750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm

[WaltM]

Googling people of the same name? What? That has nothing to do with the study. The did it by researcher. Pretty simple to understand. They chose authors with more than 20 publications. Why are you arguing duplicates?

i'm read the report and no mention of "patent" appears.

They imposed a 20 publication limit, yes. They had to cut it off somewhere. What's the problem? None.

There is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed papers.

It's overwhelming for this guy's head.
He doesn't question what's published in Energy & Environment, so that's where his gospels come from. How he justifies his claims that something is "lie" "fraudulent" "discredited" "torn to shreds".

Every scientist is trying to make a name for him/herself, and if the "truth" about climate change came out, they would be all over it.

According to him (and the so called "skeptics"), those 30,000 ARE coming out over it. As is what he thinks about Climategate (there, I said it, HE THINKS).

But whats the reality? 97% of real scientists agree. As does every single scientific organization.

Not "agree" as in they "think so", but their review of data after scrutiny reveals as such, mind those who mistake this as a popularity contest or democracy.

Mr. Poptech even said "it's subjective" who is a climatologist.

I asked him, to the effect, at what point does ridicule, censorship, persecution become justifiable, his response was "never when it's unproven", but he won't tell you what's "proven" (or maybe his answer is, until he can't find SOME paper out there that isn't 100% conforming).

The right's obsession with non-science (like creationism/intelligent design) is really depressing.

I'm not going to play into their hands by calling them "the right", they're not always obsessed with non-science either, they're obsessed with science (or what they think of it) if it fits their pocket.

 

[Poptech]

Googling people of the same name? What? That has nothing to do with the study. The did it by researcher.

You have no remote idea what you are talking about, they used Google Scholar to do their "research". Now if you had any remote clue how Google Scholar worked you would understand what I stated. They simply did name and word searches for a "paper" count, where the search results include various bogus results that are not peer-reviewed and include results from people with similar last names.

Pretty simple to understand. They chose authors with more than 20 publications. Why are you arguing duplicates?

Apparently it is beyond you to understand the paper. The cherry picked away all the skeptics by declaring that they must have more than 20 published papers which is bullshit. But it is worse than that as they never verified the 20 Google Scholar search results for each author. I am arguing about duplicates because these show up in Google Scholar if you ever actually used it. Without verification of ever single result the paper is meaningless nonsense.

i'm read the report and no mention of "patent" appears.

No kidding! Google Scholar default searches for patents yet they never mentioned they turned this off!

They imposed a 20 publication limit, yes. They had to cut it off somewhere. What's the problem? None.

Because it is subjective bullshit as the results were never verified and someone publishing 20 as opposed to 10 papers is not evidence of "expert" status.

There is no overwhelming volume of skeptical peer reviewed papers. Every scientist is trying to make a name for him/herself, and if the "truth" about climate change came out, they would be all over it. But whats the reality? 97% of real scientists agree. As does every single scientific organization.

Yes there is an overwhelming volume of skeptical peer-reviewed papers,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Please show where you get your bullshit 97% number from so I can discredit it with the facts.

First of all every scientific organization does not support the alarmist position. Second could you please provide me the complete vote taken by any of your mentioned scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statement released by a handful of their council members.

The right's obsession with non-science (like creationism/intelligent design) is really depressing.

The right is not obsessed with this, religious conservatives are. The political right is made up of more than just religious conservatives. Again you have nothing as I support evolution theory.

 

[Poptech]

He doesn't question what's published in Energy & Environment, so that's where his gospels come from.

First of all I don't consider anything my "gospel" as I am religiously agnostic. I consider Energy & Environment a peer-reviewed academic journal, which I have demonstrated to be true.

As is what he thinks about Climategate (there, I said it, HE THINKS).

What I think about Climategate is based on reading and actually understand the emails in context,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

Mr. Poptech even said "it's subjective" who is a climatologist.

It is as I have demonstrated, since many prominent proponents of AGW theory do not have a degree in climatology,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

 

[WaltM]

First of all I don't consider anything my "gospel" as I am religiously agnostic. I consider Energy & Environment a peer-reviewed academic journal, which I have demonstrated to be true.

No, you've not demonstrated it to be true, you've only shown that 54 libraries worldwide carry the journal, which is less than the libraries that carry Journal for Historical Review.


While we're on the topic, since you "support evolution" and "debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories", do you believe those who think there's scientific dissent on evolution, or that 9/11 is a conspiracy are worthy of the ridicule, persecution, censorship which "climate skeptics" receive?

What I think about Climategate is based on reading and actually understand the emails in context,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)

The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

According to you, Mann's research is useless anyway, so Climategate at worst confirms what your own preconceived conclusion that Mann is wrong (or that only Mann supports AGW)

It is as I have demonstrated, since many prominent proponents of AGW theory do not have a degree in climatology,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

which is still not purely subjective. WOW, they're all natural scientists, not mathematician or economists!


Compare that to McIntyre, McKitrick, Loehle, McCullogh. (Loehle being the exception, they're all Irish)

 

[Poptech]

No, you've not demonstrated it to be true, you've only shown that 54 libraries worldwide carry the journal, which is less than the libraries that carry Journal for Historical Review.

Now you are getting desperate as you are just repeating the same lies I already discredited. It is not 54 but 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

I've already stated that the Journal for Historical Review is not a peer-reviewed journal and does not appear on any major publisher's list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E on the other hand explicitly does,

- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed journal (XLS)
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

Your continued denial of this is humorous.

While we're on the topic, since you "support evolution" and "debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories", do you believe those who think there's scientific dissent on evolution, or that 9/11 is a conspiracy are worthy of the ridicule, persecution, censorship which "climate skeptics" receive?

No I do not support persecution and censorship in a debate. Ridicule is freedom of speech regardless of the topic.

