Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 Next
Comments 95351 to 95400:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:11 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Perhaps we should take a closer at that list after all, seems like there is a lot of stuff that does not even meet PT's declared criteria. This could be amusing. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Interesting. Poptech, how does the 1996 Mavromichalai et al. paper cited above support skepticism of AGW alarm? -
dana1981 at 09:47 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
mozart - you can't determine sensitivity without knowing what the radiative forcing over the period in question was. If the forcing was small, a small temperature change doesn't tell you that sensitivity is small. I recommend you click the final link in the article and read the associated article. -
bigbols at 09:32 AM on 17 February 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
While Monckton's statement is not precise, is it worth noting that between the three warming rate periods described in the graph, the largest change is between the first two? The warming rate from 1975 to 2005 is 0.34°C higher than the period 1910 to 1940. Maybe we caused that, maybe we didn't. How can we explain the much higher rate increase of 0.55°C between the first and second periods, if not caused by us? I'd expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment, but the biggest change comes between the period we had no influence on...or am I wrong? -
pbjamm at 09:24 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Mozart@13 I do not understand to what you are referring. The axes are clearly labeled with year and Temperature Anomaly (DegC wrt 1961-1990. -
Peter Offenhartz at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@michael sweet(34) Whoops! My error. You are right about the 2 degrees. 2.4, actually. Still a lot more than the current <0.1. But in any case look at the melt rate vs volume. -
mozart at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Hard to tell because of the non labelling of the axes, but it would appear from the current( black line) data....that we are looking at a 1000 year record with variability of less than one degree centigrade. Calling climate sensitivity low, hardly seems like a leap. -
Peter Offenhartz at 09:06 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@michael sweet (34) You did the math but you incorrectly assumed the Antarctic is ten times the size of Greenland. Nope. Total ice volume is about 3% of total water volume. Multiply 1.3 billion gigatonnes by .03. Now take the 334 kJ and the 4 kJ. See what I mean? Takes a lot more than 2C. But that wasn't my main point. Look at the annual melt rate. Look at the total volume. Ask how long the ice will last. Assume any melt acceleration you like. Yes,yes, the increasing melt rate is a symptom of global warming. No argument. But ask how long the ice will last. Please. @muoncounter(35) The trouble with the "house on fire" analogy is the rate of heat transfer. But I think you know that. Heat transfer along the earth's surface is relatively efficient. -
dana1981 at 08:40 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
WSteven, this article is about the myth that the IPCC 'disappeared' the MWP, as the introduction states. I would summarize the article thusly: 1) The IPCC never said that the average global temperature was hotter during the MWP than today. 2) As more temperature reconstruction studies were done, the IPCC incorporated their results, which showed that today's global temperature is higher than the MWP peak. The IPCC has been very clear and explicit about this. 3) Arguing for a hotter MWP is also arguing for higher climate sensitivity. There are some other minor points I touched on, like the fact that the MWP was mostly hot at high latitudes, but to learn more about that you'll have to click the links (there's a reason I provide links!). MattJ - I suggest you work on making your criticisms more constructive. -
muoncounter at 08:19 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back." I can see that working for Antarctica, as perhaps a reason the southern hemisphere is not warming as fast as the northern. I liken it to a house with the attic on fire; it's still pretty cool in the basement. And I think we agree that once the Arctic goes to minimal ice, things will be much worse. But the increasing melt rate of Arctic ice is a symptom of global warming, so I don't think one can say the ice is 'holding things back'. -
NewYorkJ at 08:15 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
WSteven, I'm not sure I'd describe it that way. There's some evidence for MWP in other regions, with most areas warmer than the LIA, but with varying degrees of magnitude. The north Atlantic and southern Greenland were particularly warm. There's also evidence of a la Nina-like pattern, with relatively cooler waters in the tropical Pacific. Was There a Medieval Warm Period -
muoncounter at 07:49 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Here are two papers from the list's 'cosmic rays' section that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change; the phrase does not even appear in the text. The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) Nir J. Shaviv Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy (The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005) D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel The ice age epochs in question in each paper are on the million year (Myr) time scale. That's why they're called 'epochs,' a word specifically used in geology to denote a longer period of time than what we normally refer to as an 'ice age'. Another: Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996) H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri This paper is about cosmic ray dynamics in the heliosphere; the abstract makes no mention of earth climate. None of these papers support any form of AGW skepticism, 'alarm' or phobia. It is not sufficient to simply gather papers with the words 'cosmic rays' in their titles and assume that they support the unsubstantiated Svensmark-style hypotheses. We now see concrete proof that '850 papers supporting skepticism' is another one of those malleable phrases that must have an alternate PopTechian definition. -
