[Uncle Skeleton]

No doubt. But that's all the more reason for the levity provided by the drunken line tool.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, maybe read my posts next time? Buckaroo figured it out and is probably out there right now looking for fifth graders who haven't learned the carbon cycle yet.

I still don't understand how this is relevant to anything at all. So you couldn't find the comma on your keyboard? That's why I asked. Thanks.

Sorry I don't have much time to look into those authors you mentioned. But quick google searches find academic papers by all three, contrary to what you claimed above.

I was fair in my evaluation stating they were not the sources of "field work" for the Biodiversity paper and invited you to find additional sources for any work. You'll allow me a little free time too no doubt?

Canziani; one technical paper on tidal variability and wave-like oscillations from 1994, 8 years before the published Biodiversity paper. So... 1 from over 13 years ago. Close, but still doesn't pass tie's credibility test.

Davidson; 6 items.
3 are conferences in which he contributed analysis through lectures on coal deposits.
1 is simply a summary for policy makers.
1 is a summary of climate change 2001 in which he participated with 31 other authors.
1 on climate change mitigation in which he contributed with 14 others to encourage meeting emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. The policy summaries and this 4th item is not supported by Davidson's "field work" as they cite the work of others. They are summaries and papers produced for policy makers.

Coal quality and geographic distribution "expertise" makes Davidson as qualified to contribute to a paper on biodiversity as Brosnahan on climate data collection and modeling. You seem to be forgetting the premise of our debate.

Hohenstein; 4 items that I could verify.
1 on Intrinsic viscosity-molecular weight relationship for polystyrene published March 3, 1947!
1 on Polymerization of olefins and diolefins in suspension and emulsion. Part I. from January 1946!!
2 on Climate Policy implications published 7 years before the Biodiversity Paper and wholly unrelated.

Now to be clear, I personally have no problem with the above individuals contributing to an IPCC paper on biodiversity and in fact feel a little dirty critiquing their expertise in light of the fact that these people are vastly more studied than I. My purpose was only to show you that not only are your criteria ridiculous and lopsided in favor of your personal view, but that they are by your own criteria, not qualified to contribute.

Maybe clean up your language, stop accusing other people of being "intellectually dishonest" and "ducking and weaving." Then try using Google Scholar next time you are looking for academic articles. And before quoting some random guy you see quoted on some random website, maybe run a google search on them, too.

There is no problem with my language and MacNN policy. If you'd like for me not to use "shxx" in a post, kindly ask. I'm not here to offend people's linguistic sensitivities by using common slang.

I'd ask for future reference that when you establish criteria for which others' sources must meet, you're able to employ that criteria in an equitable manner across both sides of the debate. I'm proud of you for using Google Scholar, you should actually read some of the material there. BTW, I had already found the published works by Brosnahan, that's why I was entirely comfortable using him as a credible reference for critiquing climate data collection and usage. You're the one who set the standard of criteria here tie, not me.

You're getting so argumentative in your redirects that you forget the premise of what you're arguing from post to post tie. That's what I mean by "ducking and weaving". As far as "intellectual dishonesty", I've found your posts to be generally riddled with them and insults sprinkled throughout. If you haven't noticed, I don't put up with chest-pounding and I'll often feed it back in kind. I don't rail on people that address me in a respectable manner, but I will use one's posting habits as a way of establishing rapport with them. Maybe it'd help if you googled the golden rule.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still don't understand how this is relevant to anything at all. So you couldn't find the comma on your keyboard? That's why I asked. Thanks.

Where is this comma supposed to go? I thought my post was pretty clear. If not, I'll clarify again: it was not my intent to call Buckaroo a stupid fifth grader and I apologize for any misunderstandings.

Hohenstein; 4 items that I could verify.
1 on Intrinsic viscosity-molecular weight relationship for polystyrene published March 3, 1947!
1 on Polymerization of olefins and diolefins in suspension and emulsion. Part I. from January 1946!!
2 on Climate Policy implications published 7 years before the Biodiversity Paper and wholly unrelated.

You are confused because you are looking at the wrong Hohenstein. It is W.G. Hohenstein, not W.P. I gave you the link to a google scholar search in my last post. You seem to have similar misunderstandings for the other authors. E.g.,

Canziani; one technical paper on tidal variability and wave-like oscillations from 1994, 8 years before the published Biodiversity paper. So... 1 from over 13 years ago. Close, but still doesn't pass tie's credibility test.