According to you, Mann's research is useless anyway, so Climategate at worst confirms what your own preconceived conclusion that Mann is wrong (or that only Mann supports AGW)

According to mathematics and statistics Mann's paleo-climate "research" is useless, this is correct. At worst Climategate confirms fraud and illegal activity on the part of prominent authors of the IPCC report.

which is still not purely subjective. WOW, they're all natural scientists, not mathematician or economists!

There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist. Gavin is a mathematician. If your implication is that there are no natural scientists who are skeptics, you would be dead wrong, here is a very small sample,

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Compare that to McIntyre, McKitrick, Loehle, McCullogh. (Loehle being the exception, they're all Irish)

Not to mention they can also be Scottish but who cares? I mean are you racist against those of Celtic descent? WTF does this have to do with anything?

 

[WaltM]

You have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge.

"You deny" does not need much evidence, but even if I gave any, you'll deny it again, denying is easy. A child could do that

On the other hand I have provided extensive evidence of your lies. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count.

"irrefutable lie proven", keep showing off your assertive language, you're only proving yourself to yourself.

You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site.

That's an example of a mistake, which I apologized for.

You have failed to provide any evidence to support the implication that the membership bodies of the scientific organizations touted as proof of the alleged "consensus" support these organization's position statements released by their handful of council members. Without providing such evidence they cannot be used in support of this position.

I never claimed that.

I can tell you what is unacceptable evidence, such as various tree-ring proxy reconstructions since tree-ring's are influenced by more than just temperature changes. I also find unacceptable any proxy reconstruction that has not undergone the necessary due-diligence to verify the reconstruction.

By this standard, the Loehle and McCulloch paper didn't prove anything about MWP.

Something that peer-review does not provide but McIntyre has demonstrated to be a necessity before any such reconstruction can remotely be taken seriously.

In other words, MWP can't be taken seriously?

This statement does not make any sense

Read it again.
The point is, for every library that carries E&E, they also carry other scientific journals.

Actually if you can add (obviously you cannot) it is Found at 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.

I didn't ignore this response, I missed it, you would know I'm desperate to reply you.

I responded to your claim that "all these great universities have it", these happen to be the biggest libraries, so naturally they collect what they can.

WOrldcat even categorizes E&E as policy and energy (rather than direct science, for science sake). In addition, E&E's own mission statement admits their discipline.

This is not a peer-reviewed journal but a magazine and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed. There is no question that various magazines will be carried far more often than journals will. This is an idiotic argument.

that's what happens when you try to play the numbers game.

This is not a peer-reviewed journal and is not found on any major publishers list of peer-reviewed publications, E&E is found on multiple ones and explicitly designated as peer-reviewed.

No it is not, your inability to read and then fabricate strawman arguments from things that are not stated anywhere on the list is not my problem.

Your inability to consider not everybody who disagrees with you either intentionally lies, is a zealot, or fabricates strawman arguments is your problem.

My standards are that all papers must be peer-reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal. I have successfully demonstrated this in each case.

With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen.
(nothing against Irish, just noting they're the same familiar names repeated as experts you cling on to).

Again, you go on with your assertive language that you successfully prove something, only to yourself.

Strawman again as this is not stated. You cannot fabricated your made up criteria for a list that explicitly states what it is about.

No oops, this is what the list says and what the title of this thread says. Since this original post the list has been updated to over 800 papers.

New studies or just new findings?
Anything the media didn't cover about the new 50 papers?

Let the readers decide what? 911 has nothing to do with Global Warming.

You don't find it funny that 911 truthers buy your AGW denial?

I already know the 911 conspiracy theorists position on AGW alarm as it is explicitly skeptical. This is demonstrated by anyone who ever reads PrisonPlanet or InfoWars. Both sites are right on this issue. So your tactic here will have no effect on their skeptical AGW alarm position.

My tactic wasn't mean to have any effect on deniers, or 9/11 truthers.

It was no mistake, you lied as you are desperately trying to do anything you can to get people not read what I have to say about AGW alarm. You cannot win a real debate on this issue so you resort to these dishonest tactics.

Uh, no.

You again revealed your tactics, just like creationists and conspiracy theorists, holding that winning a debate is the only way to settle a question (particularly when it comes to science).

Resort to dishonest tactics? Ha, what is this? Kettle & pot?

Yep and no mention of being against legalization.

I've retracted and apologized for my mistake.

When you stop lying I will say so, in the future if you do not want to be called out on your lies, don't state any.

No you won't. Whoever disagrees with you is a called liar, fraud, idiot or zealot, that's proven true 100% of the time by you.

Or did I miss an incident where you have respectful disagreements? (Yes, I know to you, some people deserve no respect.

Lie, again you fabricate something I never said. The listing of libraries was to show that E&E can be found in major libraries around the world and is taken seriously.

Your tiring nonsense about the non-science of creationism is sad and pathetic.

Your repetition of your own circular arguments is what's pathetic.

Correct the article is written by me but it is fully sourced and debunks various misinformation that people like you commonly state.

This quote states nothing about any scientific bias. E&E actually encourages debate.

enough said.

 

[WaltM]

There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist.

Yes there is.

Or at least, there's a good way to tell how serious a person is about a topic, it's called experience, research (first hand) and peer reviewed publications. Credentials help too.

Some are more qualified than others, but it's not purely subjective (otherwise I would be one too).

Gavin is a mathematician. If your implication is that there are no natural scientists who are skeptics, you would be dead wrong, here is a very small sample,


John R. Christy,
Patrick J. Michaels

Richard S. Lindzen

Roy W. Spencer

These names sound familiar, they don't deny GW, Lindzen questions IPCC & CO2's cause, if I remembered correctly.

Do any of these 4 hold the position that MWP was warmer?
(this will help tell whether E&E is taken seriously, in case you wonder why I ask)

Not to mention they can also be Scottish but who cares? I mean are you racist against those of Celtic descent? WTF does this have to do with anything?

I appreciate you being able to tell a joke from a lie.

 

[WaltM]

Now you are getting desperate as you are just repeating the same lies I already discredited. It is not 54 but 136 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form.

Granted I was slightly desperate and amused as to how you measure peer review, I didn't see there's 136 total, it was an honest mistake and I wont use this argument again. But "discredit" isn't the right word (my comment had to be meant as an authoritative or reliable credit to begin with), refute, correct, responded would be better for this context. I don't know if you're intentionally misleading, or just not sure how to use words in describing mistakes, your tactics DO reflect the exact people you accuse.

 

[Poptech]

"You deny" does not need much evidence, but even if I gave any, you'll deny it again, denying is easy. A child could do that

Again, you have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge. I on the other hand have proven you have lied multiple times.

"irrefutable lie proven", keep showing off your assertive language, you're only proving yourself to yourself.

Again, you lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. That is not just assertive language but an irrefutable fact.

I never claimed that.

I never said you did but you are attempting to defend reillym's unsupportable position regarding certain scientific organizations position statements and it's relation to their membership bodies.

By this standard, the Loehle and McCulloch paper didn't prove anything about MWP.

In other words, MWP can't be taken seriously?

First of all Loehle's paper was based on non-tree ring proxies and thus meets the first standard,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

After undergoing the necessary due-diligence a correction was issued which meets the second standard,

Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

The corrected estimates are very similar to the original results, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ... While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values

Thus their conclusions can be taken seriously.

Read it again. The point is, for every library that carries E&E, they also carry other scientific journals.

It still does not make any sense. So what if the universities carry other scientific journals? The point is they carry E&E.

I responded to your claim that "all these great universities have it", these happen to be the biggest libraries, so naturally they collect what they can.

WOrldcat even categorizes E&E as policy and energy (rather than direct science, for science sake). In addition, E&E's own mission statement admits their discipline.

Strawman argument and debunked here,

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage,

"Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level.

that's what happens when you try to play the numbers game.

What happens? You illogically compare magazines to peer-reviewed journals?

Your inability to consider not everybody who disagrees with you either intentionally lies, is a zealot, or fabricates strawman arguments is your problem.

Again another strawman argument, I do not consider this about everyone who disagrees with me just people who have repeatedly demonstrated this such as yourself.

With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen.
(nothing against Irish, just noting they're the same familiar names repeated as experts you cling on to).

Again, you go on with your assertive language that you successfully prove something, only to yourself.

Lie, as only a handful of E&E papers are from those scientists your mentioned. You are a like a perpetual strawman factory as I don't repeat those names and do not cling to them.

I have proven it to every rational person who reads these comments.

New studies or just new findings?
Anything the media didn't cover about the new 50 papers?

Both and I do not follow what the media reports in relation to these papers which is irrelevant anyway.

You don't find it funny that 911 truthers buy your AGW denial?

My tactic wasn't mean to have any effect on deniers, or 9/11 truthers.

I find it funny that you think using 911 conspiracy theorists helps your case. Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven. Yes I do not share your religious belief in AGW, this is true.

Your tactic is a sad attempt to get me to attack them and them to not listen to what I have to say. You have failed on all counts as they already support my position.

Uh, no.

You again revealed your tactics, just like creationists and conspiracy theorists, holding that winning a debate is the only way to settle a question (particularly when it comes to science).

Resort to dishonest tactics? Ha, what is this? Kettle & pot?

Why are you so weak minded that you need to inject creationists and conspiracy theorists into a debate about climate change? Is it because your actual scientific arguments cannot hold water? I believe so.

No you won't. Whoever disagrees with you is a called liar, fraud, idiot or zealot, that's proven true 100% of the time by you.

Wrong, you keep stating lies and thus will continue to be called a liar which you are and this has been demonstrated. Again you lie, prove where I have called someone a liar who did not state a lie.

Or did I miss an incident where you have respectful disagreements? (Yes, I know to you, some people deserve no respect.

Respectful disagreements require - #1 Not lying about something I said or did and #2 Not injecting nonsense about creationists, conspiracy theorists or right-wing politics into the discussion. You have failed on all counts.

Your repetition of your own circular arguments is what's pathetic.

Again you continue to lie as nothing I have stated was a circular argument. Due to your lies and strawman arguments I have been forced to defend myself from nonsense but these statements in my defense are not circular they are repetitive because you keep repeating the same lies.

Yes there is.

Or at least, there's a good way to tell how serious a person is about a topic, it's called experience, research (first hand) and peer reviewed publications. Credentials help too.

Some are more qualified than others, but it's not purely subjective (otherwise I would be one too).

Really? Oh, ok then this should be easy. Please provide the objective procedure to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Make sure nothing you state is a subjective opinion.

These names sound familiar, they don't deny GW, Lindzen questions IPCC & CO2's cause, if I remembered correctly.

Again another strawman as no prominent skeptic denies there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age, what they are skeptical about is how much if any is caused by man, especially man-made CO2 and none support alarmist consequences.

Do any of these 4 hold the position that MWP was warmer?
(this will help tell whether E&E is taken seriously, in case you wonder why I ask)

They all do. E&E is not the only journal that has papers supporting the MWP being warmer than today,

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

 

[WaltM]

Again, you have dishonestly accused me of lying while offering absolutely no evidence to support this charge. I on the other hand have proven you have lied multiple times.

You proved it to yourself. How impressive!

Again, you lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. That is not just assertive language but an irrefutable fact.

According to you, yeah, I'm used to it at this point.

I never said you did but you are attempting to defend reillym's unsupportable position regarding certain scientific organizations position statements and it's relation to their membership bodies.

so don't ask me for evidence on something I never claimed.

