Really? Because one is land and one is sea, dumb .
My arguments are pretty consistent. Maybe you should read my words instead of assuming things I don't say. Pull out a dictionary if some are too difficult for you.
Really? Because one is land and one is sea, dumb .
Consistently wrong and consistently stupid. I agree.
Maybe you should go look up ice sheet in the dictionary. Or maybe thermodynamics. Or etc etc
Why do you want to change the subject?
Can't argue what you started by merit?
I think I know what you are trying to get at, but you are being elusive and want me to assume. I prefer not to when you are so antagonistic and stupid at the same time. I try to have debate, but you come in and start with the put downs. I would rather not go that route, but you have me going there too.
How about just saying what you have to say and be done with it, so I can respond with a reasonable answer, and not assume and be wrong of your intent..
Someone as bright and as informed as you doesn't know what I'm talking about? I'm shocked.
Shouldn't 1998 be higher than all points that follow? Everything I've read states 1998 was the hottest.Pst, Darrin.
When you claim things that are false enough times do you start to believe them? Isn't that a mental condition?
But, but he said "pull it".
BEST did exactly that.
That was obviously an attempt to "properly address" a point you assert, and I accept, is valid.
If BEST didn't properly address that, what would properly address it?
If all the bull were indeed bull then it shoudl be readily obvious to the real scientists, who would easily pick it apart, peer-review or no.
The question remains where are the first-hand confessions, or large-scale defections of climate scientists?
Your evil conspiracy loses a lot of its plausibility when you start saying "it is really obvious bull ", because you expand the number of people who have to be fooled or go along with it.
Your evil conspiracy of scientists grows more implausible the larger it gets.
"It's all bull "
and
"It's all just a few key players"
Are not logically compatible.
Is Darrin wrong? Or are you?
Indeed.
Cobra says "it is all bull ", and that, by extension, your "few key players" theory is wrong.
Why is he wrong about that?
Blocked from publication does not work in the internet age, sporto.
That lame excuse doesn't work for Cosmored noticible lack of conspirators, and it doesn't work for you.
I would imagine that our climate would continue doing whatever it was doing, as whatever the effects of our actions have had slowly fade over time.
Fair enough. You don't think it has been reasonably proven.
Do you have an alternate value, and why have you been keeping this value from the scientific community?
Graphs of global temperature anomaly
One is from 1895 to 1946 -- the other is from 1957 to 2008.
Can you tell which one is which?
-------
Blogs and personal websites aren't published scientific journals sporto.
Darrin, OF COURSE everything you've read says 1998 was the hottest. If you actually made an effort to look at actual data and not get your information from people with an obvious agenda then you might not be so ignorant on like this.
Then why have those whose efforts were blocked from publications not sought out alternate outlets?
They might be blogs and personal websites, but valid science is valid science.
Again, you didn't answer my question.
Why is Wild Cobra wrong about all the data being bull ? If it were that, then it would mean a LOT of people were colluding on this, not just a few key players.
Or
If you are right about it being just a "few key players", then there must be a way around them, as you are already pointing out.
Why is it that skepticalscience.com, most decidedly NOT a pseudoscientific clearing house takes such care to cite published scientific papers?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet...nominator.htmllet's look at PopTech's 850 papers. Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm. (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)
Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites. A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure. But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals. I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.
Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.
I'm sure some folks will find ways to quibble about the numbers but I don't think even the very best debater can appreciably alter the resulting percentages. And if they try…
"I'll be back."
Update (Feb 18): In the comments Poptech has brought up several valid points about the search results I came up with. In an effort to better quantify the denominator I did some additional research. I did year by year searches going back 40 years on "climate change" and "global warming", excluded citations, and checked for various other erroneous results.
The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically. My first cursory search returned 0.1%. The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%. It's a big improvement for Poptech, by almost a factor of 5, but still the denominator is so large that it dwarfs the numerator. If a qualified outside group were to audit Poptech's list I believe the numerator would also shrink significantly.
There is plenty of room for skepticism in all areas of science. Good science relies on healthy skepticism. One highly biased individual creating a subjective list does not rise to the level of good scientific skepticism.
850 out of .... almost a million papers?
That is a pretty darn good track record for these few key players.
Seems to me that manipulation of the raw data and rigging the peer-review process are two different issues.
Darrin, OF COURSE everything you've read says 1998 was the hottest. If you actually made an effort to look at actual data and not get your information from people with an obvious agenda then you might not be so ignorant on like this.
1998 is the hottest in the satellite temp data. 2010 is the hottest in GISS and HadCRUT data.
They sure do take BEST scientist, Judith Curry, to task.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cert...inty-ewok.html
She doesn't smear non-alarmist scientists as "pseudoscientists", so she must be part of the problem.
Wow unmarked graphs. Bravo!Graphs of global temperature anomaly
One is from 1895 to 1946 -- the other is from 1957 to 2008.
Can you tell which one is which?
They are.
Given that we have no massive flood of first-hand confessions on the part of truly consciencious, honest scientists, and there are thousands of climate scientists world-wide, then these two different issues are mutually exclusive.
If, as you say, it is just a few "key players" who are subverting the peer-review process, then those people whose work is being subverted should be out there stating such.
If, as WC says, those scientists are massively faking data, some of the good scientists should be clearly demonstrating that.
Since a large conspiracy at all levels, both by the scientists and the "key players" is harder to sustain without defectors of conscience, the logical take on this is that one or the other is true.
When you assert large conspiracies to not tell the truth, this is what happens, mouse/Cosmored.
So why do you think your "key players" theory is better than WC's "massively faked data" theory?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
