquiry-of-climategate.aspx) (Financial Post, Canada, April 15, 2010)
Whitewashing is quick work! (http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/15/whitewashing-is-quick-work/) (The Daily Caller, April 15, 2010)
Climategate whitewash (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=dde6cc16-d816-49f3-b1a3-1a89d2c33a89) (National Post, Canada, April 16, 2010)
A Green-inspired whitewash (http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/04/16/13619316.html) (Toronto Sun, April 18, 2010)

Muir Russell Report
Climategate Inquiry Chairman Failed to Check the Science (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24948) (Canada Free Press, July 3, 2010)
Climategate Whitewash Complete: Third Inquiry Clears Everyone Involved (http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-whitewash-complete-third-inquiry-clears-everyone-involved.html) (Prison Planet, July 7, 2010)
Global Warming ‘ClimateGate’ Investigation Yields Whitewash Report (http://cei.org/news-releases/global-warming-%E2%80%98climategate%E2%80%99-investigation-yields-whitewash-report) (CEI, July 7, 2010)
Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25124) (Canada Free Press, July 8, 2010)
Russell Report Whitewashes Climategate Scandal (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3982-russell-report-whitewashes-climategate-scandal) (The New American, July 8, 2010)
Climategate probe proves nothing (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176321) (WorldNetDaily, July 9, 2010)
Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/) (The Register, UK, July 9, 2010)
Climategate whitewash: Third time's no charm (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_689731.html) (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 12, 2010)
The Climategate Whitewash Continues (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11970) (The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010)
Climategate and the Big Green Lie (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/) (The Atlantic, July 14, 2010)
ClimateGate 'Whitewash' Helps 'Clear' Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100714161708.aspx) (Business & Media Institute, July 14, 2010)

Poptech
07-27-2010, 02:05 PM
This argument gets nowhere when people are unwilling to accept that all scientists agree.
Why would people accept a lie?

Could you please provide me the complete vote taken by any of your mentioned scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of their council members.

What is silly is your comments.

WaltM
07-27-2010, 04:49 PM
16% of which are from "Energy and Environment"
Most of the rest are Policy papers (not scientific journals)
Collected by a website which debunks 9/11 conspiracies and opposes legalization of marijuana.

Just to provide some context.

WaltM
07-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Why would people accept a lie?


You accept a lie if and when it fits your views.



Could you please provide me the complete vote taken by any of your mentioned scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of their council members.

What is silly is your comments.

Who ever said VOTE? You resort to putting words in people's mouths to make your point?

WaltM
07-27-2010, 04:52 PM
There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

You discredit it in your head, I don't dispute. Your standard of discredit is "I heard somebody say otherwise, I don't care if they're biased or politically motivated".

Your best argument presented was : "MWP was warmer".

malkusm
07-27-2010, 05:23 PM
Ron Paul on Climate Change:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html


Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.

The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:

"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''

Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.

Poptech
07-28-2010, 05:28 AM
16% of which are from "Energy and Environment"
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex (http://www.ei.org/userfiles/SourceLists/COMPENDEX2009Journals.pdf), EBSCO (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf), Environment Abstracts (http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/1univ/envir/2easource.asp), Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=50&hl=en&as_publication=Energy+%26+Environment), JournalSeek (http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issn&query=0958-305X), Scopus (http://info.scopus.com/documents/files/scopus-training/resourcelibrary/xls/title_list.xls) and WorldCat (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549)
- Found at 54 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 82 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975) in electronic form. Such as: Cambridge University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf) (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (http://info.scopus.com/documents/files/scopus-training/resourcelibrary/xls/title_list.xls) (XLS)
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=314&filename=1053461261.txt)" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html)


Most of the rest are Policy papers (not scientific journals)
Lie and strawman, the policy papers are under the socio-economic section and are only around 100 papers. Most of the papers are science papers and it is a strawman as the list makes no mention of only having science papers, it is explicitly stated that all the papers are peer-reviewed. It is also explicitly stated what they cover which includes economics,

"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."



Collected by a website which debunks 9/11 conspiracies
This is true and irrelevant to the list.


and opposes legalization of marijuana.
Lie no mention of legalization is anywhere on the site.


Just to provide some context.
You need to get your facts straight before you attempt to post any "context". Please refrain from stating lies about the site in the future, thank you.

Poptech
07-28-2010, 05:33 AM
You accept a lie if and when it fits your views.
Nothing I have stated is a lie, where it is irrefutably proven you have stated them repeatedly.


Who ever said VOTE? You resort to putting words in people's mouths to make your point?
My point debunks your propaganda, as you are dishonestly attempting to use the position statements released by a handful of council members of scientific organizations as the position of the membership body. You are dishonestly attempting to imply that the hundreds of thousands of their members support such statements. Your failure to provide evidence of this proves my point.


You discredit it in your head, I don't dispute. Your standard of discredit is "I heard somebody say otherwise, I don't care if they're biased or politically motivated".
Unlike you, I actually read the paper and know how to use Google Scholar. I can also read through the bullshit propaganda in the paper. What I stated has nothing to do with anything I heard.


Your best argument presented was : "MWP was warmer".
I made no such argument in this thread.

WaltM
07-28-2010, 11:45 PM
Nothing I have stated is a lie, where it is irrefutably proven you have stated them repeatedly.

Outright denial.
That's an example of how you lie, asserting that something is DISCREDITED, IRREFUTABLE with the hope people will be bullied into thinking they're wrong.



My point debunks your propaganda, as you are dishonestly attempting to use the position statements released by a handful of council members of scientific organizations as the position of the membership body. You are dishonestly attempting to imply that the hundreds of thousands of their members support such statements. Your failure to provide evidence of this proves my point.


What evidence?




Unlike you, I actually read the paper and know how to use Google Scholar. I can also read through the bullshit propaganda in the paper. What I stated has nothing to do with anything I heard.


I made no such argument in this thread.

No, not in this thread.

Here you did : (I shortened it a bit, but you said it yourself)
If the MWP is warmer or as warm as it is today it demonstrates that the current climate is not unusual and falls within natural variation.

My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man..

Yet you never state what WOULD BE acceptable evidence.

WaltM
07-29-2010, 12:03 AM
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex (http://www.ei.org/userfiles/SourceLists/COMPENDEX2009Journals.pdf), EBSCO (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf), Environment Abstracts (http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/1univ/envir/2easource.asp), Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=50&hl=en&as_publication=Energy+%26+Environment), JournalSeek (http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issn&query=0958-305X), Scopus (http://info.scopus.com/documents/files/scopus-training/resourcelibrary/xls/title_list.xls) and WorldCat (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549)


Do any of these places that list E&E miss any of the "propaganda" journals you deny?



- Found at 54 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 82 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975) in electronic form. Such as: Cambridge University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT


54 worldwide?
WOW, that's a lot compared to 325, which Journal of Phyiscal Chemistry is (but hey, this was never a numbers game, right?)

HEY, even CREATION SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL HAS 87!!
http://www.worldcat.org/title/creation-ex-nihilo/oclc/12671744&referer=brief_results

HAHAHA, let's look at the Journal of Historical Review how about 85!
http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-historical-review/oclc/5584935&referer=brief_results
(so much for your "There are no peer-reviewed papers denying the holocaust. This sort of propaganda is pathetic and sad and proves you are a zealot.")





Lie and strawman, the policy papers are under the socio-economic section and are only around 100 papers. Most of the papers are science papers and it is a strawman as the list makes no mention of only having science papers,


Intentionally misleading on your part.



it is explicitly stated that all the papers are peer-reviewed.


Peer reviewed using your standards exposed above.



It is also explicitly stated what they cover which includes economics,

"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW."


Which would no longer make it "skeptical of man made GW" by scientific basis.

Oops, what you actually said was "800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm", keyword alarm?



This is true and irrelevant to the list.


Are you going to let your readers decide?



Lie no mention of legalization is anywhere on the site.


Yep, typical of you, when I make a mistake, you call it a lie.

I'll copy what it actually says "anti-marijuana resource"
Marijuana is a very dangerous drug that has been propagandized as "safe" by weak minded idiots. The reality is marijuana is an addictive drug that can cause brain damage, cancer, gum disease, heart disease, infertility, lung disease, obesity, pregnancy failure, viral infections and doubles the risk of car accidents. The United States has the highest level of marijuana use due to an increased ignorant acceptance of it as "safe" by popular culture through movies, music, television and video games.



You need to get your facts straight before you attempt to post any "context". Please refrain from stating lies about the site in the future, thank you.

I'm not perfect, but you're free to correct me, please refrain from outright saying "lie" if you wish not the same done to you.

WaltM
07-29-2010, 12:14 AM
Just to give you some perspective of this guy's standard for "peer review"

He states that Energy & Environment is peer reviewed and serious because it's available in 54 libraries worldwide.

Let's see what journals exceed this 54 number.
Creation, by Answers in Genesis : 78
http://www.worldcat.org/title/creation/oclc/47147894&referer=brief_results

(granted, not all libraries are equal, University libraries are generally more serious than public libraries and theological seminaries, the University libraries he listed, just happen to be the biggest University libraries in the US, is it possible they collect as much as they can for reference purposes?)

The link where he "Corrects misinformation" is written by himself (maybe because he can't find another person who wrote it, other than the journal themselves)
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html

"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an interdisciplinary academic journal debating issues arising from aspirations of ‘integrated’ policy-making and academic analysis. It serves as a forum for constructive and professional debate and the search for solutions in a policy area that remains a focus of politics at all levels and involves major regulatory and investment efforts.
If you were to take this at face value, isn't this admitting it's not an unbiased source for scientific research?

Poptech
07-29-2010, 06:43 AM
Outright denial.
That's an example of how you lie, asserting that something is DISCREDITED, IRREFUTABLE with the hope people will be bullied into thinking they're wrong.
You have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge. On the other hand I have provided extensive evidence of your lies. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site.


What evidence?
You have failed to provide any evidence to support the implication that the membership bodies of the scientific organizations touted as proof of the alleged "consensus" support these organization's position statements released by their handful of council members. Without providing such evidence they cannot be used in support of this position.


Here you did : (I shortened it a bit, but you said it yourself)

If the MWP is warmer or as warm as it is today it demonstrates that the current climate is not unusual and falls within natural variation.

My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man..

Yet you never state what WOULD BE acceptable evidence.
I can tell you what is unacceptable evidence, such as various tree-ring proxy reconstructions since tree-ring's are influenced by more than just temperature changes. I also find unacceptable any proxy reconstruction that has not undergone the necessary due-diligence to verify the reconstruction. Something that peer-review does not provide but McIntyre has demonstrated to be a necessity before any such reconstruction can remotely be taken seriously.


Do any of these places that list E&E miss any of the "propaganda" journals you deny?
This statement does not make any sense.


54 worldwide?
Actually if you can add (obviously you cannot) it is Found at 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) and electronic form (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975). These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.


HEY, even CREATION SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL HAS 87!!
This is not a peer-reviewed journal but a magazine and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed. There is no question that various magazines will be carried far more often than journals will. This is an idiotic argument.


HAHAHA, let's look at the Journal of Historical Review how about 85!
(so much for your "There are no peer-reviewed papers denying the holocaust. This sort of propaganda is pathetic and sad and proves you are a zealot.")
This is not a peer-reviewed journal and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed.