First of all Loehle's paper was based on non-tree ring proxies and thus meets the first standard,

What is it about your first standard that says Loehle's data is based on proxies ONLY temperature affected? We know tree ring data can be influenced by other things than temperature, is that the ONLY kind of proxy data with this inherent uncertainty?

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

After undergoing the necessary due-diligence a correction was issued which meets the second standard,

Due diligence is an imaginary land made up in your head to say Loehle has passed such a test. The only correction the was adding error ranges.

Thus their conclusions can be taken seriously. (by you)

It still does not make any sense. So what if the universities carry other scientific journals? The point is they carry E&E.

The fact you don't see "so what" says it all.

Strawman argument and debunked here,

Ha, not a strawman, and not debunked, we actually agree!

E&E makes no claim to be a pure natural science journal but instead explicitly states that they are an interdisciplinary journal that includes papers that cover both the natural and social sciences. This is effectively stated on their webpage,

Yeah, that's what I said. No stawman to debunk, you admitted it.

So the best arguments, the journal most cited by you, is admittedly not a pure natural science journal.

What happens? You illogically compare magazines to peer-reviewed journals?

No, you illogically started with running numbers as to who carries E&E.

Again another strawman argument, I do not consider this about everyone who disagrees with me just people who have repeatedly demonstrated this such as yourself.

Is this the first sentence you've typed that doesn't contain the words, lie, zealot, fraudulent, discredited, debunked, idiot? You don't consider this about everyone who disagrees with you, that's why you yell liar, zealot, fraudulent on a regular basis to a person who bothers replying to you (real scientists don't take you seriously, you know that already).

Lie, as only a handful of E&E papers are from those scientists your mentioned. You are a like a perpetual strawman factory as I don't repeat those names and do not cling to them.

I have proven it to every rational person who reads these comments.

No you haven't, and I can only repeat what you repeat, sorry, it's you.

You wanna come back with a fresher list of papers or arguments, I'm not the only reader.

Both and I do not follow what the media reports in relation to these papers which is irrelevant anyway.

But you follow the media reports on climategate. Convenient!

I find it funny that you think using 911 conspiracy theorists helps your case.

I don't need to help my case, nice try.

Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven. Yes I do not share your religious belief in AGW, this is true.

So if I've not seen you pop out of your mom's womb, it's not empirically proven you are your mom's son, and I can say it's RELIGIOUS belief that she is your mom?
(go cry strawman, I've heard enough for your denial)

Your tactic is a sad attempt to get me to attack them and them to not listen to what I have to say. You have failed on all counts as they already support my position.

You already attack them, I can't lead idiots to think, and you're happy to use them for your cause.

Why are you so weak minded that you need to inject creationists and conspiracy theorists into a debate about climate change? Is it because your actual scientific arguments cannot hold water? I believe so.

How humble you know how to use the word "believe".

Wrong, you keep stating lies and thus will continue to be called a liar which you are and this has been demonstrated. Again you lie, prove where I have called someone a liar who did not state a lie.

Every time you called me a liar, I wasn't lying.

Respectful disagreements require - #1 Not lying about something I said or did and #2 Not injecting nonsense about creationists, conspiracy theorists or right-wing politics into the discussion. You have failed on all counts.

No, I've not failed, you only say so to yourself.

Again you continue to lie as nothing I have stated was a circular argument.

Actually, most if not all of them are.

It's blatantly obvious from how you cite E&E, McKitrick, McIntyre, and then your own standards to validate your own scrutiny (call it "due diligence).

Due to your lies and strawman arguments I have been forced to defend myself from nonsense but these statements in my defense are not circular they are repetitive because you keep repeating the same lies.

So now I get your tactic, you start by calling somebody a liar, and then continue to say the same thing over and over. As long as you call somebody a liar, they're forced to defend themselves either by apology, correction, or admission of mistake, none of which would take away your accusation.

Really? Oh, ok then this should be easy. Please provide the objective procedure to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Make sure nothing you state is a subjective opinion.

Ha. Nice try!

I said it's not purely subjective (not that it can't be somewhat imperfect, or that there's purely no criteria).

Of course, you can't convince deniers. So whatever I present, will only cost you a breath of "No, that's subjective, I win" to render it a waste of time explaining something to a person who isn't listening.

Again another strawman as no prominent skeptic denies there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age, what they are skeptical about is how much if any is caused by man, especially man-made CO2 and none support alarmist consequences.

Help me here, what would convince these scientists that it's caused by man?

They all do. E&E is not the only journal that has papers supporting the MWP being warmer than today,

So how much warmer than MWP should today's temperature be to justify alarmism (this is assuming MWP reconstruction is true according to Loehle)

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

Looks like a good source, but lacks good data.

The Case for a Global Event
The case for a global Medieval Warm Period
admittedly remains inconclusive. But keeping
in mind that most proxies do not have adequate
sensitivity, it is interesting that those capable
of resolving temperature changes of less
than 1 "C yield results consistent with a global
Medieval Warm Period.

Did I miss context?

 

[Poptech]

I have proven you have lied multiple times. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site. You lied that each E&E paper is from the same group of scientists ect...

According to you, yeah, I'm used to it at this point.

No according to anyone who can do basic math skills such as counting.

so don't ask me for evidence on something I never claimed.

Don't try to defend something you cannot provide evidence for.

What is it about your first standard that says Loehle's data is biased on proxies ONLY temperature affected? We know tree ring data can be influenced by other things than temperature, is that the ONLY kind of proxy data with this inherent uncertainty?

Again another Strawman, I never said that, I stated that tree-ring proxies were affected by more than just temperature. They are the one proxy that is influenced by the most factors besides temperature such as sunlight, wind, precipitation, soil, age, fire, pests, disease and CO2.

Due diligence is an imaginary land made up in your head to say Loehle has passed such a test. The only correction the was adding error ranges.

Due-diligence was met as all challenges of reconstruction of his work were passed with the data and methods fully available for reproduction. The fact that only minor changes were done in the correction only proves the robustness of his work.