Why can't you please click on the links in my post on the last page? I gave you the google searches. Canziani has many more papers besides the one technical paper you found. Just click the link, I'm trying to make it easy.

As far as "intellectual dishonesty", I've found your posts to be generally riddled with them and insults sprinkled throughout.

So you run the wrong google search and then insult me again. It isn't my fault!

And I am still waiting for you to attempt to defend the credibility of your sources.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Where is this comma supposed to go?

Originally Posted by tie

Maybe try to find a fifth grader who hasn't been taught the carbon cycle yet, get a quote for us, and we'll all join in with you and call him or her a wacko. Stupid fifth grader.

Maybe an "and a" after wacko or a comma after wacko? I wouldn't have expected to see a period, then "Stupid fifth grader" as a statement all its own. I'll admit, the sentence is worded poorly enough that it's less than clear. I don't report, that's why I ask.

You are confused because you are looking at the wrong Hohenstein. It is W.G. Hohenstein, not W.P. I gave you the link to a google scholar search in my last post. You seem to have similar misunderstandings for the other authors. E.g.,

Tie, I clicked your link. The above is what you provided. I did mistake a W.P. Huhenstein and a W. P. Hohenstein and I apologize however, the other papers cited there are no different and no more relevant as you can see. 1 paper from 1990 and the other from 1994. 12 and 8 years prior to the biodiversity paper. BTW, this was my point in the first place; none of these authors have relevant "field work" (as you called for) cited in the biodiversity paper. Why? Because they are not acting as scientists contributing field work, they are acting as authors in compiling studies provided by the "field work" of others. It's not rocket-science.

Why can't you please click on the links in my post on the last page? I gave you the google searches. Canziani has many more papers besides the one technical paper you found. Just click the link, I'm trying to make it easy.

Again, clicked the link. You might know there are several references there ranging from P.O. Canziani, OF Canziani, O. Canziani, and P. Canziani. I clicked again just to be sure and I'm not seeing anything more recent or relevant to the biodiversity paper. Notwithstanding, they were essentially consultants on the biodiversity paper, not scientists who contributed field work. The criteria keeps changing and I don't know why it's necessary. I'm not saying they lack credibility on biodiversity. I'm merely going by the standards you provided.

So you run the wrong google search and then insult me again. It isn't my fault!

Uh... I didn't run the "wrong" google search at all tie. I understand where you like to remain sufficiently vague, but I don't understand what the stall tactic is all about. It's not like they're going to close this thread or anything.

And I am still waiting for you to attempt to defend the credibility of your sources.

Attempt to defend the credibility of my sources? That's been done over and over again tie. Any more accusations, mud-slinging, and stall tactics? I'll be here. I mean, I'm citing the names of the papers in my posts tie, I'm providing pictures of the pages you linked to in showing you that your criteria breathes with your presuppositions. This is all I've intended to do in "defending the credibility of my sources". I've shown that the "credibility" game is a shell game and it works perfectly fine for both sides. You won't accept that, but (in your words) it isn't my fault!

House cleaned photo-bin. DOH! I'll be back with those pics! BLAST!!!

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...so now you're claiming that science is "techno-babble" and "made-up nonsense"? Nice.

More secret information from your anonymous reviewing scientist friends I assume?

greg

For all your posts you NEVER show us how the Computer Climate models produce similar results to historical data. In Fact, the predictions from these models are way off base. I suggest the methods are faulty, and the models are incorrect. Show us othewise.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

For all your posts you NEVER show us how the Computer Climate models produce similar results to historical data. In Fact, the predictions from these models are way off base. I suggest the methods are faulty, and the models are incorrect. Show us othewise.

That is one of our concerns. These so called scientists with these computer models refuse to share their programming model code so that it can be judged objectively. They don't want everyone to know how distorted their programming is.

Their programming is distorted and full of lies and they don't want the truth to get out.

[peeb]

That's right - they are all in conspiracy against you!

[BadKosh]

They are conspiring to use this problem as a reason to ask for more money to fund this fraud.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

They are conspiring to use this problem as a reason to ask for more money to fund this fraud.

Hey stop talking about Bush and the War on Terror! This thread is supposed to be about global warming!

[peeb]

Seriously? You really think that nearly all of the world's scientists are in a conspiracy to fund a fraudulent project?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie

Where is this comma supposed to go?

Maybe try to find a fifth grader who hasn't been taught the carbon cycle yet, get a quote for us, and we'll all join in with you and call him or her a wacko. Stupid fifth grader.

Maybe an "and a" after wacko or a comma after wacko? I wouldn't have expected to see a period, then "Stupid fifth grader" as a statement all its own. I'll admit, the sentence is worded poorly enough that it's less than clear. I don't report, that's why I ask.

You are confused because you are looking at the wrong Hohenstein. It is W.G. Hohenstein, not W.P. I gave you the link to a google scholar search in my last post. You seem to have similar misunderstandings for the other authors. E.g.,

Tie, I clicked your link. The above is what you provided. I did mistake a W.P. Huhenstein and a W. P. Hohenstein and I apologize however, the other papers cited there are no different and no more relevant as you can see. 1 paper from 1990 and the other from 1994. 12 and 8 years prior to the biodiversity paper. BTW, this was my point in the first place; none of these authors have relevant "field work" (as you called for) cited in the biodiversity paper. Why? Because they are not acting as scientists contributing field work, they are acting as authors in compiling studies provided by the "field work" of others. It's not rocket-science.

Why can't you please click on the links in my post on the last page? I gave you the google searches. Canziani has many more papers besides the one technical paper you found. Just click the link, I'm trying to make it easy.

Again, clicked the link. You might know there are several references there ranging from P.O. Canziani, OF Canziani, O. Canziani, and P. Canziani. I clicked again just to be sure and I'm not seeing anything more recent or relevant to the biodiversity paper. Notwithstanding, they were essentially consultants on the biodiversity paper, not scientists who contributed field work. The criteria keeps changing and I don't know why it's necessary. I'm not saying they lack credibility on biodiversity. I'm merely going by the standards you provided.

So you run the wrong google search and then insult me again. It isn't my fault!

Uh... I didn't run the "wrong" google search at all tie. I understand where you like to remain sufficiently vague, but I don't understand what the stall tactic is all about. It's not like they're going to close this thread or anything.

And I am still waiting for you to attempt to defend the credibility of your sources.

Attempt to defend the credibility of my sources? I've done quite a good job of defending my sources. I mean, I'm citing the names of the papers in my posts tie, I'm providing pictures of the pages you linked to in showing you that your criteria is entirely dependent on your presuppositions. This is all I've intended to do in "defending the credibility of my sources". I've shown that the "credibility" call is nothing more than a shell game and it works perfectly fine for both sides. You won't accept that, but (in your words) it isn't my fault!

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW, this was my point in the first place; none of these authors have relevant "field work" (as you called for) cited in the biodiversity paper. Why? Because they are not acting as scientists contributing field work, they are acting as authors in compiling studies provided by the "field work" of others. It's not rocket-science. ... Notwithstanding, they were essentially consultants on the biodiversity paper, not scientists who contributed field work. The criteria keeps changing and I don't know why it's necessary. I'm not saying they lack credibility on biodiversity.

The authors do have relevant and recent field work, as the google searches show. I don't know why they didn't cite their own field work in the IPCC report---maybe they didn't feel the need for self-citations---and I don't agree that that is necessary.

Attempt to defend the credibility of my sources? That's been done over and over again tie.

I'm still waiting. One of your sources is not a scientist and has never worked on the climate. He allegedly has built remote sensing instruments for clients including NOAA and that is the extent of his qualifications. The other source claims smoking isn't linked with cancer---he lacks any credibility. What is the point of citing sources of this quality? You might as well be citing quotes from Buckaroo.

Edit: This was a reply to your original post above. The photos seemed to be working.

[tie]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Seriously? You really think that nearly all of the world's scientists are in a conspiracy to fund a fraudulent project?

The ancillary scientists, i.e., scientists whose work is motivated by global warming but who are not studying global warming (e.g., those working on alternative energy sources), do have strong motivation for playing up the work done by the climate scientists, in order to justify their funding. It is better to look at the primary sources. If an energy researcher says, "The consensus is that such carbon output levels will likely lead to such economic costs; therefore research in improving the efficiency of solar panels is important," this really means very little.