Intentionally misleading on your part.
No it is not, your inability to read and then fabricate strawman arguments from things that are not stated anywhere on the list is not my problem.


Peer reviewed using your standards exposed above.
My standards are that all papers must be peer-reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal. I have successfully demonstrated this in each case.


Which would no longer make it "skeptical of man made GW" by scientific basis.
Strawman again as this is not stated. You cannot fabricated your made up criteria for a list that explicitly states what it is about.


Oops, what you actually said was "800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm", keyword alarm?
No oops, this is what the list says and what the title of this thread says. Since this original post the list has been updated to over 800 papers.


Are you going to let your readers decide?
Let the readers decide what? 911 has nothing to do with Global Warming. I already know the 911 conspiracy theorists position on AGW alarm as it is explicitly skeptical. This is demonstrated by anyone who ever reads PrisonPlanet or InfoWars. Both sites are right on this issue. So your tactic here will have no effect on their skeptical AGW alarm position.


Yep, typical of you, when I make a mistake, you call it a lie.
It was no mistake, you lied as you are desperately trying to do anything you can to get people not read what I have to say about AGW alarm. You cannot win a real debate on this issue so you resort to these dishonest tactics.


I'll copy what it actually says "anti-marijuana resource"
Yep and no mention of being against legalization.


I'm not perfect, but you're free to correct me, please refrain from outright saying "lie" if you wish not the same done to you.
When you stop lying I will say so, in the future if you do not want to be called out on your lies, don't state any.


Just to give you some perspective of this guy's standard for "peer review"

He states that Energy & Environment is peer reviewed and serious because it's available in 54 libraries worldwide.
Lie, again you fabricate something I never said. The listing of libraries was to show that E&E can be found in major libraries around the world and is taken seriously.

Energy & Environment is found at 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) and electronic form (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975). These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

I state that it is peer-reviewed based on,

EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf) (PDF)
Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (http://info.scopus.com/documents/files/scopus-training/resourcelibrary/xls/title_list.xls) (XLS)
"E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=314&filename=1053461261.txt)" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
"Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html)" - E&E Mission Statement

Your tiring nonsense about the non-science of creationism is sad and pathetic.


The link where he "Corrects misinformation" is written by himself (maybe because he can't find another person who wrote it, other than the journal themselves)
Correct the article is written by me but it is fully sourced and debunks various misinformation that people like you commonly state.


"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an interdisciplinary academic journal debating issues arising from aspirations of ‘integrated’ policy-making and academic analysis. It serves as a forum for constructive and professional debate and the search for solutions in a policy area that remains a focus of politics at all levels and involves major regulatory and investment efforts.

If you were to take this at face value, isn't this admitting it's not an unbiased source for scientific research?
This quote states nothing about any scientific bias. E&E actually encourages debate.

reillym
07-29-2010, 02:13 PM
You haven't found anything discrediting anybody. Your silly "review" has been discredited,

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only did a detailed analysis for their top 4 per scientist citation analysis not for the total amount of results for the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors.

Searching for Climate Patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".

Conclusion = the study is worthless and does not change the overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed publications against AGW alarm.

There is nothing you can Google about the list that I have not already heard and discredited.

Googling people of the same name? What? That has nothing to do with the study. The did it by researcher. Pretty simple to understand. They chose authors with more than 20 publications. Why are you arguing duplicates?

i'm read the report and no mention of "patent" appears.

They imposed a 20 publication limit, yes. They had to cut it off somewhere. What's the problem? None.

There is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed papers. Every scientist is trying to make a name for him/herself, and if the "truth" about climate change came out, they would be all over it. But whats the reality? 97% of real scientists agree. As does every single scientific organization.

The right's obsession with non-science (like creationism/intelligent design) is really depressing.

WaltM
07-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Googling people of the same name? What? That has nothing to do with the study. The did it by researcher. Pretty simple to understand. They chose authors with more than 20 publications. Why are you arguing duplicates?

i'm read the report and no mention of "patent" appears.

They imposed a 20 publication limit, yes. They had to cut it off somewhere. What's the problem? None.

There is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed papers.


It's overwhelming for this guy's head.
He doesn't question what's published in Energy & Environment, so that's where his gospels come from. How he justifies his claims that something is "lie" "fraudulent" "discredited" "torn to shreds".



Every scientist is trying to make a name for him/herself, and if the "truth" about climate change came out, they would be all over it.


According to him (and the so called "skeptics"), those 30,000 ARE coming out over it. As is what he thinks about Climategate (there, I said it, HE THINKS).



But whats the reality? 97% of real scientists agree. As does every single scientific organization.


Not "agree" as in they "think so", but their review of data after scrutiny reveals as such, mind those who mistake this as a popularity contest or democracy.

Mr. Poptech even said "it's subjective" who is a climatologist.

I asked him, to the effect, at what point does ridicule, censorship, persecution become justifiable, his response was "never when it's unproven", but he won't tell you what's "proven" (or maybe his answer is, until he can't find SOME paper out there that isn't 100% conforming).



The right's obsession with non-science (like creationism/intelligent design) is really depressing.

I'm not going to play into their hands by calling them "the right", they're not always obsessed with non-science either, they're obsessed with science (or what they think of it) if it fits their pocket.

Poptech
07-29-2010, 06:25 PM
Googling people of the same name? What? That has nothing to do with the study. The did it by researcher.
You have no remote idea what you are talking about, they used Google Scholar to do their "research". Now if you had any remote clue how Google Scholar worked you would understand what I stated. They simply did name and word searches for a "paper" count, where the search results include various bogus results that are not peer-reviewed and include results from people with similar last names.


Pretty simple to understand. They chose authors with more than 20 publications. Why are you arguing duplicates?
Apparently it is beyond you to understand the paper. The cherry picked away all the skeptics by declaring that they must have more than 20 published papers which is bullshit. But it is worse than that as they never verified the 20 Google Scholar search results for each author. I am arguing about duplicates because these show up in Google Scholar if you ever actually used it. Without verification of ever single result the paper is meaningless nonsense.


i'm read the report and no mention of "patent" appears.
No kidding! Google Scholar default searches for patents yet they never mentioned they turned this off!


They imposed a 20 publication limit, yes. They had to cut it off somewhere. What's the problem? None.
Because it is subjective bullshit as the results were never verified and someone publishing 20 as opposed to 10 papers is not evidence of "expert" status.


There is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed papers. Every scientist is trying to make a name for him/herself, and if the "truth" about climate change came out, they would be all over it. But whats the reality? 97% of real scientists agree. As does every single scientific organization.
Yes there is an overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed papers,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)

Please show where you get your bullshit 97% number from so I can discredit it with the facts.

First of all every scientific organization does not support the alarmist position. Second could you please provide me the complete vote taken by any of your mentioned scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of their council members.


The right's obsession with non-science (like creationism/intelligent design) is really depressing.
The right is not obsessed with this, religious conservatives are. The political right is made up of more than just religious conservatives. Again you have nothing as I support evolution theory.

Poptech
07-29-2010, 07:41 PM
He doesn't question what's published in Energy & Environment, so that's where his gospels come from.
First of all I don't consider anything my "gospel" as I am religiously agnostic. I consider Energy & Environment a peer-reviewed academic journal, which I have demonstrated to be true.


As is what he thinks about Climategate (there, I said it, HE THINKS).
What I think about Climategate is based on reading and actually understand the emails in context,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63) (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process


Mr. Poptech even said "it's subjective" who is a climatologist.
It is as I have demonstrated, since many prominent proponents of AGW theory do not have a degree in climatology,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

WaltM
07-29-2010, 10:06 PM
First of all I don't consider anything my "gospel" as I am religiously agnostic. I consider Energy & Environment a peer-reviewed academic journal, which I have demonstrated to be true.


No, you've not demonstrated it to be true, you've only shown that 54 libraries worldwide carry the journal, which is less than the libraries that carry Journal for Historical Review.


While we're on the topic, since you "support evolution" and "debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories", do you believe those who think there's scientific dissent on evolution, or that 9/11 is a conspiracy are worthy of the ridicule, persecution, censorship which "climate skeptics" receive?



What I think about Climategate is based on reading and actually understand the emails in context,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63) (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process


According to you, Mann's research is useless anyway, so Climategate at worst confirms what your own preconceived conclusion that Mann is wrong (or that only Mann supports AGW)




It is as I have demonstrated, since many prominent proponents of AGW theory do not have a degree in climatology,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

which is still not purely subjective. WOW, they're all natural scientists, not mathematician or economists!


Compare that to McIntyre, McKitrick, Loehle, McCullogh. (Loehle being the exception, they're all Irish)

Poptech
07-29-2010, 10:41 PM
No, you've not demonstrated it to be true, you've only shown that 54 libraries worldwide carry the journal, which is less than the libraries that carry Journal for Historical Review.
Now you are getting desperate as you are just repeating the same lies I already discredited. It is not 54 but 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) and electronic form (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975). These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

I've already stated that the Journal for Historical Review is not a peer-reviewed journal and does not appear on any major publisher's list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E on the other hand explicitly does,

- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf) (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (http://info.scopus.com/documents/files/scopus-training/resourcelibrary/xls/title_list.xls) (XLS)
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=314&filename=1053461261.txt)" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html)" - E&E Mission Statement

Your continued denial of this is humorous.


While we're on the topic, since you "support evolution" and "debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories", do you believe those who think there's scientific dissent on evolution, or that 9/11 is a conspiracy are worthy of the ridicule, persecution, censorship which "climate skeptics" receive?
No I do not support persecution and censorship in a debate. Ridicule is freedom of speech regardless of the topic.


According to you, Mann's research is useless anyway, so Climategate at worst confirms what your own preconceived conclusion that Mann is wrong (or that only Mann supports AGW)
According to mathematics and statistics Mann's paleo-climate "research" is useless, this is correct. At worst Climategate confirms fraud and illegal activity on the part of prominent authors of the IPCC report.


which is still not purely subjective. WOW, they're all natural scientists, not mathematician or economists!
There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist. Gavin is a mathematician. If your implication is that there are no natural scientists who are skeptics, you would be dead wrong, here is a very small sample,

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)


Compare that to McIntyre, McKitrick, Loehle, McCullogh. (Loehle being the exception, they're all Irish)
Not to mention they can also be Scottish but who cares? I mean are you racist against those of Celtic descent? WTF does this have to do with anything?

WaltM
07-29-2010, 11:24 PM
You have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge.


"You deny" does not need much evidence, but even if I gave any, you'll deny it again, denying is easy. A child could do that



On the other hand I have provided extensive evidence of your lies. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count.


"irrefutable lie proven", keep showing off your assertive language, you're only proving yourself to yourself.



You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site.


That's an example of a mistake, which I apologized for.





You have failed to provide any evidence to support the implication that the membership bodies of the scientific organizations touted as proof of the alleged "consensus" support these organization's position statements released by their handful of council members. Without providing such evidence they cannot be used in support of this position.


I never claimed that.