Ha, not a strawman, and not debunked, we actually agree!

So the best arguments, the journal most cited by you, is admittedly not a pure natural science journal.

Strawman as no claim was made that they were a natural science journal. Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal, this has been established many times. I understand you think this somehow discredits the journal but that is due to your confusion about the peer-review process. Journal coverage type has nothing to do with peer-review. Science papers published in E&E are peer-reviewed by appropriate natural scientists.

No, you illogically started with running numbers as to who carries E&E.

It was not illogical, it was to point out that E&E is a journal carried by major libraries and universities and thus taken seriously.

Is this the first sentence you've typed that doesn't contain the words, lie, zealot, fraudulent, discredited, debunked, idiot? You don't consider this about everyone who disagrees with you, that's why you yell liar, zealot, fraudulent on a regular basis to a person who bothers replying to you (real scientists don't take you seriously, you know that already).

Another lie as multiple sentences here do not include these words. Such as my first sentence in my first reply, "You haven't found anything discrediting anybody." I only call people liars who state lies, zealots who act like them, fraudulent when they are fraudulent, discredited when they are discredited, debunked when they are debunked and idiots when they shown signs of idiocy. If you would stop stating all of these I will be more than happy to stop calling you out for what you are doing. Real scientists take me very seriously as I have received many emails from such scientists.

No you haven't, and I can only repeat what you repeat, sorry, it's you.

Prove me wrong, defend your statement, "With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen." It is a lie by anyone who has actually looked at the list.

You wanna come back with a fresher list of papers or arguments, I'm not the only reader.

This is illogical as I already have an overwhelming list of papers that you obviously feel very threatened by which is why you feel the need to dishonestly try to discredit the list yet have done nothing but fail at it. My arguments are all sound.

But you follow the media reports on climategate. Convenient!

This doesn't even make any sense. First of all I follow Climategate in general and papers published by skeptics none of which has to do with "following the media".

I don't need to help my case, nice try.

I agree as you have none.

So if I've not seen you pop out of your mom's womb, it's not empirically proven you are your mom's son, and I can say it's RELIGIOUS belief that she is your mom? (go cry strawman, I've heard enough for your denial)

Not a strawman just stupid. Your weak minded knee jerk use of the word denial continues to make me laugh.

You already attack them, I can't lead idiots to think, and you're happy to use them for your cause.

I don't use anybody, they are right on this issue. They are entitled to their opinions on other issues even if we disagree none of which has anything to do with climate change.

Every time you called me a liar, I wasn't lying.

You can feign denial all you want. What you stated was not true and I believe you are lying.

No, I've not failed, you only say so to yourself.

Yes you have failed. You are the biggest hypocrite, you lie, smear and inject propaganda into a discussion then complain about "respectful disagreement".

Actually, most if not all of them are.

Name one.

It's blatantly obvious from how you cite E&E, McKitrick, McIntyre, and then your own standards to validate your own scrutiny (call it "due diligence).

Yes "due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review, McIntyre has irrefutably demonstrated this by anyone who is intellectually honest.

So now I get your tactic, you start by calling somebody a liar, and then continue to say the same thing over and over. As long as you call somebody a liar, they're forced to defend themselves either by apology, correction, or admission of mistake, none of which would take away your accusation.

My tactic is to call people who lie, liars. I realize you are used to getting away with lying about other people without getting called out, that does not work with me. Honest mistakes do not come from people who throw around the word denial or inject creationism, holocaust denial or conspiracy theories into these debates. People like this (you) are the lowest of the low and I will not take back what I explicitly said and believe to be true.

I said it's not purely subjective (not that it can't be somewhat imperfect, or that there's purely no criteria).

"not purely subjective" is a logical fallacy. Something is either subjective or it is objective.

Of course, you can't convince deniers. So whatever I present, will only cost you a breath of "No, that's subjective, I win" to render it a waste of time explaining something to a person who isn't listening.

You cannot convince someone who understands the difference between a subjective and objective argument (such as myself). I win because I am right and you have failed to prove otherwise.

Help me here, what would convince these scientists that it's caused by man?

Empirical evidence not modeled results.

So how much warmer than MWP should today's temperature be to justify alarmism (this is assuming MWP reconstruction is true according to Loehle)

Nothing justifies alarmism as there is nothing to support it.

 

[WaltM]

I have proven you have lied multiple times. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site. You lied that each E&E paper is from the same group of scientists ect...

No, I didn't.

You want to take back your lies or keep saying I lied?
Up to you, you're not helping yourself.

No according to anyone who can do basic math skills such as counting.

Not if they don't know what they're looking for.

Don't try to defend something you cannot provide evidence for.

Wasn't trying to.

Why so defensive?

Again another Strawman, I never said that, I stated that tree-ring proxies were affected by more than just temperature. They are the one proxy that is influenced by the most factors besides temperature such as sunlight, wind, precipitation, soil, age, fire, pests, disease and CO2.

So, other proxies are susceptible as well. Just not as much?

Due-diligence was met as all challenges of reconstruction of his work were passed with the data and methods fully available for reproduction.

All challenges?

Available for reproduction, yet nobody else did it.
(surely if another serious scientist wanted to be famous, he'd write a paper and you'd be desperate to list it for me)

The fact that only minor changes were done in the correction only proves the robustness of his work.

No, it's an error range that's due in any serious scientific work. Proves no robustness, just allows more open ends (as I've pointed out earlier, it fits into Mann's hockeystick error bars anyway).

Strawman as no claim was made that they were a natural science journal. Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal, this has been established many times.

So it's not a strawman, it's what I said and you agreed. You insist on saying I'm making strawman arguments when you agree with me (and vice versa). Is it an ego thing to you that I always have to be wrong (even when I say exactly what you said)?

