[sek929]

Honestly it all comes down to this...

Liberals are in charge right now and they have brought climate change to the forefront of their platform.

If you are against Liberals then you have to be against the science behind their agenda or you dare exist in a world of uncertainties where the politics may be exaggerated while the science is based on, well, science.

Despite the amount of vocal opposition to MMGW there isn't a whole lot of actual science, or scientists, to back it up.

I know scientists are all evil libruls making billions off of their falsified data, all while sipping champagne in their Ferraris, but maybe this is an issue that should transcend petty party lines.

[kylef]

From a common sense point of view, why are people against the change? Even if the world isn't heating up because of actions by man, oil is still decreasing by the second and the green industry could be very innovate and profitable.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That depends.

Have you publicly admitted that the scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all? Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?

Otherwise, you're still delusional. And I don't need to waste my time addressing statements made by delusional people.

greg

Are you capable of actually having a discussion or is your snottiness more persuasive then your arguments?


I've called upon you to address my arguments. If you don't want, thats fine. But theyre right there, articulated on the first page, for everyone to see. "Don't want to waste my time on delusional people" is nothing but an ad hom - and a bad one at that. I think its not unfair to call me one of the more reasonable and articulate on this forum, and its youropportunity to speak thats wasted. Suit yourself, though.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Honestly it all comes down to this...

Liberals are in charge right now and they have brought climate change to the forefront of their platform.

If you are against Liberals then you have to be against the science behind their agenda or you dare exist in a world of uncertainties where the politics may be exaggerated while the science is based on, well, science.

Despite the amount of vocal opposition to MMGW there isn't a whole lot of actual science, or scientists, to back it up.

I know scientists are all evil libruls making billions off of their falsified data, all while sipping champagne in their Ferraris, but maybe this is an issue that should transcend petty party lines.

Wait wait wait. I thought you guys were the party of tolerance? I'm either with you or against you now? WTF is that kind of mentality? I'm not allowed to form my own viewpoints from the data presented, just either "agree" or "oppose"??? Talk about being divisive on the grounds of a label...Sheesh.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That depends.

Have you publicly admitted that the scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all? Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?

Otherwise, you're still delusional. And I don't need to waste my time addressing statements made by delusional people.

greg

Oh, and another thing, I haven't bought up climate gate or the hockey stick graph. Address MY arguments - not what you think I'm going to argue. And you called me delusional....

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhh, see, but that's the part you're getting wrong: I didn't say that you said anything about those things.

I asked whether you were ready to admit to them. Are you?

Also: what was your argument? About solar forcing?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Stuff Greg says is truth:

"The scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all? Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?

I don't get it. What are you saying here?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That depends.

Have you publicly admitted that the scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all? Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?

Otherwise, you're still delusional. And I don't need to waste my time addressing statements made by delusional people.

greg

I love this... in the wake of numerous alumni among its 154,000+ strong membership threatening to withhold donations and with Penn State among the top recipients of Federal grant money being challenged by Federal officials; Penn State has conducted an internal investigation and EUREKA!™ vindicated Michael Mann of Penn State of any wrongdoing.

In a world where attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, destroying material subject to an FOI request, and concerted efforts to remove contrarian interpretations of data from peer review is not directly or indirectly, an action that seriously deviates from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.

Aside from the fact that Mann and peers @ Penn State were the only ones subject to inquiry and that few of the recipients of the emails themselves and no one who challenged the work in MBH98, including its hockey stick were interviewed; I could've told you what they'd find.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhh, see, but that's the part you're getting wrong: I didn't say that you said anything about those things.

I asked whether you were ready to admit to them. Are you?

Also: what was your argument? About solar forcing?

greg

Why would I admit to arguments that aren't mine? Plus, both are debatable, so I omitted them to keep the thread on track.

Are you ready to admit that the moon is made of cheese??

I never said this is your position, but it makes sense given the ridiculousness of your other arguments.