I can tell you what is unacceptable evidence, such as various tree-ring proxy reconstructions since tree-ring's are influenced by more than just temperature changes. I also find unacceptable any proxy reconstruction that has not undergone the necessary due-diligence to verify the reconstruction.


By this standard, the Loehle and McCulloch paper didn't prove anything about MWP.



Something that peer-review does not provide but McIntyre has demonstrated to be a necessity before any such reconstruction can remotely be taken seriously.


In other words, MWP can't be taken seriously?



This statement does not make any sense


Read it again.
The point is, for every library that carries E&E, they also carry other scientific journals.



Actually if you can add (obviously you cannot) it is Found at 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) and electronic form (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975). These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.


I didn't ignore this response, I missed it, you would know I'm desperate to reply you.

I responded to your claim that "all these great universities have it", these happen to be the biggest libraries, so naturally they collect what they can.

WOrldcat even categorizes E&E as policy and energy (rather than direct science, for science sake). In addition, E&E's own mission statement admits their discipline.



This is not a peer-reviewed journal but a magazine and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed. There is no question that various magazines will be carried far more often than journals will. This is an idiotic argument.


that's what happens when you try to play the numbers game.



This is not a peer-reviewed journal and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed.




No it is not, your inability to read and then fabricate strawman arguments from things that are not stated anywhere on the list is not my problem.


Your inability to consider not everybody who disagrees with you either intentionally lies, is a zealot, or fabricates strawman arguments is your problem.



My standards are that all papers must be peer-reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal. I have successfully demonstrated this in each case.


With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen.
(nothing against Irish, just noting they're the same familiar names repeated as experts you cling on to).

Again, you go on with your assertive language that you successfully prove something, only to yourself.




Strawman again as this is not stated. You cannot fabricated your made up criteria for a list that explicitly states what it is about.

No oops, this is what the list says and what the title of this thread says. Since this original post the list has been updated to over 800 papers.


New studies or just new findings?
Anything the media didn't cover about the new 50 papers?



Let the readers decide what? 911 has nothing to do with Global Warming.


You don't find it funny that 911 truthers buy your AGW denial?



I already know the 911 conspiracy theorists position on AGW alarm as it is explicitly skeptical. This is demonstrated by anyone who ever reads PrisonPlanet or InfoWars. Both sites are right on this issue. So your tactic here will have no effect on their skeptical AGW alarm position.


My tactic wasn't mean to have any effect on deniers, or 9/11 truthers.



It was no mistake, you lied as you are desperately trying to do anything you can to get people not read what I have to say about AGW alarm. You cannot win a real debate on this issue so you resort to these dishonest tactics.


Uh, no.

You again revealed your tactics, just like creationists and conspiracy theorists, holding that winning a debate is the only way to settle a question (particularly when it comes to science).

Resort to dishonest tactics? Ha, what is this? Kettle & pot?



Yep and no mention of being against legalization.


I've retracted and apologized for my mistake.



When you stop lying I will say so, in the future if you do not want to be called out on your lies, don't state any.


No you won't. Whoever disagrees with you is a called liar, fraud, idiot or zealot, that's proven true 100% of the time by you.

Or did I miss an incident where you have respectful disagreements? (Yes, I know to you, some people deserve no respect.



Lie, again you fabricate something I never said. The listing of libraries was to show that E&E can be found in major libraries around the world and is taken seriously.

Your tiring nonsense about the non-science of creationism is sad and pathetic.


Your repetition of your own circular arguments is what's pathetic.



Correct the article is written by me but it is fully sourced and debunks various misinformation that people like you commonly state.

This quote states nothing about any scientific bias. E&E actually encourages debate.

enough said.

WaltM
07-29-2010, 11:31 PM
There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist.


Yes there is.

Or at least, there's a good way to tell how serious a person is about a topic, it's called experience, research (first hand) and peer reviewed publications. Credentials help too.

Some are more qualified than others, but it's not purely subjective (otherwise I would be one too).



Gavin is a mathematician. If your implication is that there are no natural scientists who are skeptics, you would be dead wrong, here is a very small sample,


John R. Christy,
Patrick J. Michaels

Richard S. Lindzen

Roy W. Spencer


These names sound familiar, they don't deny GW, Lindzen questions IPCC & CO2's cause, if I remembered correctly.

Do any of these 4 hold the position that MWP was warmer?
(this will help tell whether E&E is taken seriously, in case you wonder why I ask)





Not to mention they can also be Scottish but who cares? I mean are you racist against those of Celtic descent? WTF does this have to do with anything?

I appreciate you being able to tell a joke from a lie.

WaltM
07-29-2010, 11:36 PM
Now you are getting desperate as you are just repeating the same lies I already discredited. It is not 54 but 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21187549) and electronic form (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61313975).

Granted I was slightly desperate and amused as to how you measure peer review, I didn't see there's 136 total, it was an honest mistake and I wont use this argument again. But "discredit" isn't the right word (my comment had to be meant as an authoritative or reliable credit to begin with), refute, correct, responded would be better for this context. I don't know if you're intentionally misleading, or just not sure how to use words in describing mistakes, your tactics DO reflect the exact people you accuse.

Poptech
07-30-2010, 12:37 AM
"You deny" does not need much evidence, but even if I gave any, you'll deny it again, denying is easy. A child could do that
Again, you have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge. I on the other hand have proven you have lied multiple times.


"irrefutable lie proven", keep showing off your assertive language, you're only proving yourself to yourself.
Again, you lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. That is not just assertive language but an irrefutable fact.


I never claimed that.
I never said you did but you are attempting to defend reillym's unsupportable position regarding certain scientific organizations position statements and it's relation to their membership bodies.


By this standard, the Loehle and McCulloch paper didn't prove anything about MWP.

In other words, MWP can't be taken seriously?
First of all Loehle's paper was based on non-tree ring proxies and thus meets the first standard,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/) (PDF (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

After undergoing the necessary due-diligence a correction was issued which meets the second standard,

Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/) (PDF (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Loehle_McCulloch.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

The corrected estimates are very similar to the original results, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ... While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values
Thus their conclusions can be taken seriously.


Read it again. The point is, for every library that carries E&E, they also carry other scientific journals.
It still does not make any sense. So what if the universities carry other scientific journals? The point is they carry E&E.


I responded to your claim that "all these great universities have it", these happen to be the biggest libraries, so naturally they collect what they can.

WOrldcat even categorizes E&E as policy and energy (rather than direct science, for science sake). In addition, E&E's own mission statement admits their discipline.
Strawman argument and debunked here,

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html)

E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm),

"Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level.


that's what happens when you try to play the numbers game.
What happens? You illogically compare magazines to peer-reviewed journals?


Your inability to consider not everybody who disagrees with you either intentionally lies, is a zealot, or fabricates strawman arguments is your problem.
Again another strawman argument, I do not consider this about everyone who disagrees with me just people who have repeatedly demonstrated this such as yourself.


With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen.
(nothing against Irish, just noting they're the same familiar names repeated as experts you cling on to).

Again, you go on with your assertive language that you successfully prove something, only to yourself.
Lie, as only a handful of E&E papers are from those scientists your mentioned. You are a like a perpetual strawman factory as I don't repeat those names and do not cling to them.

I have proven it to every rational person who reads these comments.


New studies or just new findings?
Anything the media didn't cover about the new 50 papers?
Both and I do not follow what the media reports in relation to these papers which is irrelevant anyway.


You don't find it funny that 911 truthers buy your AGW denial?

My tactic wasn't mean to have any effect on deniers, or 9/11 truthers.
I find it funny that you think using 911 conspiracy theorists helps your case. Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven. Yes I do not share your religious belief in AGW, this is true.

Your tactic is a sad attempt to get me to attack them and them to not listen to what I have to say. You have failed on all counts as they already support my position.


Uh, no.

You again revealed your tactics, just like creationists and conspiracy theorists, holding that winning a debate is the only way to settle a question (particularly when it comes to science).

Resort to dishonest tactics? Ha, what is this? Kettle & pot?
Why are you so weak minded that you need to inject creationists and conspiracy theorists into a debate about climate change? Is it because your actual scientific arguments cannot hold water? I believe so.


No you won't. Whoever disagrees with you is a called liar, fraud, idiot or zealot, that's proven true 100% of the time by you.
Wrong, you keep stating lies and thus will continue to be called a liar which you are and this has been demonstrated. Again you lie, prove where I have called someone a liar who did not state a lie.


Or did I miss an incident where you have respectful disagreements? (Yes, I know to you, some people deserve no respect.
Respectful disagreements require - #1 Not lying about something I said or did and #2 Not injecting nonsense about creationists, conspiracy theorists or right-wing politics into the discussion. You have failed on all counts.


Your repetition of your own circular arguments is what's pathetic.
Again you continue to lie as nothing I have stated was a circular argument. Due to your lies and strawman arguments I have been forced to defend myself from nonsense but these statements in my defense are not circular they are repetitive because you keep repeating the same lies.


Yes there is.

Or at least, there's a good way to tell how serious a person is about a topic, it's called experience, research (first hand) and peer reviewed publications. Credentials help too.

Some are more qualified than others, but it's not purely subjective (otherwise I would be one too).
Really? Oh, ok then this should be easy. Please provide the objective procedure to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Make sure nothing you state is a subjective opinion.


These names sound familiar, they don't deny GW, Lindzen questions IPCC & CO2's cause, if I remembered correctly.
Again another strawman as no prominent skeptic denies there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age, what they are skeptical about is how much if any is caused by man, especially man-made CO2 and none support alarmist consequences.


Do any of these 4 hold the position that MWP was warmer?
(this will help tell whether E&E is taken seriously, in case you wonder why I ask)
They all do. E&E is not the only journal that has papers supporting the MWP being warmer than today,

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5508/1497) (PDF (http://mensch.org/5223_2007/archive/Science2001Broecker.pdf))
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

WaltM
07-30-2010, 01:25 AM
Again, you have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge. I on the other hand have proven you have lied multiple times.


You proved it to yourself. How impressive!



Again, you lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. That is not just assertive language but an irrefutable fact.


According to you, yeah, I'm used to it at this point.



I never said you did but you are attempting to defend reillym's unsupportable position regarding certain scientific organizations position statements and it's relation to their membership bodies.


so don't ask me for evidence on something I never claimed.



First of all Loehle's paper was based on non-tree ring proxies and thus meets the first standard,


What is it about your first standard that says Loehle's data is based on proxies ONLY temperature affected? We know tree ring data can be influenced by other things than temperature, is that the ONLY kind of proxy data with this inherent uncertainty?



A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/) (PDF (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

After undergoing the necessary due-diligence a correction was issued which meets the second standard,


Due diligence is an imaginary land made up in your head to say Loehle has passed such a test. The only correction the was adding error ranges.




Thus their conclusions can be taken seriously. (by you)




It still does not make any sense. So what if the universities carry other scientific journals? The point is they carry E&E.


The fact you don't see "so what" says it all.



Strawman argument and debunked here,


Ha, not a strawman, and not debunked, we actually agree!



E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm),


Yeah, that's what I said. No stawman to debunk, you admitted it.

So the best arguments, the journal most cited by you, is admittedly not a pure natural science journal.



What happens? You illogically compare magazines to peer-reviewed journals?


No, you illogically started with running numbers as to who carries E&E.



Again another strawman argument, I do not consider this about everyone who disagrees with me just people who have repeatedly demonstrated this such as yourself.


Is this the first sentence you've typed that doesn't contain the words, lie, zealot, fraudulent, discredited, debunked, idiot? You don't consider this about everyone who disagrees with you, that's why you yell liar, zealot, fraudulent on a regular basis to a person who bothers replying to you (real scientists don't take you seriously, you know that already).



Lie, as only a handful of E&E papers are from those scientists your mentioned. You are a like a perpetual strawman factory as I don't repeat those names and do not cling to them.

I have proven it to every rational person who reads these comments.


No you haven't, and I can only repeat what you repeat, sorry, it's you.

You wanna come back with a fresher list of papers or arguments, I'm not the only reader.



Both and I do not follow what the media reports in relation to these papers which is irrelevant anyway.


But you follow the media reports on climategate. Convenient!



I find it funny that you think using 911 conspiracy theorists helps your case.


I don't need to help my case, nice try.



Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven. Yes I do not share your religious belief in AGW, this is true.


So if I've not seen you pop out of your mom's womb, it's not empirically proven you are your mom's son, and I can say it's RELIGIOUS belief that she is your mom?
(go cry strawman, I've heard enough for your denial)



Your tactic is a sad attempt to get me to attack them and them to not listen to what I have to say. You have failed on all counts as they already support my position.


You already attack them, I can't lead idiots to think, and you're happy to use them for your cause.



Why are you so weak minded that you need to inject creationists and conspiracy theorists into a debate about climate change? Is it because your actual scientific arguments cannot hold water? I believe so.


How humble you know how to use the word "believe".



Wrong, you keep stating lies and thus will continue to be called a liar which you are and this has been demonstrated. Again you lie, prove where I have called someone a liar who did not state a lie.


Every time you called me a liar, I wasn't lying.




Respectful disagreements require - #1 Not lying about something I said or did and #2 Not injecting nonsense about creationists, conspiracy theorists or right-wing politics into the discussion. You have failed on all counts.


No, I've not failed, you only say so to yourself.



Again you continue to lie as nothing I have stated was a circular argument.


Actually, most if not all of them are.

It's blatantly obvious from how you cite E&E, McKitrick, McIntyre, and then your own standards to validate your own scrutiny (call it "due diligence).



Due to your lies and strawman arguments I have been forced to defend myself from nonsense but these statements in my defense are not circular they are repetitive because you keep repeating the same lies.


So now I get your tactic, you start by calling somebody a liar, and then continue to say the same thing over and over. As long as you call somebody a liar, they're forced to defend themselves either by apology, correction, or admission of mistake, none of which would take away your accusation.



Really? Oh, ok then this should be easy. Please provide the objective procedure to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Make sure nothing you state is a subjective opinion.


Ha. Nice try!

I said it's not purely subjective (not that it can't be somewhat imperfect, or that there's purely no criteria).

Of course, you can't convince deniers. So whatever I present, will only cost you a breath of "No, that's subjective, I win" to render it a waste of time explaining something to a person who isn't listening.




Again another strawman as no prominent skeptic denies there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age, what they are skeptical about is how much if any is caused by man, especially man-made CO2 and none support alarmist consequences.


Help me here, what would convince these scientists that it's caused by man?



They all do. E&E is not the only journal that has papers supporting the MWP being warmer than today,


So how much warmer than MWP should today's temperature be to justify alarmism (this is assuming MWP reconstruction is true according to Loehle)



Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5508/1497) (PDF (http://mensch.org/5223_2007/archive/Science2001Broecker.pdf))
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

Looks like a good source, but lacks good data.

The Case for a Global Event
The case for a global Medieval Warm Period
admittedly remains inconclusive. But keeping
in mind that most proxies do not have adequate
sensitivity, it is interesting that those capable
of resolving temperature changes of less
than 1 "C yield results consistent with a global
Medieval Warm Period.

Did I miss context?

Poptech
07-30-2010, 02:27 AM
I have proven you have lied multiple times. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site. You lied that each E&E paper is from the same group of scientists ect...


According to you, yeah, I'm used to it at this point.
No according to anyone who can do basic math skills such as counting.


so don't ask me for evidence on something I never claimed.
Don't try to defend something you cannot provide evidence for.


What is it about your first standard that says Loehle's data is biased on proxies ONLY temperature affected? We know tree ring data can be influenced by other things than temperature, is that the ONLY kind of proxy data with this inherent uncertainty?
Again another Strawman, I never said that, I stated that tree-ring proxies were affected by more than just temperature. They are the one proxy that is influenced by the most factors besides temperature such as sunlight, wind, precipitation, soil, age, fire, pests, disease and CO2.


Due diligence is an imaginary land made up in your head to say Loehle has passed such a test. The only correction the was adding error ranges.
Due-diligence was met as all challenges of reconstruction of his work were passed with the data and methods fully available for reproduction. The fact that only minor changes were done in the correction only proves the robustness of his work.


Ha, not a strawman, and not debunked, we actually agree!

So the best arguments, the journal most cited by you, is admittedly not a pure natural science journal.
Strawman as no claim was made that they were a natural science journal. Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal, this has been established many times. I understand you think this somehow discredits the journal but that is due to your confusion about the peer-review process. Journal coverage type has nothing to do with peer-review. Science papers published in E&E are peer-reviewed by appropriate natural scientists.


No, you illogically started with running numbers as to who carries E&E.
It was not illogical, it was to point out that E&E is a journal carried by major libraries and universities and thus taken seriously.


Is this the first sentence you've typed that doesn't contain the words, lie, zealot, fraudulent, discredited, debunked, idiot? You don't consider this about everyone who disagrees with you, that's why you yell liar, zealot, fraudulent on a regular basis to a person who bothers replying to you (real scientists don't take you seriously, you know that already).
Another lie as multiple sentences here do not include these words. Such as my first sentence in my first reply, "You haven't found anything discrediting anybody." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2794427&postcount=3) I only call people liars who state lies, zealots who act like them, fraudulent when they are fraudulent, discredited when they are discredited, debunked when they are debunked and idiots when they shown signs of idiocy. If you would stop stating all of these I will be more than happy to stop calling you out for what you are doing. Real scientists take me very seriously as I have received many emails from such scientists.


No you haven't, and I can only repeat what you repeat, sorry, it's you.
Prove me wrong, defend your statement, "With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen." It is a lie by anyone who has actually looked at the list.


You wanna come back with a fresher list of papers or arguments, I'm not the only reader.
This is illogical as I already have an overwhelming list of papers that you obviously feel very threatened by which is why you feel the need to dishonestly try to discredit the list yet have done nothing but fail at it. My arguments are all sound.


But you follow the media reports on climategate. Convenient!
This doesn't even make any sense. First of all I follow Climategate in general and papers published by skeptics none of which has to do with "following the media".


I don't need to help my case, nice try.
I agree as you have none.


So if I've not seen you pop out of your mom's womb, it's not empirically proven you are your mom's son, and I can say it's RELIGIOUS belief that she is your mom? (go cry strawman, I've heard enough for your denial)
Not a strawman just stupid. Your weak minded knee jerk use of the word denial continues to make me laugh.


You already attack them, I can't lead idiots to think, and you're happy to use them for your cause.
I don't use anybody, they are right on this issue. They are entitled to their opinions on other issues even if we disagree none of which has anything to do with climate change.


Every time you called me a liar, I wasn't lying.
You can feign denial all you want. What you stated was not true and I believe you are lying.


No, I've not failed, you only say so to yourself.
Yes you have failed. You are the biggest hypocrite, you lie, smear and inject propaganda into a discussion then complain about "respectful disagreement".


Actually, most if not all of them are.
Name one.


It's blatantly obvious from how you cite E&E, McKitrick, McIntyre, and then your own standards to validate your own scrutiny (call it "due diligence).
Yes "due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review, McIntyre has irrefutably demonstrated this by anyone who is intellectually honest.


So now I get your tactic, you start by calling somebody a liar, and then continue to say the same thing over and over. As long as you call somebody a liar, they're forced to defend themselves either by apology, correction, or admission of mistake, none of which would take away your accusation.
My tactic is to call people who lie, liars. I realize you are used to getting away with lying about other people without getting called out, that does not work with me. Honest mistakes do not come from people who throw around the word denial or inject creationism, holocaust denial or conspiracy theories into these debates. People like this (you) are the lowest of the low and I will not take back what I explicitly said and believe to be true.


I said it's not purely subjective (not that it can't be somewhat imperfect, or that there's purely no criteria).
"not purely subjective" is a logical fallacy. Something is either subjective or it is objective.


Of course, you can't convince deniers. So whatever I present, will only cost you a breath of "No, that's subjective, I win" to render it a waste of time explaining something to a person who isn't listening.
You cannot convince someone who understands the difference between a subjective and objective argument (such as myself). I win because I am right and you have failed to prove otherwise.


Help me here, what would convince these scientists that it's caused by man?
Empirical evidence not modeled results.


So how much warmer than MWP should today's temperature be to justify alarmism (this is assuming MWP reconstruction is true according to Loehle)
Nothing justifies alarmism as there is nothing to support it.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 03:07 AM
I have proven you have lied multiple times. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site. You lied that each E&E paper is from the same group of scientists ect...


No, I didn't.

You want to take back your lies or keep saying I lied?
Up to you, you're not helping yourself.



No according to anyone who can do basic math skills such as counting.


Not if they don't know what they're looking for.



Don't try to defend something you cannot provide evidence for.


Wasn't trying to.

Why so defensive?



Again another Strawman, I never said that, I stated that tree-ring proxies were affected by more than just temperature. They are the one proxy that is influenced by the most factors besides temperature such as sunlight, wind, precipitation, soil, age, fire, pests, disease and CO2.


So, other proxies are susceptible as well. Just not as much?



Due-diligence was met as all challenges of reconstruction of his work were passed with the data and methods fully available for reproduction.


All challenges?

Available for reproduction, yet nobody else did it.
(surely if another serious scientist wanted to be famous, he'd write a paper and you'd be desperate to list it for me)



The fact that only minor changes were done in the correction only proves the robustness of his work.


No, it's an error range that's due in any serious scientific work. Proves no robustness, just allows more open ends (as I've pointed out earlier, it fits into Mann's hockeystick error bars anyway).




Strawman as no claim was made that they were a natural science journal. Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal, this has been established many times.


So it's not a strawman, it's what I said and you agreed. You insist on saying I'm making strawman arguments when you agree with me (and vice versa). Is it an ego thing to you that I always have to be wrong (even when I say exactly what you said)?



I understand you think this somehow discredits the journal but that is due to your confusion about the peer-review process. Journal coverage type has nothing to do with peer-review. Science papers published in E&E are peer-reviewed by appropriate natural scientists.


Such as McIntyre & McKitrick in this case?
Journal coverage has something to do with the peers and reviewer they use, does it not?



It was not illogical, it was to point out that E&E is a journal carried by major libraries and universities and thus taken seriously.


That's exactly what's illogical. Being carried by major libraries is an indication that it's NOT necessarily carried for its scholar value, but for archival and reference purposes (just as an alternative possibility).