I understand you think this somehow discredits the journal but that is due to your confusion about the peer-review process. Journal coverage type has nothing to do with peer-review. Science papers published in E&E are peer-reviewed by appropriate natural scientists.

Such as McIntyre & McKitrick in this case?
Journal coverage has something to do with the peers and reviewer they use, does it not?

It was not illogical, it was to point out that E&E is a journal carried by major libraries and universities and thus taken seriously.

That's exactly what's illogical. Being carried by major libraries is an indication that it's NOT necessarily carried for its scholar value, but for archival and reference purposes (just as an alternative possibility).

Another lie as multiple sentences here do not include these words. Such as my first sentence in my first reply, "You haven't found anything discrediting anybody." I only call people liars who state lies, zealots who act like them, fraudulent when they are fraudulent, discredited when they are discredited, debunked when they are debunked and idiots when they shown signs of idiocy.

All of which are from your circular definition.

You can an idiot, whoever is an idiot to you.

You proved my point again, saying that I said a "lie" when I clearly put it in a question form with a ? mark. (is it my turn to say you can't read?)

If you would stop stating all of these I will be more than happy to stop calling you out for what you are doing. Real scientists take me very seriously as I have received many emails from such scientists.

I've stopped caring what you're happy to do. Apparently you're happy to come back here spitting, and calling me a liar in hopes you'll bully me to shut up.

(that you failed by the way)

Prove me wrong, defend your statement, "With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen." It is a lie by anyone who has actually looked at the list.

You proved yourself the list doesn't matter, or else you'd not keep posting the same handful of articles (unless you intentionally wanted to save the best for last, why shouldn't I assume you exhausted the best arguments by now).

This is illogical as I already have an overwhelming list of papers that you obviously feel very threatened by which is why you feel the need to dishonestly try to discredit the list yet have done nothing but fail at it. My arguments are all sound.

Nobody can do a better job at discrediting the list than yourself.

You've created a thread to promote your agenda, admitted it since, and every answer you give from my questions confirms it.

The "overwhelming list that threatens" is for you, you're the one that finds it overwhelming.

This doesn't even make any sense. First of all I follow Climategate in general and papers published by skeptics none of which has to do with "following the media".

What does it mean to "follow in general" not the media?

I agree as you have none.

took you this long to realize?

Not a strawman just stupid. Your weak minded knee jerk use of the word denial continues to make me laugh.

Why stupid?

 

[WaltM]

I don't use anybody, they are right on this issue. They are entitled to their opinions on other issues even if we disagree none of which has anything to do with climate change.

They're entitled to your ridicule.

You can feign denial all you want. What you stated was not true and I believe you are lying.

You believe, fair enough.

Yes you have failed. You are the biggest hypocrite, you lie, smear and inject propaganda into a discussion then complain about "respectful disagreement".

I stopped complaining, now I'm just enjoying it.

Name one.

You say that hockeystick is discredited.
Because it's discredited by people and papers you trust.
I ask why is it not reliable, you say it's not robust enough, no due diligance.
When I ask you what's due diligance, or what's good evidence, you say, the paper you cite from E&E is what you accept.
If I ask you why you accept it and why it's due diligance, what is your non-circular answer ? Because it's peer reviewed? (if so, then all pro-AGW papers are too).

Yes "due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review, McIntyre has irrefutably demonstrated this by anyone who is intellectually honest.

Says you.

My tactic is to call people who lie, liars. I realize you are used to getting away with lying about other people without getting called out, that does not work with me.

No, I'm not used to lying.

You're just used to calling people liar, that doesn't work with me.

Honest mistakes do not come from people who throw around the word denial or inject creationism, holocaust denial or conspiracy theories into these debates.

In different places of the discussion.

My invoking of creationism, holocaust denial and conspiracy theories were not lies, and not mistakes, so they're not honest mistakes, why did you bring this up? In attempt to distract people from your claims that I'm a liar.

People like this (you) are the lowest of the low and I will not take back what I explicitly said and believe to be true.

By now admitting "you believe it to be true", I consider that a take back.

"not purely subjective" is a logical fallacy. Something is either subjective or it is objective.

Ha. So your name is either subjectively Andrew or objectively Andrew?
Ever heard of the fallacy of false dichotomy?

You cannot convince someone who understands the difference between a subjective and objective argument (such as myself). I win because I am right and you have failed to prove otherwise.

I can't convince somebody who believes only what he wants to believe.
You think you win because you think you're right and I've failed to convince you you're wrong (not news to me).

Did you know I can say that to myself?

Empirical evidence not modeled results.

So you'd have to see a person pumping CO2 into a chamber and the temperature immediately rising?

Nothing justifies alarmism as there is nothing to support it.

Again, your deceptively assertive language.

I know you're not convinced now. I'm asking you WHAT WOULD JUSTIFY ALARMISM WITH SUPPORT?

 

[Poptech]

No, I didn't. You want to take back your lies or keep saying I lied? Up to you, you're not helping yourself.

You did lie, multiple times,

1. You lied that most of the papers other than those that were in E&E were policy papers, this is an irrefutable lie proven by anyone who can count,

"16% of which are from 'Energy and Environment' Most of the rest are Policy papers (not scientific journals)"

This is a lie as the policy papers are only under the Climategate, IPCC, Kyoto, Socio-Economic and Stern Review section adding up to just over 100 papers.

2. You lied that the website opposes legalization of marijuana when it makes no mention of this anywhere on the site,

"...and opposes legalization of marijuana."

This is a lie as legalization is not mentioned anywhere on the site.

3. You lied that each E&E paper is from the same group of scientists,

"With each E&E article being from the list of Irishmen."

This is a lie as there are only two E&E papers from McIntyre that he coauthored with McKitrick plus an additional one McKitrick did on his own and two more from McCulloch, that is only five out of all the E&E papers on the list.

I can back up everything I state.

Not if they don't know what they're looking for.

