Prev  1  2  3  4  5  

Comments 201 to 210 out of 210:

201. Albatross at 10:38 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Pop, "I have no idea how I am supposed to prove I never received something. You tell me." Well, I would have to see you inbox no wouldn't I. I'm done here. Feel free to talk to the walls.
     0 0
202. Bibliovermis at 10:41 AM on 15 February, 2011
     So you admit you are arguing on the basis of belief.
     0 0
203. Rob Honeycutt at 10:51 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech 288... I believe the appropriate list would be a full listing of peer reviewed papers that study climate change. Once you start qualifying the search parameters you diminish the meaning of the work. There are going to be a lot of papers that don't give an opinion. They'll merely be reporting findings of research. Others will ascribe a cause. Without a doubt the number of papers on climate change issues is likely 100,000 or better. I mean, we're talking about 150 years of research on all kinds of aspects of this issue. You have 850 papers whose definition as skeptical relies only on your personal rationalization. It's just not a compelling number by any stretch.
     0 0
204. pbjamm at 10:58 AM on 15 February, 2011
     There is no shame in not knowing. Pretending to know is another matter. I am curious how a list of papers supporting AGW could be compiled. Explicit endorsement of "anthropogenic global warming" would be too narrow a criteria as the authors explicit endorsement would not be required if their data were relevant. Also, they may use terms other than "anthropogenic global warming" so a simple search for that in any DB of papers would be insufficient. Where to start?
     0 0
205. Utahn at 11:12 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech, I wanted to make sure I understood something about your thinking on the current consensus. Do you believe a scientific consensus exists regarding AGW alarm? If not, why not?
     0 0
206. Marcus at 11:19 AM on 15 February, 2011
     "That largely depends on two factors, the amount of the warming that is attributable to AGW and the ability of us to adapt to it. I currently believe our adaptive capacity to very great and the amount of warming attributable to AGW to be inconclusive. So I do not support AGW Alarm." Wow, could any comment be more full of fail? Firstly, the warming attributable to AGW is only "inconclusive" in the alternate universe inhabited by the Denialist Cult. Here in the real world, its abundantly clear that the planet has warmed +0.5 degrees in only 30 years-in *spite* of downward trends in Solar Irradiance & the PDO, & that this warming is unlikely to slow down as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly, though we might have the technical ability to adapt to at least some elements of global warming, history suggests that there is a great deal of resistance to change-if not an outright *denial* of the need to change. Several of the most advanced civilizations of their day (The Mayans, The Anasazi, the Khmer Empire & the Vikings in Greenland) all collapsed due to the unwillingness of the ruling classes to adapt their lifestyles to meet the demands of a much slower rate of climate change. The current attitudes of the Denialist Cult prove that our society hasn't changed much in the intervening 1,000 year period-which is why I'm very concerned!
     0 0
207. Rob Honeycutt at 11:20 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech... Ah! Now I think we're getting somewhere! You know, I don't think we're that different in our thinking. 1) The amount of warming attributable to AGW. That's extremely well studied. There are a lot of uncertainties. We have a clear understanding of the low end (1.5C) and the high end (4.5C). We don't know yet where it's actually going to fall. 2) You are exactly right. We are a highly adaptable species. Even given an extinction level event humans would most likely be one of the surviving species and would adapt. The problem here is what is in between. We're actively making a big roll of the climate dice, that's a given. We don't have the ability to control where the dice land but we do have the capacity to influence where the dice does not land. If we keep pushing the climate the way we are, based on the best research that human's have to offer, if climate sensitivity is high, we are going to create a very ugly scene for humanity over the next few hundred years. But we'll probably survive in much reduced numbers. That same scene is likely even at lower climate sensitivities if we don't adjust how we use energy now. The people who are alarmed about this are alarmed because we don't want those future generations to go through what we are potentially going to put them through. This is not coming from whacky extremist scientists. This information is coming from virtually every area of science and from every scientific organization on the planet. This is as solid as science gets.
     0 0
208. Rob Honeycutt at 11:26 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech... "I already have by demonstrating that your denominator is meaningless since it is based on erroneous results." No. You've demonstrated that you are willing to apply standards to others that you are not willing to apply to yourself. If we take the full body of scientific research into climate change and compare that to the good quality peer-reviewed papers that challenge the human contribution to modern climate change... We are going to end up about where we are now. We can go through the full exercise if you like. But if you are going to apply stringent standards on my side, you have to accept stringent standards on your side.
