253 replies to this topic

[FriskyFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

If you need a 'primary scientific literature' to know what global climate alarmism is then you really are beyond help on this subject. I'm guessing you are not aware that the peer review process is pretty worthless anyway, esp. now that the climategate emails documented that it was being used to silence opposition to The Cause.

It is certainly worthless to your cause.  Those of us who dispassionately study research without a cause care about actual published data that has been verified by thousands of independent scientists.

[Frog79]

FriskyFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

If you think Newsweek is in any way representative of legitimate scientific consensus then you really are beyond help on this subject.

Show me where I said that.  Oh, you can't.  Big surprise.  More to the point, if you knew anything about science you would know that it is not done by 'consensus' anyway.  Were you even around in the 70's?  Just curious.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

If you need a 'primary scientific literature' to know what global climate alarmism is then you really are beyond help on this subject. I'm guessing you are not aware that the peer review process is pretty worthless anyway, esp. now that the climategate emails documented that it was being used to silence opposition to The Cause.

That darn conspiracy. Amazingly successful though. Makes Lenin/Trotsky/etc. look like pikers.

Uh Frisky...a little musical hint!...

"Someone is waiting just for you
Spinning wheel, Spinning true
Drop all your troubles by the riverside
Catch a painted pony on the spinning wheel ride"

The circle never ends either.

[FriskyFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Show me where I said that.  Oh, you can't.  Big surprise.  More to the point, if you knew anything about science you would know that it is not done by 'consensus' anyway.  Were you even around in the 70's?  Just curious.

Do you even read what you write?  I swear it's like talking to an autistic monkey.  

Yes, I was around in the 70s, which has zero to do with anything.

[Frog79]

FriskyFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

It is certainly worthless to your cause.  Those of us who dispassionately study research without a cause care about actual published data that has been verified by thousands of independent scientists.

Like the 31,487 scientists who think AGW is bunk:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This is vs.  the handful who wrote the IPCC nonsense that you see as 'dispassionate'.

[Frog79]

FriskyFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Do you even read what you write?  I swear it's like talking to an autistic monkey.  

Yes, I was around in the 70s, which has zero to do with anything.

Like I said. I had no idea how old you are. I was curious. Is that a crime?  You libs need to lighten up a bit, lol.

Now, about your nonsensical 'consensus'.  What does a 'consensus' prove?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Like the 31,487 scientists who think AGW is bunk:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This is vs.  the handful who wrote the IPCC nonsense that you see as 'dispassionate'.

Good lord, you're back to that again!  

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

The primary scientific literature like a single paper written by a guy who got kicked off wiki for dishonest scientific practices?  Yeah, that's got a lot of credibility.

Again, a refutation of said 'guy' given the open literature should be simple.  Said guy went out of his way to collect every reference he could find in the open literature about "global cooling."

And the guy was booted from wiki for lack of etiquette, not for dishonesty.

[Frog79]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

And the guy was booted from wiki for lack of etiquette, not for dishonesty.

No, he wasn't.  He was booted for heavy-handed censorship of anything he disagreed with.

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Like the 31,487 scientists who think AGW is bunk:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This is vs.  the handful who wrote the IPCC nonsense that you see as 'dispassionate'.

You are kidding, right?  Please tell me you are kidding.

[Frog79]

31K scientists who disagree with the AGW nonsense is no joke.  Four scientists, I believe, wrote the majority of the IPCC policy summary.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

You are kidding, right?  Please tell me you are kidding.

No. He's serious. He returns to it every 4-6 weeks.

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one

[RSF]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

You are kidding, right?  Please tell me you are kidding.

The Godwin's Law of global warming threads.......

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

No. He's serious. He returns to it every 4-6 weeks.

Too bad you can't refute it.  I asked you to try earlier but of course you could not.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

31K scientists who disagree with the AGW nonsense is no joke.  Four scientists, I believe, wrote the majority of the IPCC policy summary.

Morris "wrote the majority" of the Constitution.

Damned nonsense it is too.

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

31K scientists who disagree with the AGW nonsense is no joke.  Four scientists, I believe, wrote the majority of the IPCC policy summary.

Have you signed the petition?  You can.  Here it is: http://www.petitionp...W_Petition.pdf.

How many different papers were referenced in the IPCC.  How many scientists wrote the individual sections or contributed substantially?  How many then edited and reviewed each section cumulatively?

The IPCC reports arguably amount to the most broadly written summary of the state of a science that has ever been written.  With substantially more rigor than a pdf with a highly interpretable statement signed by 31,000 random people.  By all means, please sign the statement.  Your qualifications should be plenty.

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Morris "wrote the majority" of the Constitution.

Damned nonsense it is too.

Equating an honorable document like our Constitution with the odious IPCC propaganda document is beyond delusional.   At least our founding fathers did not have to claim some sort of "consensus" to get us to follow them - haha.

[RSF]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Your qualifications should be plenty.

hell, my qualifications are plenty.


Maybe I've already signed it...........

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 13 February 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

...   At least our founding fathers did not have to claim some sort of "consensus"...

Do you actually read what you type?

[FriskyFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 13 February 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

.  By all means, please sign the statement.  Your qualifications should be plenty.

He can tell them he read Newsweek in the 70s...