JMurphy at 07:40 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Another charming paper that gives the game away by its very title : The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming, (Journal of Forestry, Journal Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 35-39, 1989) by Patrick J. Michaels (again !) Again, no wonder he had to go to the Journal of Forestry... Now, how many of the many thousands of papers that agree with the consensus view, have the word 'alarm' in the title ? It's not even worth checking, is it ? -
BillyJoe at 07:35 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra: "My prediction for 2030: 1.5 degree below the 2010 level, and all years from 2030 to 2040 will be cooler than the past ten years." What was that saying about those who do not know that they do not know? Charitably we might say that they have an over confidence in their abilities. Less charitably, we might say that they exhibit an arrogance of ignorance. -
MattJ at 07:34 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
@WSteven- I couldn't figure out the answers to all those on a first read, either. The article is in serious need of a rewrite, as this lack of clarity illustrates. Remember people: our target audience does NOT have the patience to work hard to learn what they do not want to know in the first place. Monckton is very skillful at exploiting this factor, we are not being so skilled. That, BTW: is why Monckton doesn't have to care that he is contradicting another of his 'skeptic' arguments. He knows his target audience neither knows nor cares. -
WSteven at 07:30 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I have to admit, it took me a couple of careful reads to absorb this article. So, just to make sure that I'm clear on this: 1. The MWP was an event localized to the more northerly latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. 2. The MWP was above average globally for that period, but not drastically. 3. Todays average global temperatures top those of the MWP. Correct me if I got any of that wrong, or missed anything. -
michael sweet at 07:22 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter, According to Wikipedia, the ocean masses about 1.3 billion gigatons. Greenland masses about 3 million gigatons of ice. It takes about 334 kj to melt one kg of ice and about 4 kj to raise one kilogram of water one degree celcius. I calculate it would raise the ocean about 0.2 C to melt all the ice in Greenland. The Antarctic is about 10 times bigger than Greenland so about 2C to melt all the ice in both ice sheets. I think the ocean can absorb more heat than the ice. -
robert way at 07:21 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra, Eye-balling it is a flawed methodology. Lets consider this though, I used 1981-2010 because it was the 30 year trend period. If I were trying to inflate the trend I would have used 1982 instead because 1981 had a really high anomaly. In fact if I use 1982 I get a trend of 7.2 per century and if I used 1986 to 2010 I get a trend of 8.0 per century... If I use your "cherry picked" 1920-1945 graph I get 3.5 per century. I assume you were trying to pick the coldest time to the warmest over that period so here it is, from 1917 to 1938 it warmed at 7.6 per century. Still less than the present warm period. But what is interesting about picking that time period is you are selecting from the trough associated with a major volcanic eruption and including the recovery in the trend. Regarding your other commentary, the NAO is not the key oscillation for determining the warmth of the Arctic, try the AMO which is well established to contribute to Arctic warmth (Chylek et al. 2009 and Chylek et al 2010). The early century warming had a much stronger positive AMO, extremely low volcanism, high solar irradience and a predominantly positive NAO. All the ingredients one would need for a warm period. Our current warm period in the Arctic is driven by GHG forcing with some contribution from the AMO and the remainder being likely due to ice albedo feedbacks which Flanner et al (2011) have found to be greater than previously understood. -
JMurphy at 07:09 AM on 17 February 2011It's the sun
Johngee, it seems to me that Mr Corbyn is always predicting freezing, Arctic-like conditions and so, like a broken clock telling the correct time twice a day by accident, so does Mr Corbyn. However, he hasn't been doing so good this year, as the following forecasts show : December 09: Wet and windy start giving way to severe Arctic blasts with heavy snow and blizzards in parts. Turning mild or very mild later – a ‘green’ Christmas before colder year end. I recall December being very cold, the coldest in a hundred years or something, but still he got it wrong. Ferocious and dangerous winter weather [for January 2011] Um, quite the opposite actually. [February] Overall much colder than normal with snowy Northerly / Easterly blasts at times Well, not so far, anyway but who is going to rely on that being correct...except by accident ! Jan AND Feb will be unusually cold in Britain, Ireland, & Europe Maybe I've been lucky not to have experienced any of that here in London ? Generally, the tone of his 'scientific predictions' and his website can be surmised from the following text, taken directly from the source : Constant references to 'ClimateGate News' ● ‘Global Warming’ forecasts will fail AGAIN. ● ‘Man Made Climate Change’ is failed science based on fraudulent data ● Gordon Brown & all politicians, please, PROVE IT or DROP IT ● 2010 is the year of the fight for evidence based science & policy ● Carbon Trading & all CO2 reduction schemes must stop. ● ‘Warmers’ flee from challenge to present evidence for CO2 case. ● CO2 theory lies refuted by science fact ● ‘Man Made Climate Change’ scam now ignominiously doomed Hmmm... -