     0 0
209. Berényi Péter at 11:27 AM on 15 February, 2011
     #291 pbjamm at 10:58 AM on 15 February, 2011 I am curious how a list of papers supporting AGW could be compiled. Explicit endorsement of "anthropogenic global warming" would be too narrow a criteria as the authors explicit endorsement would not be required if their data were relevant. Also, they may use terms other than "anthropogenic global warming" so a simple search for that in any DB of papers would be insufficient. Where to start? Look for phrases like "could", "would", "robust", "up to", "unequivocal", "very likely", "consistent with", "future scenario", "projection", "big picture" and "multiple lines of evidence".
     0 0
210. KR at 11:32 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech: "PopTech... Okay, I'll even concede that another 10% of those papers are editorial or other than specific peer reviewed research. Heck, make it 50%! But there are a large number of other journals left to count." "Those are arbitrary numbers and the only way to verify them is to check each and every result." That is really not correct - sampling (as I've noted several times on this thread already) will provide a ratio of AGW versus non-AGW papers within whatever level of certainty you have the patience for. That can be directly applied to the journals surveyed and numbers found. Exhaustive testing (reading every single paper written) is not necessary - calling for it is just hiding from the issue. My simple survey indicates that >96% of papers are accepting of AGW as present, significant, and relevant to the real-world results being discussed. If you disagree, do your own survey and let us know. In an established field such as this, I would consider <4% to be just fringe opinions, and not relevant to the science as a whole. Especially when so many of them have proven to be really quite wrong.
     0 0
211. Daniel Bailey at 11:41 AM on 15 February, 2011
     Re: Poptech

     "This is a libelous claim as I have never followed anyone around on the Internet to harass them. Ian was a very nasty individual who kept insulting and making libelous statements about me. After I provided his contact information his attitude changed very quickly."

     Oookay, then. Does this mean you're now going to cyberstalk "correct" Albatross? Or Rob? Myself? Wow... The Yooper
     0 0
212. Marcus at 11:46 AM on 15 February, 2011
     "Ian was a very nasty individual who kept insulting and making libelous statements about me. After I provided his contact information his attitude changed very quickly." Wow, Poptech, you really come across as a thin-skinned *thug*. Your definition of "insulting" & "libelous" are both pretty weak-especially when you've been guilty of far, far worse on this blog alone. Even if you did have a genuine case for feeling insulted/libeled, though, the action of posting people's contact details (& thereby exposing that person to violent retribution from your more fanatical devotees) exposes you as nothing more than someone more interested in silencing your critics than getting to the facts-which is pretty typical of the more extreme elements of the Denialist Cult.
     0 0
213. Marcus at 11:49 AM on 15 February, 2011
     "This paper is listed under the Socio-Economic section and the journal is peer-reviewed" Yeah, maybe so, but its so out-of-date that it as good as utterly useless. Still, given that you've already proven that you wouldn't know quality research if it came up & slapped you, then its pretty obvious why you'd have missed this obvious point.
     0 0
214. Albatross at 12:09 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Regarding "cyberstalking"-- from Wikipedia: "Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress." Gathering Ian's personal information and then posting it on a public forum did cause him a great deal of distress.
     0 0
215. Philippe Chantreau at 12:25 PM on 15 February, 2011
     PT: "There is nothing outrageous or remotely illegal about using Google search results, filtering and compiling them and then posting them as contact information." It may not be illegal. However, it consists of treating information about someone, packaging it in a new form and then publishing it in that new form. All without the person's consent. My contact info is probably in a variety of places on the web. I had to give it for a number of internet activities. Although I was probably notified that other parties may use it (especially for commercial purposes), I do not recall that it included my info being "compiled, filtered and then published" with the intent of allowing anybody in the public to contact me, whatever the reason. When you are doing so, you essentially create a new set of information about an individual and then publish that set. The info may have existed before, but not under that form. For myself, I would think twice before undertaking that kind of despicable data mining followed by publication. I'm not entirely certain it is legal. I am very sure that it is weak and cowardly, however. The kind of intention that transpires from outing someone's info on the web is perfectly clear. It means that you wish some sort of action would have been taken against that person but you didn't want to do it youself. Instead you created conditions that made it possible for someone else to carry on actions if they were so enclined. And you're proud of it. Way to go PT. Ian Forrester has contributed to this site on many occasions and always did so in perfectly reasonable fashion. If he was really behaving the way you describe (which is your characterization, I'm sure there is another side to that story), there were other things you could have done. But this is what you did. It reflects on you better than anything else you've said or done.