[peeb]

Perhaps, but that is not the claim that is being made - for him to be right, nearly all scientists have to be in on this conspiracy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Maybe an "and a" after wacko or a comma after wacko? I wouldn't have expected to see a period, then "Stupid fifth grader" as a statement all its own. I'll admit, the sentence is worded poorly enough that it's less than clear. I don't report, that's why I ask.

Originally Posted by tie

Maybe try to find a fifth grader who hasn't been taught the carbon cycle yet, get a quote for us, and we'll all join in with you and call him or her a wacko. Stupid fifth grader.

Just because the issue keeps popping up: any grammar experts out there? I don't see anything structurally wrong with those two sentences by tie, but I've never been much of an expert on prepositions and pronouns and suchlike....

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm still waiting. One of your sources is not a scientist and has never worked on the climate.

He is a physicist who has done extensive work with doppler imaging, has several patents for sensors showing increased accuracy and agreement between various apparatus, many published papers, and is more than qualified to speak on their limitations. You've changed from "field work", to "working on the climate" to "academic papers" back to "worked on the climate".

He allegedly has built remote sensing instruments for clients including NOAA and that is the extent of his qualifications.

He is as much if not more qualified to speak on climate data collection as any source (yet provided) by you on climate change. Again, these folks aren't wetting their thumbs and sticking them in the air for climate data tie.

The other source claims smoking isn't linked with cancer---he lacks any credibility.

... on pathology and with a statement like the above, I'd be inclined to agree wholeheartedly. He is only a source in that he compiled a book of studies he claims supports his views. Much like Gore, who compiled a documentary of studies that he claims supports his views. Again, I'll give you "Singer's entire compilation is junk" if you give me "Gore's entire compilation is junk", but you can't have it both ways no matter how badly you'd like to.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Seriously? You really think that nearly all of the world's scientists are in a conspiracy to fund a fraudulent project?

DUH!! NO!! Just the Pop-science climatologists who otherwise wouldn't HAVE jobs if it weren't for the media hype creating this new fraud of "fixing man-made global warming" and the associated frauds involving grant money for 'more study' .

If its a done deal, no more study would be required.
Since they are asking for big piles of money, I guess it isn't a done deal.

Convenient that it will take centuries of studies, and other BS to somehow 'fix' Global warming.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He is a physicist who has done extensive work with doppler imaging, has several patents for sensors showing increased accuracy and agreement between various apparatus, many published papers, and is more than qualified to speak on their limitations. You've changed from "field work", to "working on the climate" to "academic papers" back to "worked on the climate".

Please don't put words in my mouth. You are the one who made "field work" as a criterion. Moreover, you claimed that the field work had to be self-cited, that was not me. Yes, I need someone who has worked on the climate and who has academic papers or some public record of that work. Your stance is that anybody who says "I'm an engineer with a degree in physics so take my word that I'm an expert on the climate" should be taken seriously. I cannot agree.

I have seen no links from you showing that this guy is a practicing physicist or that he has patents, or that he has ever worked on the climate. I've been asking over and over for evidence of credibility, though, maybe you have noticed?

He is as much if not more qualified to speak on climate data collection as any source (yet provided) by you on climate change. Again, these folks aren't wetting their thumbs and sticking them in the air for climate data tie.

He is certainly not more qualified. I'm not sure yet that he has any qualifications at all. On the other hand, all the sources of the IPCC reports whose credibility you have tried to question have turned out to be well-qualified, when you run the right google searches.

... on pathology and with a statement like the above, I'd be inclined to agree wholeheartedly. He is only a source in that he compiled a book of studies he claims supports his views. Much like Gore, who compiled a documentary of studies that he claims supports his views. Again, I'll give you "Singer's entire compilation is junk" if you give me "Gore's entire compilation is junk", but you can't have it both ways no matter how badly you'd like to.