Peter Offenhartz at 07:07 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@muoncounter(32): I agree completely with your comment except to note that the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back. What I'd like is for you (and others) to do the math. Have a look at the annual ice melt vs the total ice volume. The result is something of a surprise, I think. -
JMurphy at 06:49 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers, (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008) by John Stubbles... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is an article printed in that journal. The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming, (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) by Patrick J. Michaels... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". And how about this for an unbiased view : Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (The Electricity Journal, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp. 38-46, August-September 2007) by Henry R. Linden Tells you right off how he's going to slant that paper, doesn't he. No wonder he had to go to 'The Electricity Journal' ! The more we can see of this little list, the more ridiculous and desperate it becomes. This thread has become a good source which can be used against anyone who dares to bring up this list again. Well done everyone. -
Utahn at 06:44 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech-"First you need to apply a direct comparison to my list and the common argument that is made. It is not whether smoking causes cancer but the exaggerated dangers from SHS. So if you can find 850 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism that SHS causes cancer or that the likely hood of it causing cancer has been exaggerated. I will immediately accept this as strong support." Why not firsthand smoke? Because you "believe in" firsthand smoke causing cancer, but don't "believe in" secondhand smoke? It's still 850 papers and, according to you, quality is subjective, but those high numbers are "strong evidence" against firsthand smoke alarm, right? I can come up with 850 papers that support skepticism of the "alarm" over firsthand smoke causing lung cancer. Why won't you join my crusade? -
shoyemore at 06:37 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Just as an addendum, it always seemed to me that this guff about the Medieval Warm Period could be easily killed off by consideration of the archaeological and historical evidence of the period. Being form Ireland, I take an Ireland-centric view. For example, I can across the work of a Welsh clergyman Giraldus Cambrensis who visited Ireland about 1185, when Ireland (supposedly) had a climate something like Portugal has now. Geraldus gave a complete description of the country and climate, and what he described reads a lot more like 20th century Ireland than Portugal!! He describes the wet, temperate conditions fairly accurately. Because of the Gulf Stream, some microclimates on our west coast share plants with Portugal and even the Canary Island. So it is not as if exotic plants had no time to get here. Similarly, some deniers have described the fields of wheat, oats and barley the Vikings grew in Greenland. However, the Norse were pastoral farmers. They had small gardens but herds of cattle and sheep were their pride and joy, and hay as a winter feed their most important crop. So you do not need a temperature record to dispove their extravagant claims about the Medieval Warm Period. -
Johngee at 06:34 AM on 17 February 2011It's the sun
Hi all, I have a friend who constantly bangs on about Piers Corbyn and his site ‘Climate Action’. Sadly I have very little time to research Corbyn’s claims. I was wondering if anyone has analysed Corbyn’s weather predictions comparing them to the main weather predictions of places like the met office and also his claims about making money by placing bets on future weather. I know this is about weather but Piers definitely believes AGW is a myth. Could someone look into his claims and perhaps do an article on him. There seems to be very little objective research done on his claims... that I can find anyway. We have Monckton Myths how about Corbyn’s Crocks? I posted here because I know Corbyn thinks its all about the sun. -
muoncounter at 06:28 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming" I don't understand why you are focused on this point. We have undeniable evidence that the Arctic ice melt seasons are growing more aggressive. The Arctic is the part of the globe with the most rapid temperature increase. Where and when is this 'slowing' of global warming going to kick in? -
shoyemore at 06:26 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Woops ... for "graces" read "graves" -
shoyemore at 06:25 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I once came across a weird statement of Mockton that the Viking graces at Hvasley church in Greenland are now embedded in permafrost. That is totally untrue... Hvalsey is actually sinking into soft clay. Hvalsey Church -
dana1981 at 06:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Thanks pbjamm! -