Which obviously includes you as the policy papers are only under the Climategate, IPCC, Kyoto, Socio-Economic and Stern Review section adding up to just over 100 papers.

Wasn't trying to. Why so defensive?

You are the one who tried to defend him.

So, other proxies are susceptible as well. Just not as much?

Yes some proxies are better than others, tree-rings being some of the worst.

All challenges?

Available for reproduction, yet nobody else did it.

Yes all challenges and all the data is available for reproduction, those challenging Loehle have done so and got the same results which why you don't find them anywhere, instead they make other excuses. But anyone can do the reproduction with the full data and methods available.

No, it's an error range that's due in any serious scientific work. Proves no robustness, just allows more open ends (as I've pointed out earlier, it fits into Mann's hockeystick error bars anyway).

It is much more robust than Mann's which has no statistical relevance. Mann's error bars are a joke and make the papers conclusions meaningless.

So it's not a strawman, it's what I said and you agreed. You insist on saying I'm making strawman arguments when you agree with me (and vice versa). Is it an ego thing to you that I always have to be wrong (even when I say exactly what you said)?

No it is a strawman as I made no claim that the best arguments are from E&E as you erroneously claimed, "So the best arguments, the journal most cited by you, is admittedly not a pure natural science journal."

Now you are lying that I am agreeing with you when I have done no such thing. It is not an ego thing, you have been demonstratively wrong over and over.

Such as McIntyre & McKitrick in this case?

In what case? McIntyre for instance has been asked to be a reviewer for paleo-climate papers in prominent climate journals. But for your implication E&E uses a large body of credentialed natural scientists to review their science papers. McKitrick is not a natural scientist so he would not be asked to be a reviewer on such papers unless the paper involved policy. E&E's papers are peer-reviewed by 3 or more appropriate reviewers.

Journal coverage has something to do with the peers and reviewer they use, does it not?

No as reviewers are chosen based on the contents of the paper. An economist would not review a science paper and visa-versa.

That's exactly what's illogical. Being carried by major libraries is an indication that it's NOT necessarily carried for its scholar value, but for archival and reference purposes (just as an alternative possibility).

Libraries only carry journals for scholarly value as they have limited space and funds.

All of which are from your circular definition.

Not circular but factual as defined by their definitions. If someone states a lie (defined) "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." then they are called a liar ect...

These are not opinions as I can factually prove what was stated was untrue.

You proved my point again, saying that I said a "lie" when I clearly put it in a question form with a ? mark.

Pretending to ask a question does not make your comment anymore disingenuous or the smear any less implicit.

I've stopped caring what you're happy to do. Apparently you're happy to come back here spitting, and calling me a liar in hopes you'll bully me to shut up.

I take liars very seriously, there is no bullying around in real life if someone was stating these lies about me or my work I would not let them get away with it and take legal action. The problem is online, liars like yourself can go around with no real life consequences.

(that you failed by the way)

Let me make you a promise you will NEVER shut me up for eternity. So deal with it big boy.

You proved yourself the list doesn't matter, or else you'd not keep posting the same handful of articles (unless you intentionally wanted to save the best for last, why shouldn't I assume you exhausted the best arguments by now).

Your obsessive lying about the list proves it matters otherwise you would not waste all this energy trying desperately but failing to discredit it. I post the most relevant articles to whatever is being discussed.

Nobody can do a better job at discrediting the list than yourself.

You've created a thread to promote your agenda, admitted it since, and every answer you give from my questions confirms it.

The "overwhelming list that threatens" is for you, you're the one that finds it overwhelming.

I have done nothing to discredit the list to the contrary I have refuted all your bullshit lies about it. I created the thread to share the resource with those looking for it. Again you state another lie, I don't find the list personally overwhelming at all, I find it overwhelming evidence against AGW alarm.

took you this long to realize?

To realize you have no case? I knew this from the beginning.

They're entitled to your ridicule.

No you are entitled to my ridicule.

You say that hockeystick is discredited.
Because it's discredited by people and papers you trust.
I ask why is it not reliable, you say it's not robust enough, no due diligance.
When I ask you what's due diligance, or what's good evidence, you say, the paper you cite from E&E is what you accept.
If I ask you why you accept it and why it's due diligance, what is your non-circular answer ? Because it's peer reviewed? (if so, then all pro-AGW papers are too).

This is a strawman argument and stupid. I am not even responding to these anymore.

I have demonstrated you to be a liar multiple times. I will never take anything back about you ever as everything I stated was 100% true. I am right because you have failed to prove that how to determine a climate scientist is not subjective.

You bring up creationism and such because you need a lobotomy. You have been discredited on all counts. Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change.

 

[Bruno]

Global Warming Skeptics Handbook II

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

 

[WaltM]

I take liars very seriously, there is no bullying around in real life if someone was stating these lies about me or my work I would knock them the fuck out end of story. The problem is online, liars like yourself can go around with no real life consequences.

So you want me to have real life consequences? Is that it?

Let me make you a promise you will NEVER shut me up for eternity. So deal with it big boy.

Sounds good.

Your obsessive lying about the list proves it matters otherwise you would not waste all this energy trying desperately but failing to discredit it. I post the most relevant articles to whatever is being discussed.

Yeah, which is what I said, your best articles used to support your claims come from E&E.

I have done nothing to discredit the list to the contrary I have refuted all your bullshit lies about it. I created the thread to share the resource with those looking for it. Again you state another lie, I don't find the list personally overwhelming at all, I find it overwhelming evidence against AGW alarm.

Obviously you didn't discredit what you say to yourself, you did so to readers, our exchange shows that extensively.

To realize you have no case? I knew this from the beginning.

No you didn't, you else you wouldn't say "help your case".

No you are entitled to my ridicule.

I sure am.

This is a strawman argument and stupid. I am not even responding to these anymore.