Another lie as multiple sentences here do not include these words. Such as my first sentence in my first reply, "You haven't found anything discrediting anybody." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2794427&postcount=3) I only call people liars who state lies, zealots who act like them, fraudulent when they are fraudulent, discredited when they are discredited, debunked when they are debunked and idiots when they shown signs of idiocy.


All of which are from your circular definition.

You can an idiot, whoever is an idiot to you.

You proved my point again, saying that I said a "lie" when I clearly put it in a question form with a ? mark. (is it my turn to say you can't read?)



If you would stop stating all of these I will be more than happy to stop calling you out for what you are doing. Real scientists take me very seriously as I have received many emails from such scientists.


I've stopped caring what you're happy to do. Apparently you're happy to come back here spitting, and calling me a liar in hopes you'll bully me to shut up.

(that you failed by the way)



Prove me wrong, defend your statement, "With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen." It is a lie by anyone who has actually looked at the list.


You proved yourself the list doesn't matter, or else you'd not keep posting the same handful of articles (unless you intentionally wanted to save the best for last, why shouldn't I assume you exhausted the best arguments by now).



This is illogical as I already have an overwhelming list of papers that you obviously feel very threatened by which is why you feel the need to dishonestly try to discredit the list yet have done nothing but fail at it. My arguments are all sound.


Nobody can do a better job at discrediting the list than yourself.

You've created a thread to promote your agenda, admitted it since, and every answer you give from my questions confirms it.

The "overwhelming list that threatens" is for you, you're the one that finds it overwhelming.




This doesn't even make any sense. First of all I follow Climategate in general and papers published by skeptics none of which has to do with "following the media".


What does it mean to "follow in general" not the media?



I agree as you have none.


took you this long to realize?




Not a strawman just stupid. Your weak minded knee jerk use of the word denial continues to make me laugh.


Why stupid?

WaltM
07-30-2010, 03:20 AM
I don't use anybody, they are right on this issue. They are entitled to their opinions on other issues even if we disagree none of which has anything to do with climate change.


They're entitled to your ridicule.




You can feign denial all you want. What you stated was not true and I believe you are lying.


You believe, fair enough.




Yes you have failed. You are the biggest hypocrite, you lie, smear and inject propaganda into a discussion then complain about "respectful disagreement".


I stopped complaining, now I'm just enjoying it.




Name one.


You say that hockeystick is discredited.
Because it's discredited by people and papers you trust.
I ask why is it not reliable, you say it's not robust enough, no due diligance.
When I ask you what's due diligance, or what's good evidence, you say, the paper you cite from E&E is what you accept.
If I ask you why you accept it and why it's due diligance, what is your non-circular answer ? Because it's peer reviewed? (if so, then all pro-AGW papers are too).



Yes "due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review, McIntyre has irrefutably demonstrated this by anyone who is intellectually honest.


Says you.



My tactic is to call people who lie, liars. I realize you are used to getting away with lying about other people without getting called out, that does not work with me.


No, I'm not used to lying.

You're just used to calling people liar, that doesn't work with me.



Honest mistakes do not come from people who throw around the word denial or inject creationism, holocaust denial or conspiracy theories into these debates.


In different places of the discussion.

My invoking of creationism, holocaust denial and conspiracy theories were not lies, and not mistakes, so they're not honest mistakes, why did you bring this up? In attempt to distract people from your claims that I'm a liar.



People like this (you) are the lowest of the low and I will not take back what I explicitly said and believe to be true.


By now admitting "you believe it to be true", I consider that a take back.



"not purely subjective" is a logical fallacy. Something is either subjective or it is objective.


Ha. So your name is either subjectively Andrew or objectively Andrew?
Ever heard of the fallacy of false dichotomy?



You cannot convince someone who understands the difference between a subjective and objective argument (such as myself). I win because I am right and you have failed to prove otherwise.


I can't convince somebody who believes only what he wants to believe.
You think you win because you think you're right and I've failed to convince you you're wrong (not news to me).

Did you know I can say that to myself?



Empirical evidence not modeled results.


So you'd have to see a person pumping CO2 into a chamber and the temperature immediately rising?



Nothing justifies alarmism as there is nothing to support it.

Again, your deceptively assertive language.

I know you're not convinced now. I'm asking you WHAT WOULD JUSTIFY ALARMISM WITH SUPPORT?

Poptech
07-30-2010, 06:44 AM
No, I didn't. You want to take back your lies or keep saying I lied? Up to you, you're not helping yourself.
You did lie, multiple times,

1. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count,

"16% of which are from 'Energy and Environment' Most of the rest are Policy papers (not scientific journals)" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2812432&postcount=10)

This is a lie as the policy papers are only under the Climategate, IPCC, Kyoto, Socio-Economic and Stern Review section adding up to just over 100 papers.

2. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site,

"...and opposes legalization of marijuana." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2812432&postcount=10)

This is a lie as legalization is not mentioned anywhere on the site.

3. You lied that each E&E paper is from the same group of scientists,

"With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816839&postcount=26)

This is a lie as there are only two E&E papers from McIntyre that he coauthored with McKitrick plus an additional one McKitrick did on his own and two more from McCulloch, that is only five out of all the E&E papers on the list.

I can back up everything I state.


Not if they don't know what they're looking for.
Which obviously includes you as the policy papers are only under the Climategate, IPCC, Kyoto, Socio-Economic and Stern Review section adding up to just over 100 papers.


Wasn't trying to. Why so defensive?
You are the one who tried to defend him (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2812436&postcount=11).


So, other proxies are susceptible as well. Just not as much?
Yes some proxies are better than others, tree-rings being some of the worst.


All challenges?

Available for reproduction, yet nobody else did it.
Yes all challenges and all the data (http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025) is available for reproduction, those challenging Loehle have done so and got the same results which why you don't find them anywhere, instead they make other excuses. But anyone can do the reproduction with the full data and methods available.


No, it's an error range that's due in any serious scientific work. Proves no robustness, just allows more open ends (as I've pointed out earlier, it fits into Mann's hockeystick error bars anyway).
It is much more robust than Mann's which has no statistical relevance. Mann's error bars are a joke and make the papers conclusions meaningless.


So it's not a strawman, it's what I said and you agreed. You insist on saying I'm making strawman arguments when you agree with me (and vice versa). Is it an ego thing to you that I always have to be wrong (even when I say exactly what you said)?
No it is a strawman as I made no claim that the best arguments are from E&E as you erroneously claimed, "So the best arguments, the journal most cited by you, is admittedly not a pure natural science journal." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816961&postcount=30)

Now you are lying that I am agreeing with you when I have done no such thing. It is not an ego thing, you have been demonstratively wrong over and over.


Such as McIntyre & McKitrick in this case?
In what case? McIntyre for instance has been asked to be a reviewer for paleo-climate papers in prominent climate journals. But for your implication E&E uses a large body of credentialed natural scientists to review their science papers. McKitrick is not a natural scientist so he would not be asked to be a reviewer on such papers unless the paper involved policy. E&E's papers are peer-reviewed by 3 or more appropriate reviewers.


Journal coverage has something to do with the peers and reviewer they use, does it not?
No as reviewers are chosen based on the contents of the paper. An economist would not review a science paper and visa-versa.


That's exactly what's illogical. Being carried by major libraries is an indication that it's NOT necessarily carried for its scholar value, but for archival and reference purposes (just as an alternative possibility).
Libraries only carry journals for scholarly value as they have limited space and funds.


All of which are from your circular definition.
Not circular but factual as defined by their definitions. If someone states a lie (defined (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/lie_2)) "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." then they are called a liar ect...

These are not opinions as I can factually prove what was stated was untrue.


You proved my point again, saying that I said a "lie" when I clearly put it in a question form with a ? mark.
Pretending to ask a question does not make your comment anymore disingenuous or the smear any less implicit.


I've stopped caring what you're happy to do. Apparently you're happy to come back here spitting, and calling me a liar in hopes you'll bully me to shut up.
I take liars very seriously, there is no bullying around in real life if someone was stating these lies about me or my work I would not let them get away with it and take legal action. The problem is online, liars like yourself can go around with no real life consequences.


(that you failed by the way)
Let me make you a promise you will NEVER shut me up for eternity. So deal with it big boy.


You proved yourself the list doesn't matter, or else you'd not keep posting the same handful of articles (unless you intentionally wanted to save the best for last, why shouldn't I assume you exhausted the best arguments by now).
Your obsessive lying about the list proves it matters otherwise you would not waste all this energy trying desperately but failing to discredit it. I post the most relevant articles to whatever is being discussed.


Nobody can do a better job at discrediting the list than yourself.

You've created a thread to promote your agenda, admitted it since, and every answer you give from my questions confirms it.

The "overwhelming list that threatens" is for you, you're the one that finds it overwhelming.
I have done nothing to discredit the list to the contrary I have refuted all your bullshit lies about it. I created the thread to share the resource with those looking for it. Again you state another lie, I don't find the list personally overwhelming at all, I find it overwhelming evidence against AGW alarm.


took you this long to realize?
To realize you have no case? I knew this from the beginning.


They're entitled to your ridicule.
No you are entitled to my ridicule.


You say that hockeystick is discredited.
Because it's discredited by people and papers you trust.
I ask why is it not reliable, you say it's not robust enough, no due diligance.
When I ask you what's due diligance, or what's good evidence, you say, the paper you cite from E&E is what you accept.
If I ask you why you accept it and why it's due diligance, what is your non-circular answer ? Because it's peer reviewed? (if so, then all pro-AGW papers are too).
This is a strawman argument and stupid. I am not even responding to these anymore.

I have demonstrated you to be a liar multiple times. I will never take anything back about you ever as everything I stated was 100% true. I am right because you have failed to prove that how to determine a climate scientist is not subjective.

You bring up creationism and such because you need a lobotomy. You have been discredited on all counts. Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change.

Bruno
07-30-2010, 07:13 AM
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

WaltM
07-30-2010, 01:28 PM
I take liars very seriously, there is no bullying around in real life if someone was stating these lies about me or my work I would knock them the fuck out end of story. The problem is online, liars like yourself can go around with no real life consequences.


So you want me to have real life consequences? Is that it?



Let me make you a promise you will NEVER shut me up for eternity. So deal with it big boy.


Sounds good.



Your obsessive lying about the list proves it matters otherwise you would not waste all this energy trying desperately but failing to discredit it. I post the most relevant articles to whatever is being discussed.


Yeah, which is what I said, your best articles used to support your claims come from E&E.



I have done nothing to discredit the list to the contrary I have refuted all your bullshit lies about it. I created the thread to share the resource with those looking for it. Again you state another lie, I don't find the list personally overwhelming at all, I find it overwhelming evidence against AGW alarm.


Obviously you didn't discredit what you say to yourself, you did so to readers, our exchange shows that extensively.



To realize you have no case? I knew this from the beginning.


No you didn't, you else you wouldn't say "help your case".



No you are entitled to my ridicule.


I sure am.



This is a strawman argument and stupid. I am not even responding to these anymore.


Because you CAN'T outside of circular argumentation and self assertion.




I have demonstrated you to be a liar multiple times. I will never take anything back about you ever as everything I stated was 100% true. I am right because you have failed to prove that how to determine a climate scientist is not subjective.


Ha, I never said it's not subjective (or that it's complete objective), I only said it's not "purely subjective", a possibility you don't even consider. Or will you take back that it's purely subjective?

If it's purely subjective, why are you and I not considered climate scientists?



You bring up creationism and such because you need a lobotomy. You have been discredited on all counts. Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change.

So what DOES?? Please provide a testable experiment and an expected result.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 01:49 PM
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry,
3000 times more than Big-oil.

Yeah, and big government also spends more on fighting crime, compared to those who fund crime.

The biggest deal of this booklet is : that CRU data isn't available, which at best would open that MWP was warmer (so the question for skeptics is, how much warmer does is have to be to make it man-made?).

WaltM
07-30-2010, 04:30 PM
Rebuttals:
Failed attempts at "debunking" this list include,
- Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. If they were counted the paper count would be +50 papers.)


Not quite relevant when quality and significance is considered.



- Lying about the list being debunked because certain papers on the list do not "refute" AGW theory. (All papers support either skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.)


So how many actually do?




- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)


Given your claim that whether one is a climatologist "purely subjective", this is less relevant



- Lying about the inclusion of a paper on this list as a representation of the personal position of it's author in regards to AGW theory. (It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors".)


Thereby admitting, you add to your list and read what you want to read, not what the author wants you to read.




- Lying about all climate related papers not on this list endorsing AGW theory. (There are thousands of climate related papers but few explicitly endorse AGW theory.)


How many explicitly endorse it? Is it my handful?
How many explicitly refute it (nevermind, you'll just repeat your E&E papers)




- Lying that certain paper's age make them "outdated". (The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1886 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 200 papers published since 2007 on the list.)


Age alone does not outdate a paper, papers however, are challenged, refuted, retracted and answered.




- Lying that Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos "refute" peer-reviewed papers (That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.)


WOW, sounds familiar, this is the exact tactic you employ!

Making a blog, citing papers you want, and read what you want to read.

Then repeat the words LIE, FRAUDULENT, DISCREDITED, REFUTED.




- Lying that since some of the papers are mutually exclusive the list is falsified.


That's hardly a lie, so your tactic is to "always be open", and collect as many remotely relevant papers as you can, but never taking a specific position or coherent theory.



(The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.)


which allows you to jump around and never have to admit you're wrong, because you don't state a testable case.

If you were to actually formulate a theory or argument, your list would be dramatically smaller (this is not to say numbers are weaker).

Poptech
07-30-2010, 04:59 PM
So you want me to have real life consequences? Is that it?
I am simply explaining why you are able to get away with lying and how I handle liars in real life.


Yeah, which is what I said, your best articles used to support your claims come from E&E.
No some of my papers to support certain claims comes from E&E.


Obviously you didn't discredit what you say to yourself, you did so to readers, our exchange shows that extensively.
I have not discredited myself to my readers as anyone intellectually honest (not you) can see by reading these exchanges.


No you didn't, you else you wouldn't say "help your case".
It was sarcasm.


Because you CAN'T outside of circular argumentation and self assertion.
No it is a strawman argument,


You say that hockeystick is discredited.
Because it's discredited by people and papers you trust.
I ask why is it not reliable, you say it's not robust enough, no due diligance.
When I ask you what's due diligance, or what's good evidence, you say, the paper you cite from E&E is what you accept.
If I ask you why you accept it and why it's due diligance, what is your non-circular answer ? Because it's peer reviewed? (if so, then all pro-AGW papers are too).
I never said it was discredited by people I trust, I never used this chain of events to argue anything. You manufactured this nonsense from various replies to make your strawman argument. The Hockey Stick is discredit based on math and statistics and the peer-reviewed hockey stick papers on my list,

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/r27321306377t46n/) (PDF (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;306/5696/679) (PDF (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf))
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.

- Response to Comment on "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5773/529c) (PDF (http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/response-to-wahl.060428.pdf))
(Science, Volume 312, Number 5773, pp. 529, April 2006)
- Hans von Storch et al.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w152x48065n16q43/) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape...
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023586.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-huybersreply.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023089.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.vz.reply.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Loehle paper is not used to discredit the hockey stick, it is simply evidence of an alternative reconstruction using non tree-ring proxies exists. The Loehle paper is used as evidence of the existence of the MWP. These are two separate arguments you distorted for your strawman. As for evidence of the robustness of Loehle's work, yes due diligence shows this to be true. If you want an explanation of due diligence I suggest reading,

Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf) (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

I have also never argued that peer-review is due diligence, I have explicitly argued the opposite, "Yes, due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review".



Ha, I never said it's not subjective (or that it's complete objective), I only said it's not "purely subjective", a possibility you don't even consider. Or will you take back that it's purely subjective?
No it is purely subjective, something cannot be partially subjective. There is nothing to consider. If you believe otherwise please show how and not with some idiotic analogy but directly. Prove that determining who is a climate scientist is not subjective.



So what DOES?? Please provide a testable experiment and an expected result.
It is not my job to prove the theory you support. When you have empirical evidence let me know.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 05:08 PM
I have also never argued that peer-review is due diligence, I have explicitly argued the opposite, "Yes, due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review".


That would make your 800 list less relevant, unless they're all due diligence.

Which is your circular assertion



No it is purely subjective, something cannot be partially subjective. There is nothing to consider. If you believe otherwise please show how and not with some idiotic analogy but directly. Prove that determining who is a climate scientist is not subjective.


Prove it's not subjective?
Fine, it's PURELY subjective (says you) so you're a climatologist and so is Al Gore, SETTLED!

Give me something as an example that's not subjective (at all)?



It is not my job to prove the theory you support. When you have empirical evidence let me know.

This says it all.
A defining characteristic of a denier is refusal to admit what evidence he'll find acceptable (even hypothetically).

This is why you rely so heavily on Loehle as an alternative and E&E to "discredit" Mann's graph.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 05:17 PM
I never said it was discredited by people I trust,


Did you say it's discredited by people you despise and don't trust?




I never used this chain of events to argue anything. You manufactured this nonsense from various replies to make your strawman argument.


Couldn't do it without you.



The Hockey Stick is discredit based on math and statistics and the peer-reviewed hockey stick papers on my list,


Which doesn't dispute GW, nor provide an alternative causation for GW.

Like I said multiple times, Mann's error bars allow for the correction
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/synthesis-report-summary-tar-hockey-stick-web.gif



Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/r27321306377t46n/) (PDF (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;306/5696/679) (PDF (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf))
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.

- Response to Comment on "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data" (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5773/529c) (PDF (http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/response-to-wahl.060428.pdf))
(Science, Volume 312, Number 5773, pp. 529, April 2006)
- Hans von Storch et al.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w152x48065n16q43/) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023586.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-huybersreply.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023089.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.vz.reply.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


WOW, an improvement, something other than Energy & Environment.




The Loehle paper is not used to discredit the hockey stick, it is simply evidence of an alternative reconstruction using non tree-ring proxies exists. The Loehle paper is used as evidence of the existence of the MWP. These are two separate arguments you distorted for your strawman. As for evidence of the robustness of Loehle's work, yes due diligence shows this to be true. If you want an explanation of due diligence I suggest reading,

Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf) (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)


Why am I not surprised that "due diligence" is always coming from your own standards you accept?

How exactly, by the way, does a possible natural warmer MWP prove AGW is false (as if we can't be in a natural cooling, and artificial warming). Not counting the fact that just because something happen, doesn't mean it should or is good to happen again. (I forgot, you're not proving anything, you're just presenting justification for your denial)

Poptech
07-30-2010, 05:17 PM
Not quite relevant when quality and significance is considered.
Quality and significance are subjective and irrelevant to a physical count.


So how many actually do?
Many but I am not going to count them for you.


Given your claim that whether one is a climatologist "purely subjective", this is less relevant
No it is relevant and has nothing to do with the subjectiveness of determining who is a "climatologist". Whether a journal is peer-reviewed or not is objective.


Thereby admitting, you add to your list and read what you want to read, not what the author wants you to read.
Lie, this is stated because certain papers support skeptical arguments such as that tornadoes are not getting worse due to global warming but the author may be a supporter of AGW alarm. This does not mean the paper says otherwise and it is being interpreted differently. This has to do with the personal position of a few of the authors on the list.


How many explicitly endorse it? Is it my handful?
Good qustion as everytime anyone has tried to make this claim they have failed to provide the evidence.


Age alone does not outdate a paper, papers however, are challenged, refuted, retracted and answered.
Challenged does not make a paper discredited and none of the papers have been refuted or retracted.


WOW, sounds familiar, this is the exact tactic you employ! Making a blog, citing papers you want, and read what you want to read.
Lie, I am not refuting a peer-reviewed paper, I am compiling a list of peer-reviewed papers.


That's hardly a lie, so your tactic is to "always be open", and collect as many remotely relevant papers as you can, but never taking a specific position or coherent theory.
No it is a lie as I do not discriminate against papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.


which allows you to jump around and never have to admit you're wrong, because you don't state a testable case.

If you were to actually formulate a theory or argument, your list would be dramatically smaller (this is not to say numbers are weaker).
That is not the purpose of the list. Again it is to, "provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them."

An overwhelming number of skeptical papers exist and there is nothing you can do about it. What alternative theory people wish to accept is up to them, I simply provide the resource for them to make up their own minds.

Poptech
07-30-2010, 05:24 PM
That would make your 800 list less relevant, unless they're all due diligence.
No it would make any peer-reviewed paper less relevant not just those on my list.


[B]Prove it's not subjective?
Fine, it's PURELY subjective (says you) so you're a climatologist and so is Al Gore, SETTLED!
Some people consider Al Gore a climatologist, like I said subjective.


Give me something as an example that's not subjective (at all)?
1+1=2


A defining characteristic of a denier is refusal to admit what evidence he'll find acceptable (even hypothetically).
A defining characteristic of a zealot is to use the word denier. I accept empirical evidence and reproducible results.


This is why you rely so heavily on Loehle as an alternative and E&E to "discredit" Mann's graph.
Strawman, I don't use Loehle 2007 to discredit Mann I use it as evidence of the MWP.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 05:25 PM
Quality and significance are subjective and irrelevant to a physical count.

Many but I am not going to count them for you.


Yeah, because it's irrelevant anyway, right?




No it is relevant and has nothing to do with the subjectiveness of determining who is a "climatologist". Whether a journal is peer-reviewed or not is objective.


is the peer review process objective?




Lie, this is stated because certain papers support skeptical arguments such as that tornadoes are not getting worse due to global warming but the author may be a supporter of AGW alarm. This does not mean the paper says otherwise and it is being interpreted differently. This has to do with the personal position of a few of the authors on the list.


Not a lie, you're just repeating what I said, you read what you want to read.



Good qustion as everytime anyone has tried to make this claim they have failed to provide the evidence.

Challenged does not make a paper discredited and none of the papers have been refuted or retracted.


If they provide evidence you'll deny it.

So by this standard, Mann's paper is not discredited, or retracted.




Lie, I am not refuting a peer-reviewed paper, I am compiling a list of peer-reviewed papers.

No it is a lie as I do not discriminate against papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.


Yeah , you compile a list and read what you want to read.

You don't discriminate as far as collection, exactly what I said.




That is not the purpose of the list. Again it is to, "provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them."

An overwhelming number of skeptical papers exist and there is nothing you can do about it. What alternative theory people wish to accept is up to them, I simply provide the resource for them to make up their own minds.

If I were to do something, you'd cry foul and censorship.

Thanks for summing yourself up.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 05:28 PM
No it would make any peer-reviewed paper less relevant not just those on my list.


Some people consider Al Gore a climatologist, like I said subjective.


And I consider you one too.

Fair enough.



1+1=2


That's based on circular reasoning. And only valid to people who speak in base 10 math, Arabic numerals.



A defining characteristic of a zealot is to use the word denier. I accept empirical evidence and reproducible results.


So since you didn't witness MWP, it's not empirical and reproducible.





Strawman, I don't use Loehle 2007 to discredit Mann I use it as evidence of the MWP.

My bad, you use the same journal though.

Same handful no less, Loehle, McIntyre, McKitrick.

Poptech
07-30-2010, 05:32 PM
Did you say it's discredited by people you despise and don't trust?
I never said this.


Couldn't do it without you.
Actually you did as I never made any such argument as you presented it.


Which doesn't dispute GW, nor provide an alternative causation for GW.
No prominent skeptic disputes the existence of a mild warming since the end of the little ice age.


Like I said multiple times, Mann's error bars allow for the correction.
That is irrelevant to why it is discredited. You obviously know nothing about this.


WOW, an improvement, something other than Energy & Environment.
So apparently you have not read my list? Because these are all on there.


How exactly, by the way, does a possible natural warmer MWP prove AGW is false
It provides evidence that the recent warming is not outside natural variations.

Poptech
07-30-2010, 05:43 PM
Yeah, because it's irrelevant anyway, right?
Yes your subjective criteria is irrelevant. My personal opinion is they are high quality and significant but this has nothing to do with a physical count.


is the peer review process objective?
No, the process is not objective but whether something was peer-reviewed or not is.


Not a lie, you're just repeating what I said, you read what you want to read.
Yes a lie, because your stating that a certain paper says the opposite of why it is listed, which is not true. The disclaimer is for certain papers on the list which are not alarmist but the author might personally believe in alarm or have authored other papers that support this position. Your confusion like many others is that this would some how mean that a paper that refutes alarm about tornadoes cannot be used.


If they provide evidence you'll deny it.
No evidence has ever been provided.


So by this standard, Mann's paper is not discredited, or retracted.
Mann's paper is discredited by anyone intellectually honest as his statistical method is not supported by any professional statistician. You are correct in that it is not retracted.


Yeah , you compile a list and read what you want to read.

You don't discriminate as far as collection, exactly what I said.
No, all the papers on the list support the purpose of the list they "support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW". I don't discriminate against competing skeptical positions.


If I were to do something, you'd cry foul and censorship.
Like I said there is nothing you can do about it.

Poptech
07-30-2010, 05:47 PM
So since you didn't witness MWP, it's not empirical and reproducible.
This does not help your case as you can then not claim the recent warming to be significant outside of anything but your lifetime and thus nothing historically unusual.


My bad, you use the same journal though.

Same handful no less, Loehle, McIntyre, McKitrick.
No I use multiple papers in multiple journals to discredit Mann which also includes others outside those three.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 06:56 PM
This does not help your case as you can then not claim the recent warming to be significant outside of anything but your lifetime and thus nothing historically unusual.


No, I can claim it's significant outside of what I've seen in a lifetime.

FAIL.



No I use multiple papers in multiple journals to discredit Mann which also includes others outside those three.

you mean the 2 papers from Science?

WaltM
07-30-2010, 07:02 PM
Yes your subjective criteria is irrelevant. My personal opinion is they are high quality and significant but this has nothing to do with a physical count.


Fair enough



No, the process is not objective but whether something was peer-reviewed or not is.






Yes a lie, because your stating that a certain paper says the opposite of why it is listed, which is not true.


When did I ever use the word OPPOSITE??



The disclaimer is for certain papers on the list which are not alarmist but the author might personally believe in alarm or have authored other papers that support this position. Your confusion like many others is that this would some how mean that a paper that refutes alarm about tornadoes cannot be used.


No, just that they can't be used without putting it into context with a bigger picture (which your list does not do, it simply indiscriminately lists them).




No evidence has ever been provided.


What's hypothetically acceptable as evidence?



Mann's paper is discredited by anyone intellectually honest as his statistical method is not supported by any professional statistician. You are correct in that it is not retracted.


Way to call, call the person intellectually dishonest and unprofessional to make your case.



No, all the papers on the list support the purpose of the list they "support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW". I don't discriminate against competing skeptical positions.


But you acknowledge they can't all be right, yet you're so sure you're right?



Like I said there is nothing you can do about it.

There's nothing I intend to do about it.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 07:04 PM
I never said this.


I know you didn't. You didn't need to.



Actually you did as I never made any such argument as you presented it.


No prominent skeptic disputes the existence of a mild warming since the end of the little ice age.


What constitutes warming greater than mild?



That is irrelevant to why it is discredited. You obviously know nothing about this.

So apparently you have not read my list? Because these are all on there.




It provides evidence that the recent warming is not outside natural variations.

if your definition of natural variation is, that it's happened before without humans.

But just because it's happened before, does not mean it can't happen by the cause of humans (especially when it's not expected, or the opposite is expected).

How many degrees outside of natural variation would justify AGW alarmism? (you either will not answer, or will answer something so left field that nobody takes seriously)

Poptech
07-30-2010, 08:40 PM
When did I ever use the word OPPOSITE??
You didn't, it was implied.


No, just that they can't be used without putting it into context with a bigger picture (which your list does not do, it simply indiscriminately lists them).
No they can be used exactly as listed as the papers in question do not support AGW alarmism. You are confusing an author's personal position and other papers they may have authored with the papers on the list.


What's hypothetically acceptable as evidence?
A reproducible empirical experiment that man-made emissions are causing climate change.


Way to call, call the person intellectually dishonest and unprofessional to make your case.
The fact that you are defending Mann means you either have never fully researched the issue or are intellectually dishonest. What part of no professional statistician accepts Mann's statistical method as valid do you not understand? Why has no other proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his method? Why did the IPCC drop his paper and graph from prominence in their 4th report? Mann's paper has been overwhelmingly discredited and shown to be a worthless work of fraudulent science that it is.


But you acknowledge they can't all be right, yet you're so sure you're right?
I acknowledge nothing of the sort and I am right on what I have actually stated.

Poptech
07-30-2010, 08:51 PM
No, I can claim it's significant outside of what I've seen in a lifetime.
You cannot claim it empirically. Your argument against mine defeats your own.


you mean the 2 papers from Science?
You apparently have a sever inability to read the list.


What constitutes warming greater than mild?
That depends on who you speak to. I personally would say something outside of the range of temperature change that can happen during a single day. Most people would say a temperature change of a fraction of a degree over 100 years is mild.


if your definition of natural variation is, that it's happened before without humans.

But just because it's happened before, does not mean it can't happen by the cause of humans (especially when it's not expected, or the opposite is expected).

How many degrees outside of natural variation would justify AGW alarmism? (you either will not answer, or will answer something so left field that nobody takes seriously)
I never defined natural variation as such.

Evidence of a warmer MWP is evidence that the current warming is not unusual. It does not support your argument for the current warming being caused by humans.

A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism.

WaltM
07-30-2010, 10:22 PM
You didn't, it was implied.


Now you're just putting words in my mouth. So you can stop calling me a liar.




No they can be used exactly as listed as the papers in question do not support AGW alarmism. You are confusing an author's personal position and other papers they may have authored with the papers on the list.


And tons of papers don't support AGW (most of which are irrelevant to the topic).




A reproducible empirical experiment that man-made emissions are causing climate change.


Such as what? (You don't know, so whatever we find, you'll just say "that still doesn't count")

You even stated that pumping CO2 into a closed chamber, followed by an immediate rise in temperature wouldn't count.



The fact that you are defending Mann means you either have never fully researched the issue or are intellectually dishonest.


The fact you think I defend and depend on Mann means you're the one that's intellectually dishonest



What part of no professional statistician accepts Mann's statistical method as valid do you not understand?


the part where you consider who is or isn't a professional statistician.



Why has no other proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his method?


Better question, alternative studies don't claim to debunk or discredit him.



Why did the IPCC drop his paper and graph from prominence in their 4th report?


Because they have better information, since when is IPCC a credible judge?



Mann's paper has been overwhelmingly discredited and shown to be a worthless work of fraudulent science that it is.


This is according to you and your E&E papers



I acknowledge nothing of the sort and I am right on what I have actually stated.

So what did you state?
Warming is natural
Not caused by CO2
No empirical evidence
Loehle has been through due diligence
MWP was warmer

(none of which offer a means to test and disprove these claims)

WaltM
07-30-2010, 10:27 PM
You cannot claim it empirically. Your argument against mine defeats your own.


Why not? What CAN you claim empirically? What DO you claim empirically?



You apparently have a sever inability to read the list.


I rely on you to post them here when it's a relevant discussion.
Looks like you know yourself most of the list doesn't support your case (wait, do you have one?)



That depends on who you speak to. I personally would say something outside of the range of temperature change that can happen during a single day. Most people would say a temperature change of a fraction of a degree over 100 years is mild.


Thanks for admitting the obvious, people disagree.
So according to you, there's never going to be an agreement over opinion.
Therefore AGW will never be proven true.



I never defined natural variation as such.


Define it then



Evidence of a warmer MWP is evidence that the current warming is not unusual.


No, it's not evidence.
MWP can have different causes of being warm than we have today.



It does not support your argument for the current warming being caused by humans.


I know you deny it, which is why I've asked you over and over WHAT WOULD.

You're showing, that I might not be the best at reading and gathering evidence, but you can't even make a testable claim to meet what you keep denying.



A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism.

Thanks.

So quit citing MWP papers, because it's IRRELEVANT.
You don't need ANY peer reviewed papers to say "no matter how much temperature change, it doesn't justify AGW"
(this is in direct contradiction to your claims that a warmer MWP proves it's natural and not unusual to have a warming trend, you SIMPLY DON'T CARE)
Further demonstration, that when pressed, your rants about how Mann is discredited and intellectual honest, statistics MEAN NOTHING.

This is what I mean by "I can't discredit your list more than you can yourself".
You've successfully proven yourself to be a denier, because a skeptic would actually say
"You didn't prove it, but this would, and I can show you what I demand to be convinced"
A denier says "no matter what, it'll never justify your case"

Poptech
07-30-2010, 11:28 PM
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. So you can stop calling me a liar.
No I will continue to call you a liar everytime you lie.


And tons of papers don't support AGW (most of which are irrelevant to the topic).
Yes, but those papers do not support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. All the papers on the list do and none explicitly support AGW alarmism.


Such as what? (You don't know, so whatever we find, you'll just say "that still doesn't count")
I am not the one promoting the theory, it is not my job to provide the evidence of it, it is yours.


You even stated that pumping CO2 into a closed chamber, followed by an immediate rise in temperature wouldn't count.
Of course not.


