Could you give me an example of this?

Which particular paper are you talking about?

Could you tell me one of these "big claims on scanty evidence", and who made it?

Could you show me where the "carefully truncated temperature graphs" are presented?

Could you tell me which "simulation" was "rigged"

And as for" "votes" by scientists". - WTF does that mean?!?

That is a lot of serious accusations there. Can you back any of it up? Or is it all just from your imagination?


Oh - And perhaps you know of any research published in any peer-reviewed journal that presents evidence that AGW isn't occurring? I'd love to see it

Did you miss it when I said, "Did you miss where I said earlier, 'Whether or not they are published in a scientific journal does not make their theories invalid, nor does it disqualify their credentials to my knowledge'"?

Now you have decided that Da Vinci was not a scientist?

That is some kind of arrogance. I have put up with your insults because of some misinterpretation of the English language and you failure to understand how quotation marks work. I have explained in several of the posts the words in question were mine and not yours and still you are claiming I have misquoted you and that you deserve an apology? Sir, I am the one who was insulted, I deserve an apology. But don't give me one. I really don't wish to debate you further for the reasons stated in post #209, and also because I don't think you and I are of the same caliber intellectually.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

It makes their theories less valid because they have not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

Or they *have* been subjected to such scrutiny and failed the test, which is why they're not getting published.

It's like the guy back in the late 80s/early 90s who claimed to have invented cold fusion. The claim was eventually debunked because other scientists were unable to reproduce his findings. He failed the scrutiny test.

Scientists that seek to avoid such peer review generally do so because their claims won't stand up to scrutiny.

__________________
Man up.

No, I didn't miss that. It is a very good example of your lack of understanding of the scientific process. As Raytri has added above:
"It makes their theories less valid because they have not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny."

You really should not try to debate subjects you know so little about

He wasn't a very good example for the point I assumed you were trying to make. I was just trying to help you out a bit there


Don't be so pathetic

You were caught out misrepresenting my words. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

You wrote in a direct response to me:
"Maybe you should look at the other sides views with an open mind before you say you are absolutely positive that "anthropogenic climate change" is a fact.",
- I had never said any such thing, nor I had never expressed any such idea. Also, I never had any intention of saying any such thing or expressing that idea in any way, shape or form.

You are a liar. You have been exposed as a liar. Own up to it.


That is the first thing you have said that I can agree with.

Go back to your "TV productions and shows, as well as books and non-scientific journals magazine articles", mate - but in future, keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-dccb00b51a12

This radical idea was advanced Monday by the German magazine Der Spiegel which did something I can’t imagine a U.S. publication having the nerve to do in this highly politicized environment: offer readers a comprehensive, balanced view of the pluses and minuses inherent in a warming earth.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12628

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.


Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/globa...lobal-warming/

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

LEADING SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS 'ARE CENSORING DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING'

The Sunday Telegraph, 1 May 2005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/ixworld.html

By Robert Matthews

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Censorship.htm

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged "consensus" that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.

http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Ha ha ha ha ha!

My - you have been a busy boy haven't you!

Now - where to start!

Let's try this one - my favourite:



This "British authority on natural catastrophes" you speak of is, I assume Benny Peiser, - not a scientist, but a "social anthropologist" (whatever the hell that is!). Not really a "British authority on natural catastrophes" at all - but a self-proclaimed "expert" on near-earth asteroids!

Now this work that he says was "rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds" wasn't actually research at all - he had no actual data about AGW or any thing - he was merely trying to discredit the work of Dr Naomi Oreskes. (Dr Oreskes had published a paper where she had assessed 928 published papers on climate change, found by doing abstract word searches, and discovered 100% agreementwith the scientific consensus)

Your link says:
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

BUT - On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser

Peiser is also on record as saying:
"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."


Ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!

(...wipes tears from eyes)
Well - that's all I have time for now - but I look forward to addressing all your links above in the future.

But please, as I do address them - don't just take my word for what I tell you - follow the links I will give you, read the information and try to understand the issues here. Please try to apply just a little bit of critical analysis to the things you read. It is clearly obvious you are not doing that at the moment

Sourcewatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy.

"The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation...
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests...

Motovation:
As the liberal Village Voice commented in April 2001, “These guys come from the far side of liberal.” Seen through this dynamic duo's socialist lens, society’s major problems are capitalism in general and corporations in particular"

http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/12

Ha ha ha, nice try to discredit my source. Now I have discredited them.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Unbelieveable.....did you read any of my previous post?


OK - lets go through this slowly:

1. PatriotNews writes: "Anthropogenic climate change is just a theory, and in fact, might as well be a myth...there are actually scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it."

2. Bugalugs asks Patriot News to corroborate that statement with some actual published data illustrating that "there are actually scientists who disagree completely with the theory"

3. Patriot News posts a series of links, (it is assumed) as evidence of his original statement

4. One of these one of these links refers to:
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

5. The work in question was a letter to Sciece magazine concerning a paper by Dr Naomi Oreskes

6 Dr Naomi Oreskes had published a paper where she had assessed 928 published papers on climate change, found by doing abstract word searches, and discovered 100% agreement with the scientific consensus. Benny Peiser questioned her results. He later admitted that his conclusions were incorrect:
'I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy... Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included. "
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf


5. This is a very poor piece of evidence in support of the statement:
"...there are actually scientists who disagree completely with the theory..." for the following reasons:

a) the author referred to is not a climate scienist
b) the author referred to did not actually publish any data in support of his claim that there was no scientific consensus about global warming,and
and pay very close attention to this one, it is very important....
c) the author referred to later admitted that his claim was based on incorrect data.. The the author referred to also actually wrote:
"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Do you agree that gentleman really isn't supporting your original statement?

You seem to have a problem wih my link to Source Watch - well good for you! At least you seem to be learning something. If I had actually been quoting some sort of opinion or editorial comment from that site - your complaint would have been completely justified. But I was merely linking to a record of an actaul quote from Benny Peiser.

If you prefer - you can see the same quote here:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf - The actual letter written by Benny Peiser to the Australian TV program Media Watch, where he does indeed state:
I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. - just as it said he did on the Source Watch site.

So - while it is good to see you actually try to question what you read - I was not trying to "discredit your source" as you claim. I was pointing out that the evidence you were providing as support for your argument was a complete load of rubbish. And that is not my opinion, or the opinion or Source Watch. It is the opinion of the actual author of the work that you were referring to.

(NB: if I wanted to "discredit your source", ie. the website of the SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT - a.k.a S. Fred Singer - I could do so very easily. I wont though - I will simply stick to the text you provide. I suggest you do the same)