Just point me to the ones that show CO2 is not the cause of the warming and we can be done with this whole AGW Alarm mess.
Speaking to your credibility is not 'the peanut gallery.' When I first pointed out what it is you do you corrected me telling us that you had memorized the checklist.
Just point me to the ones that show CO2 is not the cause of the warming and we can be done with this whole AGW Alarm mess.
Thats nice they come to their own conclusions.Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
Also that site certainly likes calling people communists. The Red Scare all over again. I really wish Buckley was still around. The right has gone back to the 1950s.
Whats interesting is that the people that run the site only use their first names and its unknown who they are or what they come from. It does not surprise me that you consider them credible considering your deceptive nature. I found it interesting that they criticized wikipedia for lack of transparency.
They also seem to enjoy accusing people of being communists. There 'write-up' on sourcewatch had the hammer and sickle emblazoned at the top.
You and your sources are typically a study in irony.
I did find this:
http://www.needlebase.com/blog/217-agw-skepticism
and this where they talk about the papers on the list many of which were refuted in the peer review process.At the end of this process, though, I could at least start to have Needle give us some more-definite answers. Needle can do a lot of interesting analytical things, but pretty much all analysis begins with counting. Christian thought the top 10 authors contributed 186 of the papers. Needle's query now shows 200. Christian discovered that #3 author Bruce Kimball's 28 papers were all co-authored with #1 author Sherwood Idso. I saw so many connections that I had Needle calculate a Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso rating, which shows that 308 of these papers can be connected to Idso through just co-authorship of things listed here.
In fact, by clustering all the papers into sets linked by co-authorship chains, we found that the 973 articles on the list come from just 329 groups of authors, again only considering connection chains revealed by these papers, so some of these clusters might be further connected in the wider published space, or by real-world associations. Intriguing.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...hange-deniers/
Topics include:
NOT peer-reviwed
Known to be wrong
Straw Men (and outright lying)
Trivial
Dated
Do NOT support Denial
Mutually exclusive
The author concludes with:
Its just as credible as the mystery men at populartechnology.This just a sampling, but this point I decided I had already put more work into the list than the author had and could think of no good reason to do any more. Looking at the third of the list that I did, not one of the papers Beach Garbage 1is current, relevant, peer-reviewed, and supports the Denier claims, not one.
I don’t know about you, but if I dig down 1 m below an outhouse and all I find is exactly what you would expect to find under an outhouse, I am satisfied that the next 2 m will just be more of the same.
If anyone can find anything on the list that actually IS a peer-reviewed paper that is current, relevant, and supports skepticism of anthropogenic climate change, well we should talk about it. Until then, this list seems to be nothing but decomposing .
We've been over this before.
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
I know you will find your Gods like Gavin Schmitt, et. al. will have something to debunk these with. They always lie about something. I know I will not change your college indoctrinated mind. Still, if nothing else, it proves the science is not settled and there is not consensus.
How many papers held dear bu the AGW crowd are peer reviewed via the open process? Funny how they only do closed peer review processes with others who already believe and are indoctrinated.
The closed peer review process is bad science.
During the time period about ten years ago when the astrophysicists thought that increased solar activity was the cause of warming, it was given much credence within the scientific community.
More recently, much work has been done towards forecasting and the effects on the poles and higher al udes. As has been pointed to increased snowfall past certain gradients combined with increased precipitation overall has mitigated the predicted effects of what you term 'alarmists.'
This has been pointed out to you before in these discussions and you have tried this same tired argument before. One of the main reasons why i disrepect you so much is that you repeat the same initial arguments over and over again and do not even acknowledge the previous rebuttals. Darrin does this too so in teh vein of that quit being so ing stupid all the time and try to move the discussion forward instead of trying to mire it in your previous stupidity.
You denigrate college education yet go to energy lobby sources for your material. You are such a rube.
If you think the real science supports your position, feel free to start publishing papers for peer review that back that up.
Until then, your claims that people "who believe in AGW being the primary cause of our warming do not understand real science" ring pretty hollow.
I am about the farthest one can get from being a "religious fanatic" about anything, and if given reasonable evidence for something am fully able to change my mind about something. , even Darrin can do that once in a while.
The fact that you destroy your own credibility constantly in just about any other topic you discuss by demonstrating a clear bias, and inability to admit you may be wrong about something, does not lead me to give much credence to your claims when you start talking about things, especially when I have not taken the time to read up on.
In the end, I am left with the same conclusion, even so, given that you are not an accredited expert on the field.
I have to balance your claims, along with those of the other Deniers, who very very clearly have as strong a political bias as they accuse all climate scientists of having, with those of the actual scientists who directly claim that they are following evidence with as little bias as possible.
It seems obvious to me that this is a case of simple projection.