He is a source. Period. If you admit that he has zero credibility as a source, then you need to go out and verify that every study on this list indeed agrees with his claims. If you are taking him at his word, then he is a source for you. It really doesn't matter to me if you trust Gore or not, since my argument does not rest on his credibility. I'm not going to say that Gore's documentary is junk (I've never seen it) and nor am I going to defend its accuracy. It doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Just because the issue keeps popping up: any grammar experts out there? I don't see anything structurally wrong with those two sentences by tie, but I've never been much of an expert on prepositions and pronouns and suchlike....

I'm a grammar expert. There isn't anything wrong with the sentences. Uncle Skeleton diagrammed it very nicely for me. ebuddy loves to put words in my mouth so he tried to twist it to say that I was accusing Buckaroo of being a stupid fifth grader, even if that made so sense in the context of the previous sentence.

[tie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

If its a done deal, no more study would be required.
Since they are asking for big piles of money, I guess it isn't a done deal.

This isn't logical. It makes a lot of sense to ask for more study to clarify the different costs and benefits. More study is only prudent before spending a lot of money on other initiatives.

[peeb]

Logical? LOL. Can you name a single area of science that doesn't still need more study? Does that mean it is a 'hoax'? LOL.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Please don't put words in my mouth. You are the one who made "field work" as a criterion. Moreover, you claimed that the field work had to be self-cited, that was not me. Yes, I need someone who has worked on the climate and who has academic papers or some public record of that work.

What in your opinion does "worked on the climate" mean?

Your stance is that anybody who says "I'm an engineer with a degree in physics so take my word that I'm an expert on the climate" should be taken seriously. I cannot agree.

Your stance is that "Fred Singer is a twit" and therefore we should define "expert" by something else. What have you offered? "works on climate". (sufficiently vague that it could mean anything you want it to when it suits your argument in one post even if you're proven wrong and abandon it in the next) If I'm the only one calling for relevant field work, what is it we're talking about? Please and for the last time, make a point.

I have seen no links from you showing that this guy is a practicing physicist or that he has patents, or that he has ever worked on the climate. I've been asking over and over for evidence of credibility, though, maybe you have noticed?

Originally Posted by tie

Have you googled John Brosnahan's work in the field? I tried. I found fourteen publications, from 1985-1995. None of his publications are on the climate, they seem to be on things like radar reflectivity of the atmosphere (??).

Of course tie, how could I have forgotten? Climate scientists wet their thumbs and stick them in the air for climate data. I've already established the ages of the GISS models we use. I've already cited the papers (using the same links you are) that show the IPCC authors are no more qualified to speak on climate than Brosnahan on climate data collection. Their "work on climate" (whatever that means now) is no more compelling or relevant than any of the sources I've quoted.

He is certainly not more qualified. I'm not sure yet that he has any qualifications at all. On the other hand, all the sources of the IPCC reports whose credibility you have tried to question have turned out to be well-qualified, when you run the right google searches.

I wasn't trying to question the IPCC contributors' credibility. I have no problem accepting them. I challenged them in light of your woefully vague criteria. I had no problem making the point on my criteria and on my terms as well as having made the point on your "terms". (which again, seems sufficiently vague)

He is a source. Period. If you admit that he has zero credibility as a source, then you need to go out and verify that every study on this list indeed agrees with his claims. If you are taking him at his word, then he is a source for you. It really doesn't matter to me if you trust Gore or not, since my argument does not rest on his credibility. I'm not going to say that Gore's documentary is junk (I've never seen it) and nor am I going to defend its accuracy. It doesn't matter.

My point does not rely on Fred Singer as a credible source. I'm not going to say that Singer's compilation is junk (I've never read it) nor am I going to defend its accuracy. It doesn't matter. If you're going to say that Singer's entire compilation is junk because of a statement of his on second-hand smoke, then you'll have to say that Gore's entire compilation is junk because of a statement of his on the "Union label lullaby". I'm not saying Gore's entire compilation is junk because of his problem with honesty, but you're claiming Singer's entire compilation is junk because of a statement on second-hand smoke. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

I'm a grammar expert. There isn't anything wrong with the sentences. Uncle Skeleton diagrammed it very nicely for me. ebuddy loves to put words in my mouth so he tried to twist it to say that I was accusing Buckaroo of being a stupid fifth grader, even if that made so sense in the context of the previous sentence.