Because you CAN'T outside of circular argumentation and self assertion.

I have demonstrated you to be a liar multiple times. I will never take anything back about you ever as everything I stated was 100% true. I am right because you have failed to prove that how to determine a climate scientist is not subjective.

Ha, I never said it's not subjective (or that it's complete objective), I only said it's not "purely subjective", a possibility you don't even consider. Or will you take back that it's purely subjective?

If it's purely subjective, why are you and I not considered climate scientists?

You bring up creationism and such because you need a lobotomy. You have been discredited on all counts. Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change.

So what DOES?? Please provide a testable experiment and an expected result.

 

[WaltM]

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry,
3000 times more than Big-oil.

Yeah, and big government also spends more on fighting crime, compared to those who fund crime.

The biggest deal of this booklet is : that CRU data isn't available, which at best would open that MWP was warmer (so the question for skeptics is, how much warmer does is have to be to make it man-made?).

 

[WaltM]

Rebuttals:
Failed attempts at "debunking" this list include,
- Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. If they were counted the paper count would be +50 papers.)

Not quite relevant when quality and significance is considered.

- Lying about the list being debunked because certain papers on the list do not "refute" AGW theory. (All papers support either skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.)

So how many actually do?

- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)

Given your claim that whether one is a climatologist "purely subjective", this is less relevant

- Lying about the inclusion of a paper on this list as a representation of the personal position of it's author in regards to AGW theory. (It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors".)

Thereby admitting, you add to your list and read what you want to read, not what the author wants you to read.

- Lying about all climate related papers not on this list endorsing AGW theory. (There are thousands of climate related papers but few explicitly endorse AGW theory.)

How many explicitly endorse it? Is it my handful?
How many explicitly refute it (nevermind, you'll just repeat your E&E papers)

- Lying that certain paper's age make them "outdated". (The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1886 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 200 papers published since 2007 on the list.)

Age alone does not outdate a paper, papers however, are challenged, refuted, retracted and answered.

- Lying that Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos "refute" peer-reviewed papers (That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.)

WOW, sounds familiar, this is the exact tactic you employ!

Making a blog, citing papers you want, and read what you want to read.

Then repeat the words LIE, FRAUDULENT, DISCREDITED, REFUTED.

- Lying that since some of the papers are mutually exclusive the list is falsified.

That's hardly a lie, so your tactic is to "always be open", and collect as many remotely relevant papers as you can, but never taking a specific position or coherent theory.

(The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.)

which allows you to jump around and never have to admit you're wrong, because you don't state a testable case.

If you were to actually formulate a theory or argument, your list would be dramatically smaller (this is not to say numbers are weaker).

 

[Poptech]

So you want me to have real life consequences? Is that it?

I am simply explaining why you are able to get away with lying and how I handle liars in real life.

Yeah, which is what I said, your best articles used to support your claims come from E&E.

No some of my papers to support certain claims comes from E&E.

Obviously you didn't discredit what you say to yourself, you did so to readers, our exchange shows that extensively.

I have not discredited myself to my readers as anyone intellectually honest (not you) can see by reading these exchanges.

No you didn't, you else you wouldn't say "help your case".

It was sarcasm.

Because you CAN'T outside of circular argumentation and self assertion.

No it is a strawman argument,

You say that hockeystick is discredited.
Because it's discredited by people and papers you trust.
I ask why is it not reliable, you say it's not robust enough, no due diligance.
When I ask you what's due diligance, or what's good evidence, you say, the paper you cite from E&E is what you accept.
If I ask you why you accept it and why it's due diligance, what is your non-circular answer ? Because it's peer reviewed? (if so, then all pro-AGW papers are too).

I never said it was discredited by people I trust, I never used this chain of events to argue anything. You manufactured this nonsense from various replies to make your strawman argument. The Hockey Stick is discredit based on math and statistics and the peer-reviewed hockey stick papers on my list,

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data (PDF)
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.

- Response to Comment on "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data" (PDF)
(Science, Volume 312, Number 5773, pp. 529, April 2006)
- Hans von Storch et al.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape...

- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Loehle paper is not used to discredit the hockey stick, it is simply evidence of an alternative reconstruction using non tree-ring proxies exists. The Loehle paper is used as evidence of the existence of the MWP. These are two separate arguments you distorted for your strawman. As for evidence of the robustness of Loehle's work, yes due diligence shows this to be true. If you want an explanation of due diligence I suggest reading,

Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

I have also never argued that peer-review is due diligence, I have explicitly argued the opposite, "Yes, due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review".

Ha, I never said it's not subjective (or that it's complete objective), I only said it's not "purely subjective", a possibility you don't even consider. Or will you take back that it's purely subjective?

No it is purely subjective, something cannot be partially subjective. There is nothing to consider. If you believe otherwise please show how and not with some idiotic analogy but directly. Prove that determining who is a climate scientist is not subjective.

So what DOES?? Please provide a testable experiment and an expected result.

It is not my job to prove the theory you support. When you have empirical evidence let me know.

 

[WaltM]

I have also never argued that peer-review is due diligence, I have explicitly argued the opposite, "Yes, due-diligence is superior to merely peer-review".

That would make your 800 list less relevant, unless they're all due diligence.

Which is your circular assertion

No it is purely subjective, something cannot be partially subjective. There is nothing to consider. If you believe otherwise please show how and not with some idiotic analogy but directly. Prove that determining who is a climate scientist is not subjective.

Prove it's not subjective?
Fine, it's PURELY subjective (says you) so you're a climatologist and so is Al Gore, SETTLED!

Give me something as an example that's not subjective (at all)?

It is not my job to prove the theory you support. When you have empirical evidence let me know.

This says it all.
A defining characteristic of a denier is refusal to admit what evidence he'll find acceptable (even hypothetically).

This is why you rely so heavily on Loehle as an alternative and E&E to "discredit" Mann's graph.