The people that seem to be yelling "the climate scientists are politically motivated" the most are the same people who appear to BE the most politically motivated.
That should lead anyone to have some rather grave doubts about such claims.
It's the governments fault. We never had problems until they invented daylight savings time. Now that extra hour of daylight six months a year is burning our planet up and melting the polar ice caps.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/or...fallacies.htmlAny trend depends heavily upon the choice of start and end points. A judicious selection of such points for can create a wide variety of trends. For example, according to the annual average temperatures from Britain's CRU:
trend for 1900-2006 = 0.72 °C/century
trend for 1945-2006 = 1.05 °C/century
trend for 1975-2006 = 1.87 °C/century,
Given the knowledge that CO2 emissions are growing exponentially and CO2 concentrations have been rising commensurately during this period of time, I found this selection of data by your website to be... ironic.
The closed peer review process is used in most fields of research and has worked well for humanity so far.
But hey, for the purposes of discussion:
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosph...ry_and_PhysicsAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics is an open access publication of the European Geosciences Union. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing studies investigating the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. It covers the al ude range from the land and ocean surface up to the turbopause, including the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere. The main subject areas comprise atmospheric modelling, field measurements, remote sensing, and laboratory studies of gases, aerosols, clouds and precipitation, isotopes, radiation, dynamics, and biosphere and hydrosphere interactions. Article types published are research and review articles, technical notes, and commentaries
http://www.egu.eu/publications/list-...lications.html
http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-...-journals.html
If this procress results in reviewed papers that support AGW, then what will your criticism be?
Will you accept that research?
This kind of thing is exactly why I am VERY deeply skeptical of the people who claim to be AGW skeptics.
They tend to say things, and do things in a manner that directly parallels the 9-11 truthers, creationists, moon hoaxers, and so forth.
The fact that Deniers claim some vast conspiracy on the part of tens of thousands of scientists seals the deal.
Reference:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...19&postcount=1
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2484
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2486
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2488
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=2490
I'll wait. Answer them at your leasure.
Feel free to answer for him, Darrin, W/C.
Not that I will hold my breath for a straight, honest answer.
Yoni's MO is to disappear when he gets called on his obvious crap and then wait a while and who up again.
College indoctrinated mind, like a strict obediance to conservation laws that are the foundation of thermodynamics, physical reality and just about every field of science?
The paper is termed "Cooling of Atmosphere " and not global cooling for a reason. That said, makes a lot of assumptions to make their case valid. I really don't know what to think of it, it is known co2 effects convection, but they don't exactly quantify it in meaningful terms.
The key mechanism is absorption and has heating leading to convection. They generated a model without the original heat transfer problem in a cloudless and dust-free troposphere.
Water vapor has the opposite effect, something that can be increased with radiative heating. Water vapor addition makes air more buoyant, carrying the water vapor upward, usually until the water vapor condenses into haze, fog or clouds. While buoyant water vapor-containing air is rising heavier dry air elsewhere is descending to replace it as pressure gradients develop. Water vapor entry is a major mediator of vertical motion in the troposphere. The easily mixing adiabatic troposphere is disrupted as water vapor adds energy by changing in state. Rising CO2 the accelerates this process.
I really don't see how this is a significant contributor.
Not tens of thousands -- just a handful of key players. I can post their emails showing their subversion of the peer review process if you'd like.
So if the conspiracy is limited to the few "key players" then, Cosmored/mouse/Parker2112/NbaDan/Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra, then why have the people whose science is being misused by those key players not come forward and clearly stated as much?
Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the key players?
Your mastery of ST search feature is unparalleled.
thanks, but it needn't be. it would've taken about as long to for you post the relevant links as it did to write the post offering to post them.
Eyup.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=27
Ad hominem, rinse, repeat.
If you can't attack the science, attack peer review. That is what conspiracy theorists of all stripes, trying to prove all sorts of things do.
Reference:
Moon hoax thread.
Can we move on to things that haven't been shown to be specious now?
(edit)
To be clear, neither of those questions was directed at WH.
Assumptions indeed:
Adiabatic = no thermal exchange outside of systemComputations based on the adiabatic theory
Not exactly a holistic way to view large, non-closed complex systems.
Within the confines of the paper, I'm sure it is probably good science.
That would not keep dishonest psuedoscientists from citing it, believing it says something it doesn't.
I'm not attacking peer review. I'm attacking those that attack peer review, such as
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
So if the conspiracy is limited to the few "key players" then, Cosmored/mouse/Parker2112/NbaDan/Darrin/Yonivore/Wild Cobra, then why have the people whose science is being misused by those key players not come forward and clearly stated as much?
Do you have the confessions or statements on the part of any significant number of the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is being misused by the key players?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)