If you're claiming to be a grammar expert, I'm going to need references for your "work on grammar". A home page maybe? Some academic papers?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you're claiming to be a grammar expert, I'm going to need references for your "work on grammar". A home page maybe? Some academic papers?

Haha! Zing!

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your stance is that "Fred Singer is a twit" and therefore we should define "expert" by something else. What have you offered?

I am not interested in discussing definitions and grammar with you. Why don't you defend your sources? Why don't you even attempt to defend your sources? The easy answer is that you can't, because they lack any credibility.

I've already cited the papers (using the same links you are) that show the IPCC authors are no more qualified to speak on climate than Brosnahan on climate data collection. Their "work on climate" (whatever that means now) is no more compelling or relevant than any of the sources I've quoted.

You have not shown anything of the sort. You admitted yourself that you were looking at the wrong papers by the wrong authors.

I challenged them in light of your woefully vague criteria. I had no problem making the point on my criteria and on my terms as well as having made the point on your "terms".

Nonsense. You couldn't even run a google search on either the IPCC authors or on your own sources.

My point does not rely on Fred Singer as a credible source. I'm not going to say that Singer's compilation is junk (I've never read it) nor am I going to defend its accuracy. It doesn't matter. If you're going to say that Singer's entire compilation is junk because of a statement of his on second-hand smoke, then you'll have to say that Gore's entire compilation is junk because of a statement of his on the "Union label lullaby". I'm not saying Gore's entire compilation is junk because of his problem with honesty, but you're claiming Singer's entire compilation is junk because of a statement on second-hand smoke. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

You are the one who brought up Singer's supposed compilation. It is up to you to defend it. If you don't want to defend it, then you should retract all those posts. In that case, let me ask you: In this entire thread, are you willing to defend the credibility of any of sources you have used? Any of them?

If you're claiming to be a grammar expert, I'm going to need references for your "work on grammar". A home page maybe? Some academic papers?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I am not interested in discussing definitions and grammar with you. Why don't you defend your sources? Why don't you even attempt to defend your sources? The easy answer is that you can't, because they lack any credibility.

I've already done a sufficient job of defending my sources for any reasoned and rational person. People with criteria that changes from post to post or those unable to define their own views in general are likely unable to comprehend a sound defense. If you want me to defend them against you, you'll have to commit to an argument. And no, "poopy-face stink butt" won't cut it for most.

You have not shown anything of the sort. You admitted yourself that you were looking at the wrong papers by the wrong authors.

Reread the post tie. I think you know this wasn't my entire statement. I'm guessing you know this because you never really addressed the rest of it. In fact, you dropped that point altogether. I'm talking to you tie. Others may forget what was said from post to post, but I'm talking to you. When you're done putting your dishonesty on display for the rest of the readers, I'll be interested in anything of substance you have to offer.

Nonsense. You couldn't even run a google search on either the IPCC authors or on your own sources.

You are the one who brought up Singer's supposed compilation. It is up to you to defend it. If you don't want to defend it, then you should retract all those posts. In that case, let me ask you: In this entire thread, are you willing to defend the credibility of any of sources you have used? Any of them?

Well... yeah. Done. You might recall where I stated that the Singer compilation was a conversational piece. A conversation that kept greg and I occupied for several pages of some pretty dry and at times very fruitful discussion. You may not recall because you had absolutely nothing to contribute then either.

• commit to an argument. If you have none, just bail. It's okay tie. It's certainly more admirable than continuing to force non-points.
• commit to some criteria for credibility if that is your argument. If it's recent works, don't deny the antiquated works of those whom you'd otherwise take seriously. It'd also help if you ensured timed expertise were even necessary. If we're discussing the Model-T, whether or not I drove one last week is irrelevant. If it's "works on climate", make sure the others whom you'd take seriously "work on climate". If you can't define your criteria because you've gotten in over your head and you find that you have to keep changing it from line to line or remain hopelessly vague, try a different angle. It's okay, I'll pretty much own that point too.
• If you're unable to come up with any new material in 26 pages, you're not getting anywhere. Try something new.
• Don't neglect legitimate sources and arguments, cherry-picking only those for which you're able to use strawmen. When you find an argument, stick with it and remain consistent from post to post providing a firm foundation for discourse.
• Don't resort to dishonesty. Lying makes you and anyone genuinely interested in this issue appear zealous, dogmatic, desperate, and ignorant. In addition, do not exploit others' honesty. It makes you appear even more deceitful.

