Global Warming - Page 84

C-D-P · #**831** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

You're the one who told the lie. Why can't you name me one of these "thousands" of papers (and not one of those I named a few post ago - there are "thousands" of them after all, aren't there?

And who was that poster? What were those references.

You are not talking about this link are you?

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...al-of-man.html

?!?!?!

You really have no idea do you!

When I get time - I will happily go through all of those papers for you (I've already done the first one here in post #819 Global Warming)

You will find that most are similar. Some idiot drawing incorrect conclusions from valid papers

Please yell idiotically. Maybe someone will believe you.

As I said before, your bias makes you unreasonable.

You have yet to prove me a liar.

Are there many many peer reviews on that link? It does not matter if you accept them or not (you would never accept something that goes against your belief).

Now where have you proved me a liar? You implied that you did so on this, and one or more threads other than this. Please show me.

bugalugs · #**832** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Please yell idiotically. Maybe someone will believe you.

As I said before, your bias makes you unreasonable.

You have yet to prove me a liar.

Are there many many peer reviews on that link? It does not matter if you accept them or not (you would never accept something that goes against your belief).

So far, somebody - (not you), has quoted 2 peer-reviewed papers which attempt to argue that AGW is not occurring.

You said there were thousands. You cannot quote even one.

You lied.

And you continue to pathetically attempt to argue you way out of it.

You said there were thousands. You cannot quote even one.

You lied.

It is as simple as that

You told a lie. You were found out. And you are not man enough to admit it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Now where have you proved me a liar? You implied that you did so on this, and one or more threads other than this. Please show me.

You said there are "thousands" of peer-reviewed scientific papers which argue against AGW -there aren't. You lied.
You said 1938 was globally the hottest year on record -it wasn't. You lied.
You said the word "islamofascist" was coined in the 1930s. it wasn't. You lied.

Professor Peabody · #**833** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

If there really were " just as many people saying it does exist than those who say it doesn't, " - it should be an easy matter to quote for me any number of scientific papers from recognised science journals which provide evidence to support the argument.

They cannot do it. For almost 80 pages I have been asking them, but they cannot do it.

Come guys - it should be easy.

Quote title, author and journal - of an actual scientific paper that provides evidence to argue that AGW is not occurring.

Just title, author and journal - of an actual scientific paper that provides evidence to argue that AGW is not occurring

Can you do that?

Sure.

Quote:

Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming:

Anthropogenic:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Global warming(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable(American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)- Soon, Willie

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August, 2006)- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings(arXiv:0707.1276, 07/2007)- Soon, Willie

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...al-of-man.html

I think you missed my post, try that site. it has a list a mile long, I only posted a few. If I posted them all I'd likely be suspended for the length of the posting. I'm sure you will attack a few of the authors. But, please provide proof of the inaccuracies in their research or don't bother.

Quote:

Peer review? What peer review?
Written by John McLean
Thursday, 06 September 2007

INTRODUCTION

The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story.

The comments for Working Group I are the only set of reviewers' comments to be made available to the public, and only then thanks to use of US Freedom of Information laws rather than a willingness on the part of the IPCC to allow people to examine the material. Surely all people should be able to examine the involvement and thinking of their governments and the reviewers from their own countries because it is the people who will most certainly bear the economic and political costs of any resultant actions.

REVIEWERS AND COMMENTS

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters.

At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments.

The number of reviewers who made just one comment on a chapter varied between 12.6% and 32% (i.e. almost one-third) of the reviewers commenting on that chapter. For four chapters, fewer than six comments were made by more than 50% of the reviewers who commented. For another four chapters, the figure was between 40% and 50%.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...eerreview.html

So much for the vaunted "Peer Reviewed". Read the whole article to understand just what a bad joke the IPCC really is. If that doesn't motivate anyone reading it to call their Senators and scream at them to vote no on the Global Warming legislation currently in Congress, you need to check you pulse.

Professor Peabody · #**834** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

What nonsense.

just looking at the very first link:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice

During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic−time series for this period has been obtained using 18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.

What possible relevance could a paper discussing glacial episodes of he Quaternary period have with the impact of anthropohenic climate change in the present? Where in that paper does it even remotely suggest that AGW is not occurring?

Is the best you can do. Get serious

You must have not even looked there is a section for anthropogenic. By the way what is anthropohenic?

MannieD · #**835** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

Had any skeptic scientist blatantly fabricated evidence like Mann did, you would refuse to read anything he ever wrote again, peer-reviewed or not.