The fact you think I defend and depend on Mann means you're the one that's intellectually dishonest
So you are not defending him?


the part where you consider who is or isn't a professional statistician.
Someone with a Ph.D. in statistics and is a professor of statistics. Why do you think it is that none support his statistical "method"? When these professionals have been asked about it they argue in support of McIntyre. You are on the wrong side of intellectual honesty here.


Better question, alternative studies don't claim to debunk or discredit him.
You did not answer the question, why has no other independent proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his statistical method? If it is so robust surely someone would use his method?


Because they have better information, since when is IPCC a credible judge?
Wrong, because his work has been discredited. It was the IPCC that originally promoted his work and used it as propaganda. Strawman as I never said the IPCC was a credible judge, I am simply pointing out that the most prominent organization that supports your position does not feel Mann's work is robust enough to stand on it's own anymore. That should tell you something.


This is according to you and your E&E papers
Not just E&E but Science and GRL and a congressional report by actual statisticians,

Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf) (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf) (PDF)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf) (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)


Why not? What CAN you claim empirically? What DO you claim empirically?
I don't claim anything, I said I accept empirical evidence.


I rely on you to post them here when it's a relevant discussion.
I have better things to do as this is largely a big waste of time. I have no interest in discussing anything with you.


Looks like you know yourself most of the list doesn't support your case (wait, do you have one?)
The list supports what it states.


Thanks for admitting the obvious, people disagree.
So according to you, there's never going to be an agreement over opinion.
Therefore AGW will never be proven true.
I have no idea if AGW will ever be proven true, I can only say that it has not as yet been proven true.


Define it then
You know how to use a dictionary and no I will not be providing a definition, don't ask.


No, it's not evidence. MWP can have different causes of being warm than we have today.
Of course it is evidence, otherwise there would be no need for the IPCC to promote Mann's work hysterically in the 3rd report.


I know you deny it, which is why I've asked you over and over WHAT WOULD.

You're showing, that I might not be the best at reading and gathering evidence, but you can't even make a testable claim to meet what you keep denying.
I am not here to make a testable case for a theory you are promoting and if you have not thought this out I am not going to help you either.


So quit citing MWP papers, because it's IRRELEVANT.
You don't need ANY peer reviewed papers to say "no matter how much temperature change, it doesn't justify AGW"
(this is in direct contradiction to your claims that a warmer MWP proves it's natural and not unusual to have a warming trend, you SIMPLY DON'T CARE)
Further demonstration, that when pressed, your rants about how Mann is discredited and intellectual honest, statistics MEAN NOTHING.
I will cite whatever paper is relevant to the discussion. It is not a contradiction as one of the claims made to justify AGW is that the current warming is unusual. My position that an increase in temperature does not prove AGW, is a common skeptical position but it is necessary to provide evidence against positions others hold.


You've successfully proven yourself to be a denier, because a skeptic would actually say
"You didn't prove it, but this would, and I can show you what I demand to be convinced"
A denier says "no matter what, it'll never justify your case"
You have successfully proven yourself to be a zealot with your constant use of the word denier. Again you lie as I made no such statement, I said it is up to you to provide the empirical evidence that would demonstrate your theory to be true. I have simply rejected your pathetic attempts to do this so far. I have no interest in going over this with some online hack who knows jack about the subject. I have already read and studied extensively the so called "evidence" by the IPCC and am not convinced. There is absolutely nothing you with your reading comprehension problems could possibly provide. So yes from you personally you do not have the ability to justify your case, from the larger scientific community I am always open.

WaltM
07-31-2010, 01:22 AM
No I will continue to call you a liar everytime you lie.


Go ahead if it makes you happy.



Yes, but those papers do not support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. All the papers on the list do and none explicitly support AGW alarmism.


All according to you.



I am not the one promoting the theory, it is not my job to provide the evidence of it, it is yours.


SO you don't even know what you're asking for. No need to discuss evidence to a person who doesn't know.



Of course not.


So what does? (I bet you have no answer)



So you are not defending him?


No, I'm not.

At least not as if I need his paper in question to support my position.


Someone with a Ph.D. in statistics and is a professor of statistics. Why do you think it is that none support his statistical "method"? When these professionals have been asked about it they argue in support of McIntyre. You are on the wrong side of intellectual honesty here.


Perhaps because they don't consider the details involved in his method.



You did not answer the question, why has no other independent proxy reconstructions since Mann have ever used his statistical method? If it is so robust surely someone would use his method?


Because his method was unique to tree ring data, but you know this.




Wrong, because his work has been discredited.


How is that inconsistent (if true) with having better information?



It was the IPCC that originally promoted his work and used it as propaganda. Strawman as I never said the IPCC was a credible judge, I am simply pointing out that the most prominent organization that supports your position does not feel Mann's work is robust enough to stand on it's own anymore. That should tell you something.


I don't use IPCC to judge scientific data, nor do I depend on Mann.
So the fact you keep saying I use Mann to support my position means you only pick what's convenient to attack.



Not just E&E but Science and GRL and a congressional report by actual statisticians,

Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf) (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf) (PDF)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf) (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)


And their best conclusion was that MWP was warmer? Wait, why am I even asking, you already said it doesn't matter how much warmer it gets.



I don't claim anything, I said I accept empirical evidence.


No you don't. THAT IS A LIE. BOLDFACED TOO. you won't even admit what you'll accept as empirical evidence/



I have better things to do as this is largely a big waste of time. I have no interest in discussing anything with you.


Because you can't convince me. And all you do is call me a liar, post the same repeated claims, and then say "nothing will count" while demanding "evidence". That's my one notch above you, knowing not to waste time with a person who doesn't even know what he's asking.



The list supports what it states.


According to the compiler.



I have no idea if AGW will ever be proven true, I can only say that it has not as yet been proven true.


Oh no, you ARE sure it'll never be proven true, at least to you. (don't lie now!)

Otherwise you'd say right now what's required as irrefutable, credible, empirical evidence.



You know how to use a dictionary and no I will not be providing a definition, don't ask.


Because you know you can't answer this without killing your position and exposing your inconsistency.



Of course it is evidence, otherwise there would be no need for the IPCC to promote Mann's work hysterically in the 3rd report.


So in your world, IPCC decides whether Mann is right, and whether Mann's hiding of MWP makes a case for AGW.



I am not here to make a testable case for a theory you are promoting and if you have not thought this out I am not going to help you either.

Because you can't, I HAVE thought this through, which is why you continue to come back without a case. I'm asking you, because you're the denier, and you claim "there's no proven case" without knowing "what would make it proven".




I will cite whatever paper is relevant to the discussion. It is not a contradiction as one of the claims made to justify AGW is that the current warming is unusual.


There are many varying forms of "unusual".




My position that an increase in temperature does not prove AGW, is a common skeptical position but it is necessary to provide evidence against positions others hold.


No, evidence is not necessary, it takes no brains to be a denier.




You have successfully proven yourself to be a zealot with your constant use of the word denier.


I may have overused it, but I can live with being called a zealot as you've admitted increase in temperature no matter how much won't justify AGW.



Again you lie as I made no such statement, I said it is up to you to provide the empirical evidence that would demonstrate your theory to be true.


Your demand is meaningless, as it makes no criteria as to what counts. So you are essentially asking for the something you won't see yourself.



I have simply rejected your pathetic attempts to do this so far. I have no interest in going over this with some online hack who knows jack about the subject.


Somebody who says "no matter how much temperature increase won't justify AGW" doesn't need to know jack about a subject.




I have already read and studied extensively the so called "evidence" by the IPCC and am not convinced. There is absolutely nothing you with your reading comprehension problems could possibly provide. So yes from you personally you do not have the ability to justify your case, from the larger scientific community I am always open.

LIE. You said yourself "no matter how much temperature increase won't justify AGW" so you are not open. You failed to even HYPOTHETICALLY make a testable case.

Why did you bother reading evidence when you've already decided it's all irrelevant?

Poptech
07-31-2010, 01:37 AM
WaltM without a doubt you are one of the most clueless individuals I have every met on this subject.


All according to you.
You have yet to prove otherwise.


SO you don't even know what you're asking for. No need to discuss evidence to a person who doesn't know.
Strawman, I did not ask for anything, you did! How many times are you going to state strawman arguments?


No, I'm not.
At least that is settled.


Perhaps because they don't consider the details involved in his method.
ROTFLMAO! I just spit my drink on my keyboard. You are the most clueless individual I have ever met online about this issue, you just keep arguing from a position of ignorance. God your stupidity is so tiring.


Because his method was unique to tree ring data, but you know this.
No it wasn't, it was unique to Mann. WTF are you talking about? Do you really believe to know anything about this? Your comments are just ignorant. I just can't keep doing this.

blah, blah, blah.

This is just a waste of time, I have no interest in discussing this with you as you are too stupid to have a conversation with. Just for the record, I do no agree with your position and it is impossible for you to convince me of anything. You have failed the basic criteria for me to begin to take you seriously, you are a liar and a zealot. Go waste someone elses time, I have entertained your miserable existence long enough. You are dumb as bricks. I suggest performing a lobotomy on yourself. Now fuck off and go play with the other children.

WaltM
07-31-2010, 02:05 AM
WaltM without a doubt you are one of the most clueless individuals I have every met on this subject.

You have yet to prove otherwise.


Impossible to you.




Strawman, I did not ask for anything, you did! How many times are you going to state strawman arguments?


you started by saying there's no evidence, empirical evidence, but don't know what it is that counts.




At least that is settled.


ROTFLMAO! I just spit my drink on my keyboard. You are the most clueless individual I have ever met online about this issue, you just keep arguing from a position of ignorance. God your stupidity is so tiring.


I can live with being called stupid when you've admitted nothing will convince you.




No it wasn't, it was unique to Mann. WTF are you talking about? Do you really believe to know anything about this? Your comments are just ignorant. I just can't keep doing this.


Oh, gotcha!

That means anybody who doesn't use Mann's data, but uses tree ring data, can be taken more seriously?




blah, blah, blah.

This is just a waste of time, I have no interest in discussing this with you as you are too stupid to have a conversation with. Just for the record, I do no agree with your position and it is impossible for you to convince me of anything.


Then what WOULD convince you that AGW is true?

Quit beating around with "empirical evidence" as if you know what it is.




You have failed the basic criteria for me to begin to take you seriously, you are a liar and a zealot. Go waste someone elses time, I have entertained your miserable existence long enough. You are dumb as bricks. I suggest performing a lobotomy on yourself. Now fuck off and go play with the other children.

You've failed the basic criteria for asking for evidence, you don't even know what you're asking for!

LIE. You said yourself "no matter how much temperature increase won't justify AGW" so you are not open. You failed to even HYPOTHETICALLY make a testable case.

Why did you bother reading evidence when you've already decided it's all irrelevant?

(anybody wanna bet he'll come back and reply?)

WaltM
08-03-2010, 02:13 AM
Ron Paul on Climate Change:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html

this you mean?
YouTube - 32000 Scientists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ)

Sarge
08-16-2010, 08:28 AM
They pulled all data. Note the fraud article within this article also.

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/08/noaa-satellite-failure-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful-.html

10 to 15 degrees over stated.