[Buckaroo]

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet


The Copenhagen Post

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet

It is uncertain how a change in mean global temperature will affect microclimates.

Welcome to the discussion, I see you've managed to not read the other 27 pages of this thread.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've already done a sufficient job of defending my sources for any reasoned and rational person. People with criteria that changes from post to post or those unable to define their own views in general are likely unable to comprehend a sound defense. If you want me to defend them against you, you'll have to commit to an argument. And no, "poopy-face stink butt" won't cut it for most.

My criteria have not changed at all. You are the one who has been changing your criteria. As far as I can tell, you are looking for "field work" that is self-cited. Field work is fine, although I'm not sure how you define it, asking for self-citations is just ridiculous.

You have not defended your sources at all. I am the one who ran the google search on your engineer/physicist. You never posted any links defending his credibility. My search came up only with papers that were over a decade old, and that were not directly related to climate modeling or even data acquisition, so far as I could tell. Additionally, it appears that the source is no longer working as a physicist. Has he retired? Who knows, you've never provided any links.

Reread the post tie. I think you know this wasn't my entire statement. I'm guessing you know this because you never really addressed the rest of it.

Actually, yes, your entire argument was that you had gotten the wrong authors, or the wrong initials on the authors, or perhaps had neglected to click on page 2 of the google search. There were lots of papers there which somehow you couldn't find. I guess I can give you a link to page 2 of the google search if you like and you can make a screen capture of it instead of reading it.

In fact, you dropped that point altogether. I'm talking to you tie. Others may forget what was said from post to post, but I'm talking to you. When you're done putting your dishonesty on display for the rest of the readers, I'll be interested in anything of substance you have to offer. ... [standard ebuddy dodging the issue]

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet

A nice thing layer of ice on the surface. Just like a headline to an article. Doesn't show the true depth of what lies beneath.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The Copenhagen Post

... a nearby glacier has retracted more in the past two decades than in recorded history.

Even more than when they were making wine there I presume...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

My criteria have not changed at all. You are the one who has been changing your criteria. As far as I can tell, you are looking for "field work" that is self-cited. Field work is fine, although I'm not sure how you define it, asking for self-citations is just ridiculous.

I asked for a list of IPCC scientists. You responded, but did not include them. Maybe google wasn't working for you at the time? I was trying to get an actual contribution from you to no avail. greg stepped up and was kind enough to respond with a link. Unfortunately, it did not provide a list of scientists, but an IPCC assessment-reports homepage with synthesis reports beginning with 2001 and working back. I had to find links to studies from there in the hopes of finding scientists. I went over and above to satisfy any rational argument, but of course that doesn't work for you. You'll keep repeating the same tired mantra hoping it will somehow have a more profound impact after 26 pages.

I couldn't care less if they're self-cited or not. Though one would think if there were more intimate knowledge of the subject produced from relevant field work it would've been included in a scientific summary for which you're a lead author or published contributor, but what do I know? It is what it is, no big deal. Again, I'm not challenging their expertise on the subject matter. I'm challenging your criteria. I'm willing to explore an assessment report from those who've not conducted "field work" 8, 10, or 12 years prior without first applying some ridiculous, hopelessly vague, and obviously biased criteria.

You have not defended your sources at all. I am the one who ran the google search on your engineer/physicist. You never posted any links defending his credibility. My search came up only with papers that were over a decade old, and that were not directly related to climate modeling or even data acquisition, so far as I could tell

.
it's no surprise to me that one who developed remote sensing instrumentation for NOAA is not credible for one who seems to think climate scientists wet their thumbs and stick them in the air for climate data.
John W. Brosnahan; High resolution imaging doppler interferometer, US Patent

You've already established that there are more papers available for this man's work than two of the three IPCC sources I gave you. You want links to information you already found?

Additionally, it appears that the source is no longer working as a physicist. Has he retired? Who knows, you've never provided any links.

Have any vocal authors and/or contributors to the IPCC or any of their assessment reports retired tie? This is asinine.