Peter Offenhartz at 06:11 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Amplification/correction: When I said "the volume of ice is much more important than the extent" I was writing only about heat capacity/storage. Clearly "extent" is more important than "volume" when it comes to changing albedo. I regret any confusion. My point is solely that total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming; the total volume of ice is HUGE compared to the annual melt. -
Djon at 05:44 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra, "because 1920-1945 had a faster warming (8 degrees per century, I guess)." You "guess". Does that mean you haven't actually calculated the warming trend over that time period? I think you're posting in the wrong forum if you want an audience that considers trend estimation by eyeball a credible analytic technique. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - So, there is no objective truth? G&T's paper violates several basic thermodynamic principles, but if they continue to yammer about it after the blatant errors are repeatedly pointed out - that's OK with you? Science involves judgement - judging whether results are real, replicable, well established. Some work is good science by those criteria, some is bad. That particular paper is an epic fail. The only reason I can see for you to continue to include dreck papers such as that, is an ideological confirmation bias - accepting anything that even remotely supports your viewpoint, regardless of whether it's reasonable or even remotely plausible. Which is another reason to dismiss your list as simply not relevant to the science. -
les at 05:41 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
478; "I have however had great success many places." Please, please, please no one ask him to justify that statement otherwise we'll be in fir another 500 posts discussing unsupirtable analysis!!! -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:40 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... Alarm has nothing to do with it. That's your absurd qualification to rationalize your confirmation bias. -
pbjamm at 05:40 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, As has been stated here many many many times in this seemingly endless thread, AGW Alarm is completely subjective and based entirely upon your opinion of what constitutes alarm. -
mclamb6 at 05:39 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Again, why should anyone care about one person's definition of "AGW Alarm" when evaluating the whole of climate science? How about we stick to at least somewhat widely recognizable terms versus what passes for a definition in your little fiefdom? -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:38 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I think we can safely call Poptech the "Christopher Monckton of peer-review." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:34 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "There is no way to reproduce your results that support AGW alarm because it is simply your opinion." Incorrect. AGW has nothing to do with my opinion. The research doesn't care what I think. -
pbjamm at 05:28 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @475 It is irrelevant that papers in the Journal of Modern Physics B *can* be peer reviewed. It only matters that the paper in question was. I have no idea if it was or not so dont bother arguing with me about that point. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - You neglected the last paragraph of my post: "And the paper is so very bad! Even if, by some violation of editorial policy, it was peer-reviewed, I can think of no better debunking of your list than the fact that you have included this piece of dreck." -
mclamb6 at 05:25 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Considering that no one, other than you, uses "AGW alarm" as a frame of reference when evaluating science, your statement "There is no way to reproduce your results that support AGW alarm because it is simply your opinion" is rather meaningless. -
Dennis at 05:24 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Phillipe @461: wrote: "The 'list' is a meaningless piece of nonsense. It is of no interest whatsoever to anyone sincerely trying to understand the science involved." I agree. The reason I would like to see a more thorough examination of the flaws in this list is that documents like this get waved around by antiscience policymakers and pundits to the public as if it were valid science. It would be best to have a one-stop shop to go to to debunk them (preferably a resource journalists could use). Skeptical Science has started to do this with the Monckton Myths, but others (Poptech's 850, the Oregon petition, and Inhofe's annual list) exist as well. Perhaps this site is not the place to do that, as the focus here is on pure science. But I don't know another site that fits that need. -
Meet The Denominator
PopTech - Enough said. We've all gone around on this long enough. I (and a lot of others) have expressed my opinions of your list, criteria, and significance to the field (the topic of the thread in the first place), you've expressed yours. If your list has significance, it should be possible to convince others of that - you aren't having too much success there, however. Discussion has otherwise descended into a Three Stooge slap fest of repeated assertions and denials. Off to other topics for me... -
actually thoughtful at 05:20 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Daniel Bailey - thank you - you are a fantastic resource on this blog (among others, it must be noted, but you and you alone post links with serious sounding titles to hilarious web pages with cartoons and songs. And the value of that is beyond measure).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for the kind words; muoncounter & others here are wicked funny, as well. When dealing with such sobering subject matter, I find humor helps keep me (relatively) sane. -