1) Mann never fabricated evidence
2) There haven't been any scientists that deny AGW gathering evidence.
3) Deniers, such as Ball and members of the Heartland (isn't that where they grow straw?

) have been spreading misinformation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

McIntyre couldn't get the data he needed to analyze Mann's report, let alone a dozen other reconstructions playing in the Global Warming Sweepstakes for funding. Warmest Present Coldest Past Wins!

If McIntyre couldn't get the data, then how did he analyze Mann's reconstructions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi

Remember, you never answered. What changed in the 20 years that made the entire Medevial Warming Period dissapear? The HockyStick, if it were real, makes AGW a feasible theory. With previous reconstructions, the theory might hold some water, but is nothing more credible than the plethora of other explanations.

What changed is that evidence became available that the MWP was not global.

Quote:

The 12th and 14th centuries appear to have been mainly cold in China (Wang et al., 1998a,b; Wang and Gong, 2000). The restricted evidence from the Southern Hemisphere, e.g., the Tasmanian tree-ring temperature reconstruction of Cook et al. (1999), shows no evidence for a distinct Medieval Warm Period.

source

Professor Peabody · #**836** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 07:04 AM

From:

Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm
Period”?

"suggest increased glaciation"

"suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes"

"appear to have limited utility"

"can only be considered"

"appears to have been most"

"were very likely to have been associated with"

"are likely to have had"

"appear to have been"

"suggests cold conditions"

"appears to have been less distinct"

"may in large measure"

"Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Great article, very definitive. You can tell how sure of himself the author is. It looks like something out of the opinion journal. What no CO2?

For being such brilliant scientists....

"neighbouring" should be neighboring

....you'd think they'd know how to at least spell words correctly.

C-D-P · #**837** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

So far, somebody - (not you), has quoted 2 peer-reviewed papers which attempt to argue that AGW is not occurring.

You said there were thousands. You cannot quote even one.

You lied.

And you continue to pathetically attempt to argue you way out of it.

You said there were thousands. You cannot quote even one.

You lied.

It is as simple as that

You told a lie. You were found out. And you are not man enough to admit it.

I don't need to post anything. It has been posted by others. Now, I did not count them. But it is a long frigging list.

Keep grasping onto your belief that everyone agrees, and there is nothing that supports the other side. How does that sand around your head feel?

MannieD · #**838** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Next there will be a personal attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Not from me, I'm just trying to help. He made remarks demanding information, even when the links to the information he doesn't want to see is handed to him. I am simply being informative on how he can find what he is asking for as he apparently can't seem to find it for himself. What can I say about that. Is there something wrong with trying to be helpful? If there is I will apologize.

my bold
I know you were referring to bugalugs, but I find the bolded statements ironic.
How are the comments

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Great article, very definitive. You can tell how sure of himself the author is. It looks like something out of the opinion journal. What no CO2?

For being such brilliant scientists....

"neighbouring" should be neighboring

....you'd think they'd know how to at least spell words correctly.

nothing more than personal attacks against the author? All studies are referenced. Would you care to comment on the studies instead of the author's choice of words.

bugalugs · #**839** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-D-P

I don't need to post anything. It has been posted by others. Now, I did not count them. But it is a long frigging list.

Keep grasping onto your belief that everyone agrees, and there is nothing that supports the other side. How does that sand around your head feel?

You said there were "thousands" - and you cannot name a single one.

You told a lie - and you have been found out

Just like when you said:
- 1938 was globally the hottest year on record,
- the word "islamofascist" was coined in the 1930s

Why can't you be man enough admit it when you are wrong.

Why do continue to support your lies? That is really pathetic.

C-D-P · #**840** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

You said there were "thousands" - and you cannot name a single one.

You told a lie - and you have been found out

Only in your mind toots. I named a few way back when. You then dismissed them and asked for more and insulted me. That is when I stopped posting in this thread, then others came in and posted them, then someone came in and posted a plethora of them. They are there, therefor you can not even attempt to call me a liar.

Quote:

Just like when you said:
- 1938 was globally the hottest year on record,
- the word "islamofascist" was coined in the 1930s

And just like when I said that, I posted reference that said it was the hottest year. You then started to insult again.

I did not say that it was, I said that it was believed to have been coined then. You skew words to fit your ideals.

Quote:

Why do continue to support your lies? That is really pathetic.

What is pathetic is how you refuse to deal with the information posted, and instead attempt to attack the poster. I did not lie, and the evidence that shows I was not has been provided by others.

Are you going to continue to insult, or are you going to deal with the subject matter evidence that has been provided?

I am willing to bet that you will continue to insult.

Good day.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode