Yep.
That way they keep the "right type" of religious belief of science in check.
That is not what I asked. Did all the scientists in the academy sign the Climate Change report? How many signed the report?
Yep.
That way they keep the "right type" of religious belief of science in check.
His question is valid Fuzzy.
How manyof the scientists agreed with the conclusion of the report sent to congress?
100%?
90%?
51%?
Did you figure out who was Speaker of the House, and Senate President in 2008 yet?
That was not the only argument you made and grad students at least have an undergraduate degree.
it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how research is done at colleges. Its a collaboration of professors and their grad students. That some of them were credited demonstrates nothing.
Further it was ONE grad student amongst 800+ authors.
and you sure like putting up numbers as if its meaningful.
There were what 13,000 peer reviewed citations and further the attack on the citation is ad hominem. It includes no context of what the citations were or how they were incorrect. Its just a mindless smear.
13,000 peer reviewed citation is overwhelming. In contrast you have come up with what? 1000? Many of which --like the Callon paper-- conclude that warming is the reality.
And my point of asking about Idso was to get you to parrot your response, aspie. You OCD is amusing to manipulate though. Remember when you asked me why I asked you to spell it out when it was all on your site? think about it.
Cheney was the VP in 2008, dumbass. 2009 was Bidens first year in office.
The Senate was split and the NAS is still an independent agency.
The NAS president supported it strongly.
As for the membership? I am not sure but I can guess what the assumption that you want to make is though. I however will not pull numbers out of my ass.
That is the official position of the Academy. Why don't you all over them too?
This was a really intelligent comment. I mean it makes sense that the Academy should find people that don't believe in science......
You are so mindnumbingly stupid.
When I said 'all the scientists' from what you quoted that's what i was talking about.
I realize you like pulling quotes out of context, as evidenced by your list but whatevs.
I never said all the scientists signed off on it. It seems like that is quite a mischaracterization of how the project was managed.
You going to address this?
I have an idea?
How about you guys show me one NAS scientist that disputed the report.
Just one.
Is the public under the impression that the IPCC report was written by "the world's leading scientists" who all have Ph.Ds or students?
My father is a research scientist at a university, I am more than familiar with how research is done at universities. Research can be done just by a single research scientist.
It was not just one and they were lead authors,
U.N. Hires Grad Students to Author Key Climate Report (Fox News, November 2, 2011)
You support the use of grey literature to reach scientific conclusions?The book names nearly half a dozen lead authors involved in the IPCC’s reports over the years who were barely out of college when tapped to author the final word on the effects of climate change:
* One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master's degree while on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
* Another lead author in 1994 earned his master's only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
* An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 -- despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
* Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old -- six years prior to completing his PhD.
Laframboise claims in the book that “neither [Klein's] youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.”
Klein confirmed in an email to FoxNews.com that he had not yet turned 25 when he was selected to author a portion of the report that would shape the world's climate policy.
“I am happy to leave it to others to reflect on the fact that I was 24 when I was lead author of an IPCC chapter for the first time, and that it was two years after I did a three-month work placement at Greenpeace,” Dr. Klein wrote.
Yes only over a 1000 so far much more to come. The Caillon paper is used only for the specific quote that supports skeptic arguments that CO2 lags temperature changes.
Drug addict, then you failed.
You're right about Cheny, but the democrats had control in both houses.
Pelosi was Speaker, and Byrd was Senate Pres. pro tem, which is what I meant to ask. Sorry I made a mistake.
However, the fact is, you said the democrats did not control congress in 2008.
They did, but your ego doesn't allow you to admit a mistake.
Now, do you know who is Commander in Chief of the generals calling for fighting AGW? Any idea what happens to a general who doesn't follow his CinC's agenda?
Why would one risk losing his job?
I got you to repeat the same exact thing. How is that failure?
You started off with the exact same canned 'corruption' argument. it was nice to compare and contrast with your argument that the IPCC was politically influenced.
So you show 4 out of 800?
And gray is just a term of ridicule. There are still 13000 works that were peer reviewed.
For your Callon piece it specifically talks about how their data demonstrated the CO2 feedback mechanism.
Its very akin to you failing to neglect that the girl you accused of maiming people was not only found not guilty but won a civil suit against the state. Or pulling 'All the scientists' out of my post talking about how they elected members.
So then you cannot find any?
Can you describe to me the process for removing a NAS member? Do you even know?
The Senate was 49-49.
The DoD policy started long before 2009. But can you show me where the Obama ordering the policy was reported or is this another one of your 'I suppose' moments?
I don't remember the paper by name, reading it again, I had the wrong paper in mind.
Sorry, been up all night.
I was thinking of the paper that you presented that concluded CO2 lagged temperature. Their methodology was idiotic.
I was talking to aspie.
Also you have put forth the 'CO2 lags by 800 years' argument yourself. They are idiotic yet you cite them. That's nice.
I never presented any paper in the last few days but the one talking about ocean ph. You are once again demonstrating stupidity.
And the vote gave power to the democrats.
Only because of the scientific consensus, and Obama does not need to order . The generals know better than to cross their leader, and he has the power to replace them.
Ever been in the military?
Aspie, in debate, in debate when you drop something that means you concede the point.
So we can conclude that you are a full of sophist that will say anything that supports what you want to conclude even if it directly contradicts the very next thing you say.
Bravo!
What vote? cheney voted in case of a tie, dumbass.
My family has a long West Point military tradition, and obviously this is another one of your 'suppose' moments.
I didn't, my original reply included a link and quote. Thus you failed. The IPCC is politically influenced, it is called the, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
What?
That grey literature represents 30% of the "science" in the report. Are you claiming that 30% of the IPCC report was not peer-reviewed?
Is that what is quoted?
You already stated this lie. Please quote where I named any such girl. I did not pull that out of your post, I used it to ask a different but relevant question.
49 republicans and 49 democrats. The two independent voted democrat. It was not 50/50.
As for you beloved NAS:
The National Academy of Blacklists
4 non PhDs out of 800 authors.
You parroted the same argument just because it wasn't verbatim doesn't mean it wasn't the same thing.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3584
And you cannot go back and edit that one out, aspie. You are a real s bag.
their defense was good enough for both criminal and civil court as they won both cases. At least you took it down from your site.
As for what was quoted: what part of context do you not understand. I say this paper supports skepticism but ignore the part where it demonstrates how the lag is demonstrative of the CO2 feedback cycle.
Yes, I did. Numerous studies have different numbers, but they are in the hundreds of years.
It was well over a few days ago. I'm talking about the one that concluded temperature lagged CO2. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure you introduced it. Maybe it was Random or Manny.
You like consensus...
One paper says temperature lags CO2, when so many others say the opposite.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)