Actually, yes, your entire argument was that you had gotten the wrong authors, or the wrong initials on the authors, or perhaps had neglected to click on page 2 of the google search. There were lots of papers there which somehow you couldn't find. I guess I can give you a link to page 2 of the google search if you like and you can make a screen capture of it instead of reading it.

The screen capture was to establish that you're full of crap. I could make a screen capture of page 2 also, but seeing how shameless you remain... You're right though, it's much easier to not provide names, not provide links or really anything at all for fear you might make a mistake.

I think I'll sit back for now and wait to exploit some more of your mistakes.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I couldn't care less if they're self-cited or not.

Not what you said before. And I am the one who keeps on changing my standards? No. It is you.

John W. Brosnahan; High resolution imaging doppler interferometer, US Patent

Hooray, a dozen posts later and ebuddy finally deigns to give a link!

You've already established that there are more papers available for this man's work than two of the three IPCC sources I gave you. You want links to information you already found?

"More papers" doesn't matter. I myself have more papers available than any of these authors. What matters is the relevance of the papers.

[olePigeon]

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peeb]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I'm glad we have a term for this now!

[Chongo]

Not "deniers". They believe there is change, but not that humans are the sole cause.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peeb]

I like that there are three who "Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate", and one of them is David Bellamy!

[ebuddy]

Natural Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Buckaroo]

Greatest Scam on Earth, Great Global Warming Charade

Media campaign to silence global warming skeptics failing

CFP: Media campaign to silence global warming skeptics failing

[Uncle Skeleton]

spam

wake me for page 30, k?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

spam

wake me for page 30, k?

But you missed the Asian girls for love and marriage link at the bottom left of that page. FOOL!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

CFP - If Churches Cannot Preach Against Abortion, They Should Just Close Their Doors

You know ...over time we’ll convince the Christians to not kill their own children. But the lives of so many children have been lost in that noble effort and you might ask why? Even though there are some churches that have been actively pro life, that has not been the norm; it has been the exception. So we should rightly weep over the thousands of unborn children who are killed each day in America; either surgically or by abortifacient drugs, such as the ‘Pill’ and RU486. The killing of unborn children has continued in the churches and our communities, in the name of weak Biblical teaching, moral cowardice; even upholding the apostate teaching of “reproductive choice.”

Seems like the kind of news source Buckaroo would read every day...

greg

[BadKosh]

Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming

January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain.

You can watch that one clip HERE or you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE.

It's worth watching -- he also pushed back against a 9/11 conspiracy theorist heckling him.

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

==================================

Naaaa, not a scam.. No! It's just we want to slow down growth, something no other country is gonna do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Your link is broken. I clicked HERE and it didn't do anything

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

==================================

Naaaa, not a scam.. No! It's just we want to slow down growth, something no other country is gonna do.

Important quote, I think.

The other thing is: if you're not going to do it until the OTHER country does it...but you know the OTHER country isn't going to do it... then you might as well come out and acknowledge that you just don't want to do it.

greg

[BadKosh]

DIFFERENT WEEK, DIFFERENT EXPLAINATION..............

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT


Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Related Topics: Global Warming
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Let me guess why you didn't give a link....

Is it because that link would have been to something called Rantburg.com? Is this where you get your information from?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I think we have witnessed the devolution of Badkosh from "I'm a scientific skeptic" to "I'll use any excuse possible."



greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

No way. Not believing in evolution, Badkosh doesn't "devolve," it "is intelligently dismantled."

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let me guess why you didn't give a link....

Is it because that link would have been to something called Rantburg.com? Is this where you get your information from?

No, it's an editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Well that sounds like solid evidence to me.

Hay, I read an editorial last week about how Ron Paul eats babies. Someone better do something about that...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well that sounds like solid evidence to me.

Hay, I read an editorial last week about how Ron Paul eats babies. Someone better do something about that...

I see editorials on all those things caused by global warming like; coral reefs growing, coral reefs shrinking, cold spells, hot spells, fish catches rise, fish stocks fall, forest decline, forest expansion, glacial retreat, glacial growth, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, snowfall increase, snowfall decrease, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, rainfall increase, rainfall decrease... and we've got ourselves a one-size-fits-all issue we can all do something about, but where to start?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well we could just take the advice of many in here and just not start at all. That seems like a good compromise, no?

[/loose change]