pbjamm at 05:16 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Dana, I originally discovered this site after a skeptic/denier acquaintance of mine unleashed a flood of accusations in the wake of Climategate. I decided I needed to reexamine my what I thought I knew about AGW. Most of what I could find was just rehashing the Climategate accusations of fraud and conspiracy. It was not until I discovered RealCliamte and SkS that I found any actual substance. Informative and easy to understand posts like this one are what keep me coming back. Thank you and and everyone else who contributes here. -
Meet The Denominator
PopTech - Hmm, I seem to recall someone on this list insulting folks by telling them they don't know how to use Google. Looking for 'anthropogenic "climate change"' in 'Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science' only (the largest subject category), limiting to a year-by-year list, the search shows 973 results in 2003, fewer in earlier years. After 2003 the numbers seem to get larger - but again, since you've collected papers back to the 1980's, plenty to compare to for a percentage estimate. Your claims that the comparison cannot be made are specious. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your list is relevant. First-pass estimations of the total number of papers published in the field indicate that it is not; if you wish to then do the work and show that we should take it seriously, rather than a collection of fringe opinions, 'bought science', ideological rants, and editorial biases - all admittedly my subjective evaluations of a number of the papers on your list. There's always a fringe - demonstrate that your list represents something more. Or be ignored. --- As to G&T 2009 - No, that was not peer reviewed. Their reply to the peer-reviewed debunking was, and by some miracle wasn't burned, but the original paper was not, according to their editorial policies. And the paper is so very bad! Even if, by some violation of editorial policy, it was peer-reviewed, I can think of no better debunking of your list than the fact that you have included this piece of dreck. -
Lazarus at 05:12 AM on 17 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
BBC link doesn't work for me. There is no video on that page nor link to it that I can see. -
Albatross at 05:09 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Oh right, sorry Dana..I guess "looks wonky" is what I should have said. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:05 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "Incorrect, I have applied a much more stringent criteria to my list as I evaluate and filter every paper before it is put on the list." You have only applied an extreme form of confirmation bias to your list. You surely realize that repeatability is an important tenet of the scientific method. There is no way for anyone to qualitatively reproduce your results because they are all merely a function of your opinion. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:03 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@457 wrote "Incorrect, I already addressed that." no you didn't (I checked). Give the number of the post where you addressed it "It supports skepticism of CO2 being a primary climate driver by supporting solar as being the primary climate driver. Thus it supports skepticism of AGW Alarm." Nonsense, just because solar forcing has been the dominant driver of paleoclimate does not mean that the current warming is non-anthropogenic. "A criticism of a paper does not mean it is refuted." Not necessarily, no, but often it does. If you don't have the scientific background to judge the difference then you ought not to compile a list and should leave it to someone who does, for the reasons I gave. "What is "irrelevant" is subjective and no peer-reviewed paper is going to be removed unless it is retracted from the journal" That is a non-sensical requirement. Journals generally only retract papers becuase of plagiarism or scientific fraud etc. I don't recall ever seeing a paper retracted simply because it was wrong. If that was general practice it would be very common. "when you would consider all the papers on my list to be "dud ammunition" You often complain you are being misrepresented, but you appear quite happy to engage in misrepresentation yourself. Not all the papers on your list are dud, as should be obvious by the fact that I said you ought to weed out the ones that are incorrect or irrelevant (the implication being that there are some on your list that are not duds). I shan't hold my breath waiting for the apology though. "Your intentions are rather obvious - do anything you can to get me to reduce the size of the list." Apparently, size isn't everything, it is what you can do with it that matters ;o) The IPCC has a bigger list of peer reviewed papers that support its position. I do want you to reduce the size of the list, but only so that you can increase its quality. I am against alarmist claims that are not backed up by mainstream science just as I am against "denialist" claims that are not backed up by mainstream science. That is because I am interested in the science. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:02 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, for the record I had no intent to get you to reduce the size of your list. I have provided links on this forum to papers that are not on your list but should be. There are some threads like "it's not bad" where some papers from your list would be useful. But obviously I can't go to that thread and post "here's 850 papers saying it's not bad", it would not help my case.
Prev 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 Next