Also: I made a nice little list for you on the first page.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Penn State has conducted an internal investigation

Really?

Really? Is this your claim?

I suppose you've tried Google? And the various reviews conducted by supposedly independent parties aren't enough for you, right? It's all a vast conspiracy designed to perpetrate the GLobal Warming Fraud?

You and Doofy should really get a room.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Also: I made a nice little list for you on the first page.

My answer to your list is "it's wrong."

Is that what you were looking for?

greg

[Snow-i]

Sure, if thats all you have to say for it.

I guess I was right, your snottiness is more persuasive than your arguments. At least you must think so...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yes, pardon me for not wanting to uselessly re-tread arguments that all have multiple-page threads that can be found with a simple "search."

...most of which you participated in, I imagine. What's the point of giving you another lesson on how CO2 works when you're just going to ignore it again and post the same questions next month?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, pardon me for not wanting to uselessly re-tread arguments that all have multiple-page threads that can be found with a simple "search."

Then why comment at all on them? If thats your intent, refrain from posting in threads specifically about those subjects. Doesn't take a climatologist to figure that one out.

...most of which you participated in, I imagine. What's the point of giving you another lesson on how CO2 works when you're just going to ignore it again and post the same questions next month?

You're obviously basing your arrogance and pre-determined view of my take on things from other people. Whats scientific about that? What makes you think I'm going to post any questions on CO2? I haven't posted a single one.

Seriously, you seem to think you know what everyone else is thinking and what they're going to argue. I can understand the frustration about not being able to make everyone see things your way, but why continue to make baseless ad hom and strawman arguments when you've already given up on actually having a debate. If you're going to give me any lessons or answer any of my questions, then please, by all means, answer that one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Really?

Really? Is this your claim?

Yes, yes it is. An investigation that has no regard for the ones also involved in the incident who brought the initial charges of impropriety against you (remember the East Anglia email controversy was simply the boiling point, several who had worked directly with Mann and Jones have cited problems years prior) is lame. Yes.

I suppose you've tried Google?

Yes. That's how I found out it was in fact Penn State that vindicated Mann of Penn State. I'm not sure what "various reviews by supposedly independent parties" you're talking about as I saw little more than "thank God Mann and Jones (who was demoted) were vindicated by their respective peers so science maintains its integrity".

You and Doofy should really get a room.

greg

... and you'd do well to get a dorm at Penn State. Mann and shortie, sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. pbbbtttt.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

...and what about the other Climategate investigations? Is Google not working for you? Perhaps you should click on more of those little clicky links?

You keep saying "Penn State." Should I assume the other reports were also conducted by Mann's cronies and are thus untrustworthy?

Finally: the "Penn State" card is lame. Very lame. Sure, take the easy road and say "oh it was Penn State and therefore can't be trusted." Any facts to back up this claim? Any solid reasons why Penn State would apparently risk its entire research reputation for one climate scientist? Any logical argument for why Penn State's conclusions would be different from the three independent inquiries on the Climategate leaks - the ones you, you know, seem to have chosen to ignore - which essentially reached the same conclusions?

I suppose you'd really need to get your own nose in there and look over those documents yourself before it would be enough. Maybe you'd like to take a look at the Twin Towers foundations too, just to make sure there's no detonation marks? I suppose a personal interview with Neil Armstrong might also reassure you he's up on his Moon physics as well...?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You're obviously basing your arrogance and pre-determined view of my take on things from other people. Whats scientific about that? What makes you think I'm going to post any questions on CO2? I haven't posted a single one.

Yes, you did. It's in "the list" you provided.

Or well, I guess I should rephrase: the answer to at least several of your questions - independently and in combination - is found by looking at how greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere - in particular, CO2 gas. Which, as I mentioned, is a path that has been walked down many times.

But do ignore all that, and keep acting indignant.

greg

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, you did. It's in "the list" you provided.

Or well, I guess I should rephrase: the answer to at least several of your questions - independently and in combination - is found by looking at how greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere - in particular, CO2 gas. Which, as I mentioned, is a path that has been walked down many times.

But do ignore all that, and keep acting indignant.

greg

I'm indignant? There isn't a single question mark in "the list" so how in the hell could I have asked a question about CO2? Or well I guess I should rephrase. Why are you trying to provide me answers to questions I didn't ask, while completely ignoring the fact that you've offered exactly nothing to this discussion?

You're pretty terrible at trying to stay 2 steps ahead....and I must reiterate ebuddy's suggestion of finding a dorm room at Penn State...some higher education might do you well.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This is all a moot point anyway. Remember, the people who used to deny that global warming existed no longer deny it at all. They just deny that we've done anything to cause it. Well, most of them anyway - it looks like a few of them are starting to finally give up on that position and have of course moved on to the "denying that we can do anything to fix it" position. It's a slow, yet inexorable process - can't wait for the "but it's not worth doing anything to fix it at this point anyway" phase in 2020.


And remember, now that it's shown that we've been in an extended solar minimum for the last few years, whatever you do - don't do a Search for any claims pointing to a solar cause! Nothing to see here! Move along people!

greg

What about the ones that claimed that we're experiencing Global Cooling back in the 70's?

BTW, the argument has always been that man is not causing it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm indignant? There isn't a single question mark in "the list" so how in the hell could I have asked a question about CO2?

Fine then, we're going to argue semantics now?

Rephrased: "the answer to at least several of your arguments..."

Is that better now?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What about the ones that claimed that we're experiencing Global Cooling back in the 70's?

Oh **** me

GTFO with this Global Cooling shit. Your act is pathetic.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...and what about the other Climategate investigations? Is Google not working for you? Perhaps you should click on more of those little clicky links?

You keep saying "Penn State." Should I assume the other reports were also conducted by Mann's cronies and are thus untrustworthy?

What other climategate investigations? Yes, I keep saying Penn State. Would you like me to include UEA, also accused of impropriety? Yes, please give me clicky links greg.

• Michaels, who was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (UVA) from 1980 to 2007, pointed out that Muir Russell’s panel named “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” was in fact “commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation.”
• But there were actually strong links between the reviewers and UEA. Michaels noted that one of the panelists, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, had been on the faculty of UEA’s School of Environmental Science and CRU – the division accused of impropriety was established at the beginning of his tenure.
• the committee relied almost entirely on the testimony of those implicated in the scandal or those who have a vested interest in defending the establishment view of global warming. The critics of the CRU with the most expertise were not interviewed.

Finally: the "Penn State" card is lame. Very lame. Sure, take the easy road and say "oh it was Penn State and therefore can't be trusted." Any facts to back up this claim?

Yes, I already gave you one. You didn't address it. McIntyre and McKitrick were also involved and discussed in those emails and their expertise has not been challenged by any of these investigative panels. In fact, in one such conclusion the "MMs", as they're affectionately called by Jones et al., were lauded for their bringing methodological problems to light regarding the hockey stick. Of 3 "independent investigations" (more on that later), none of them saw fit to interview McIntyre and McKitrick? Really? Honestly? Seriously? I'll tell you what's lame, the "whitewash" attempt here is lame.

Any solid reasons why Penn State would apparently risk its entire research reputation for one climate scientist?

Oh, maybe you've missed it. I'm saying Penn State wouldn't dare risk its reputation, its alumni donor contributions, or Federal outlays so... they've cleared the scandal, nothing to see here... move along...

Any logical argument for why Penn State's conclusions would be different from the three independent inquiries on the Climategate leaks - the ones you, you know, seem to have chosen to ignore - which essentially reached the same conclusions?

Tell ya what... educate me great sensei. Cite for me these THREE INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES. Give me links. I'm not seeing anything independent so I want to make sure I'm looking at the same ones you are. You seem confident. I'm all twitterpated now and concerned that I might have missed something. I'm hoping you can enlighten me.

I suppose you'd really need to get your own nose in there and look over those documents yourself before it would be enough. Maybe you'd like to take a look at the Twin Towers foundations too, just to make sure there's no detonation marks? I suppose a personal interview with Neil Armstrong might also reassure you he's up on his Moon physics as well...?

You've not shown me that your nose has been in anything other than popular media parroting the "vindication" tagline. You couldn't care less whether or not the investigations were conducted thoroughly or with integrity so long as you got the tagline you were looking for. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to seeing some links on these independent panels. After all, Jones was moved out of any administrative capacity because while he succeeded in upholding the great reputation at UEA for accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities; he just had some little problems complying with FOI requests.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahh, I see.

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you about this. I see where you're going with it: it's all a big conspiracy theory. It's a claim that can't be proven nor disproven because it's a theory based on speculation, not facts.

The scientific community is involved in a big cover-up. The "independent investigations" are really just a big collusion. Keeping Mann's $2 million in funding research is worth Penn State risking their $2 billion research budget for a coverup operation. We get it. Yadda yadda yadda.

Get back to me when you have some facts, not more speculation. I'm honestly willing to discuss it then. Otherwise, there's absolutely nothing I can possibly address.



greg

[BadKosh]

Funny, talking 'facts' after the data tampering.


BEFORE tampering 1+3 = 4

......then

After tampering 1+2 = 4

[sek929]

Funny, talking about data from a viewpoint that has produced none.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Funny, talking 'facts' after the data tampering.


BEFORE tampering 1+3 = 4

......then

After tampering 1+2 = 4

I will, once again, repeat myself as I have several other times when you've made this statement:

Where, exactly, is this "data tampering"?

If you're going to keep saying this, would you please provide the forum with some sort of link/proof to what you're talking about...?

[olePigeon]

The point is, eBuddy, Doofy, BadKosh, Stupendousman, Snow-i, etc. have yet to provide a single credible source that is contrary to current popular theory regarding global climate change. You're welcome to an opinion, but it'll never be anything more unless you can back it up.

A fabricated petition by a Conservative Christian home school company doesn't count, neither does anecdotal observations of your backyard.

[BadKosh]

But is IS OK to hide data tampering, and data omissions and STILL claim the same results? Talk about fabrications. What a Hockey Stick!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

So are you going to provide any proof of these statements? I've asked time and time again, but you have yet to so much as give a link.

I hate to call you a liar, but what other choice are you giving me here?

greg

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But is IS OK to hide data tampering, and data omissions and STILL claim the same results? Talk about fabrications. What a Hockey Stick!

If the data tampering is hid then how the hell do you know about it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The point is, eBuddy, Doofy, BadKosh, Stupendousman, Snow-i, etc. have yet to provide a single credible source that is contrary to current popular theory regarding global climate change. You're welcome to an opinion, but it'll never be anything more unless you can back it up.

A fabricated petition by a Conservative Christian home school company doesn't count, neither does anecdotal observations of your backyard.

Right just as singular seasons and years. Does it count if someone is tenured professionally and intimately involved in their regional habitat, with no question of their association and integrity; has a differing perspective and/or view of their regional phenomena?

BTW, you act as if there isn't a wealth of debate within the scientific community regarding aspects of climate change. Yes, even on matters for which they generally agree. I can only caution you not to put so much weight on what is "popular" anyway. Scientific integrity has always required that the establishment be challenged. Always. When you ask for something that is "contrary", you're only looking for the type of rhetoric that is overtly hostile to "popular theory" so you can frame their adversarial position as "quackery" a priori, laugh it off, and never address it. The only way to win is not to play.

Don't patronize me by pretending that we've not been up and down and all over this, citing literally hundreds of sources, credible and otherwise from all sides of this issue olePigeon. It generally devolves to "nanannaaaa, poopy-butt stinky-face, I've got bananas in my ears"; only to return months later to claim the "other side hasn't given substantive arguments". It's tired. *hint: I won't do it to you if you don't do it to me.

... until the next unmistakeable evidence thread.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW, you act as if there isn't a wealth of debate within the scientific community regarding aspects of climate change. Yes, even on matters for which they generally agree.

Au contraire. I, at least, am most eager to point out that there's always a wealth of debate within the scientific community, about everything and anything.

If one were to use this "debate" as a reason to ignore the conclusions of the whole, a vast majority of generally accepted scientific principles would be rendered meaningless.

Don't patronize me by pretending that we've not been up and down and all over this, citing literally hundreds of sources, credible and otherwise from all sides of this issue

The key is, to cite "sources" that cast reasonable doubt on the "generally accepted scientific principle" in question.

You have never done that. You can't do that, as of today.

greg

[Buckaroo]

Hey, didn't we cover a lot of this here?

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...-hypocrisy/43/

[ebuddy]

Yup

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Hey, didn't we cover a lot of this here?

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...-hypocrisy/43/

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What about the ones that claimed that we're experiencing Global Cooling back in the 70's?

[BadKosh]

Those Climate Scientists!! Now Clouds communicate?

FOXNews.com - Clouds Can Communicate, Scientists Say

Clouds Can Communicate, Scientists Say


Little, fluffy and talkative? Clouds can communicate, a new paper
suggests -- but what are they talking about?

A new study has found that clouds "communicate" with each other, much like chirping crickets or flashing fireflies on a summer night. The surprising findings, published online in the journal Nature, may have significant implications for our understanding of the Earth's climate.

So the next time you find yourself laying on your back picking out shapes among the clouds, mull on this one: Are they talking among themselves about you?

"Cloud fields organize in such a way that their components 'communicate' with one another and produce regular, periodic rainfall events," explained Graham Feingold, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and the paper's lead author.

In other words, Feingold found clear evidence of self-organization in the regular patterns of rainfall and repeating growth of those floating puffs of cotton.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

So are you going to provide any proof of these statements? I've asked time and time again, but you have yet to so much as give a link.

I hate to call you a liar, but what other choice are you giving me here?

greg

Are you ever going to give me an answer, or are you just going to keep post-and-running with stupid mindless ****ing shit like the above?

greg

[BadKosh]

So the ClimateGate scandal has completely left your mind????
You know, data tampering, omissions, and doctoring of the data to match the conclusions they wish to show?

[Demonhood]

Is it still a scandal if no one tweaked any data?

Some “Climategate” Conclusions | FactCheck.org

Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming | Environment | The Guardian

Or is that just the liberal media/government/illuminati (in the UK) giving them a pass and we should instead believe your take on it because it better serves the narrative you wish to portray?

I admit that I didn't follow this news story very closely at all. But it really does seem there is no there, there.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So the ClimateGate scandal has completely left your mind????
You know, data tampering, omissions, and doctoring of the data to match the conclusions they wish to show?

Oh, wow.

I guess you didn't get the memo that none of that happened? That the only thing that came out of "Climategate" was that the scientists in question really, really liked ignoring FOI requests?


I would say that you're sadly misinformed, but the reality is that you're selectively misinformed. You're perfectly content to close your eyes, ignore the truth, and spread filthy lies.

Sad.

greg

[BadKosh]

You're still under the belief that you are an authority?

[The Final Dakar]

Did the subject just change?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Those Climate Scientists!! Now Clouds communicate?

FOXNews.com - Clouds Can Communicate, Scientists Say

Clouds Can Communicate, Scientists Say


Little, fluffy and talkative? Clouds can communicate, a new paper
suggests -- but what are they talking about?

...

Peter: That's what you said about that cloud insurance. Look at them up there...plotting.
(cut to a scene of two clouds with mouths)
Cloud 1: So Bill, we attack tomorrow.
Cloud 2: Yes...tomorrow
(pause)
Cloud 1: I mean it this time.
Cloud 2: I do too

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You're still under the belief that you are an authority?

This is so so sad.

[besson3c]

I would have went with "look, a butterfly!"

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Those Climate Scientists!! Now Clouds communicate?

FOXNews.com - Clouds Can Communicate, Scientists Say

Clouds Can Communicate, Scientists Say


Little, fluffy and talkative? Clouds can communicate, a new paper
suggests -- but what are they talking about?

A new study has found that clouds "communicate" with each other, much like chirping crickets or flashing fireflies on a summer night. The surprising findings, published online in the journal Nature, may have significant implications for our understanding of the Earth's climate.

So the next time you find yourself laying on your back picking out shapes among the clouds, mull on this one: Are they talking among themselves about you?

"Cloud fields organize in such a way that their components 'communicate' with one another and produce regular, periodic rainfall events," explained Graham Feingold, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and the paper's lead author.

In other words, Feingold found clear evidence of self-organization in the regular patterns of rainfall and repeating growth of those floating puffs of cotton.

I really can't comprehend what drives you to post things like this.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't patronize me by pretending that we've not been up and down and all over this, citing literally hundreds of sources, credible and otherwise from all sides of this issue olePigeon.

No, not all sides of the issue. The reason I keep bringing it up is because in all this time you, nor anyone else taking up the opposing position, has yet to provide evidence to the contrary. So stop brushing it off like you've conclusively made your case, because you haven't.

I will change my opinion the moment a peer reviewed study is released stating that humans are not directly affecting climate change either in part or in whole.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Those Climate Scientists!! Now Clouds communicate?

No, it only demonstrates how completely inept FOX News is at reporting on anything scientific.

Either that or you uncovered the truth about Hurricane Katrina being a liberal conspiracy.

[BadKosh]

It shows that just like the sci-fi movies of the 1950's, anyone who is a 'scientist' must know what they are talking about. LOL Assumptions from the same mainstream media that claims Global Warming is man-made. The media isn't qualified to judge on such technical issues? So why are they supporting the Global Warming if they don't know what they are talking about?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Did the subject just change?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No, not all sides of the issue. The reason I keep bringing it up is because in all this time you, nor anyone else taking up the opposing position, has yet to provide evidence to the contrary. So stop brushing it off like you've conclusively made your case, because you haven't.

I will change my opinion the moment a peer reviewed study is released stating that humans are not directly affecting climate change either in part or in whole.

Interesting. Okay, the reason I keep coming back is because in all this time, you've not once given a reason why proponents' views are a priori more credible than those who challenge their conclusions. All you've been able to produce is whatever insult you think will satisfy a bully tactic. Otherwise, do you seriously believe you've conclusively made your case?

I already explained the problem to you. You want science to speak in a language it simply doesn't so you can point at the fiery rhetoric and dismiss their case without having to open an article, a book, or God forbid; your mind.

So... let me make sure I understand your criteria here since you've placed your view on this issue on the line. Don't worry, I don't buy it for a minute.

• Have you quantified your consensus yet? Is it 300 climate scientists? 800 climate scientists? 3,000 climate scientists? 23,000 scientists? Several hundred authors, policymakers, economists, and politicians? At what point does this consensus no longer represent a consensus?
• The study I cite must simply be peer reviewed/published in a reputable journal? Okay, which ones will you accept as reputable journals?
• How many studies would you like to see, just one? I mean you said "a peer-reviewed study", but I want to be sure.
• Does this study have to say "Al Gore is a poop-butt, stinky-face" or "AGW is a myth"?
• Short list of climate scientists you will not accept as contributors to the peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal criteria please.
• If there is a 4-person deep or greater connection to a Gas-N-Stop or any petroleum product, should this exclude them from consideration? If yes, as a side-question; would this also exclude anyone you'd otherwise consider a legitimate source if the connections were say... Greenpeace, Sierra Club, GE, or any company and/or organization trading in the Carbon Credit offset commodity?

Excellent then, we should be able to get started right away.