     0 0
216. JMurphy at 12:27 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Marcus wrote : "Yeah, maybe so, but its so out-of-date that it as good as utterly useless." Not just out-of-date but described as a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". Hardly peer-reviewed but because it is contained in a peer-reviewed journal, to certain individuals that becomes a 'peer-reviewed paper against AGW Alarm' ! You couldn't make it up, normally, especially when you see him attempting to justify exposing someone else's personal details (that they didn't want exposed) in a public forum. In fact, I would go so far as to call that cowardly, especially as the person doing such a thing seems so keen on keeping the identity of himself and his website secret.
     0 0
217. Trueofvoice at 13:18 PM on 15 February, 2011
     As a layman who has spent the last two years trying to develop an understanding of climate science, after reading 310 individual posts in the thread I am more convinced than ever that quality science is overwhelmingly supportive of serious potential consequences to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Although Poptech's arguments are absurd on their face, I find his passive-aggressive style alienating and bizarre. That alone would tend to push a reasonable person away. If Poptech represents skepticism, I'll stick with mainstream science.
     0 0
218. muoncounter at 13:30 PM on 15 February, 2011
     #301: "The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming" Here's how this 1992 paper begins: Virtually all of the scientists directly involved in research on climatic change believe that the earth will undergo warming as a result of anthropogenerated emissions that absorb infrared radiation or enhance the "greenhouse effect". Have you actually read all of the papers on your so-called list? Many of the links go to paywalls; some don't even have an abstract (which is indicative of a very high standard of publishing indeed). #304: "I have not misstated what any scientists are claiming." Ah, so you do claim your the papers in your list are scientific. That means you must throw out the policy garbage; you can't play it both ways. Do not pretend that 'policy' is a social science; as broad as that class is, it does have a definition. Just because a reference goes to a law journal (such as the 20 year old in #301) does not make the paper a scholarly legal study, especially since the authors aren't lawyers. Or do you claim your own definition of this field as well? #308, 309: "I disagree" Now you're just spamming. Unsubstantiated 'I disagree' statements are worthless and should probably be deleted. If that's all you got, then you got nothing. #310: "Google Scholar includes erroneous results" Unless and until you've gone through all search results and can demonstrate these errors, stop making such claims. This noise really has to stop.
     0 0
219. KR at 13:43 PM on 15 February, 2011
     PopTech - Yes, the Google Scholar search does bias towards more heavily cited papers (I love their search methods, and really really wish I had invested heavily in their IPO). You need to look at papers near both ends of the returned search to minimize this factor. Given that citation count is a good measure of how useful that paper has been in the community, though, and hence a measure of scientific value, is that a bad thing? After all, junk papers don't get cited.
     0 0
220. Rob Honeycutt at 13:47 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech.. "I disagree that these numbers are undisputed or "well studied" in terms of quality." You have to literally be completely oblivious of the research to believe this. Your capacity of reject absolutely everything that even comes close to disagreeing with your desired conclusion is nothing short of astounding.
     0 0
221. Marcus at 13:47 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "No that is how you are attempting to portray me after I had shown Rob's denominator to be meaningless since it is based on erroneous results." Nope, that is exactly how you appear when you *admit* that you posted someone's contact details online without their permission. That is exactly the behaviour I expect of a thug whose argument is going well, & simply wants to silence his critics via intimidation. "disagree that their are undisputed numbers on the amount of any warming in the last 30 years and I disagree that their are undisputed numbers on the amount of any warming that can be attributed to AGW." Disagree all you like, but unless you can back it up with scientific *fact*, then you're really just whistling Dixie. "I find comparisons to centuries old civilizations with the modern world's adaptive abilities to be laughable at best." Laugh all you want but its worth noting that (a) these were the most advanced civilizations of their day, (b) they were subjected to the impacts of far slower climate change (on an order of +0.1 degrees per *century*) & (c) modern society (particularly the business community) has already shown a great reluctance to pay the albeit moderate costs for adaptation so far-& have even refused to take even the modest precaution of reducing CO2 emissions just in case-so the idea that you believe they'll pay even higher costs in the future-until it is too late that is-is the only thing laughable around here. Oh, except that useless list of yours.
     0 0
222. Marcus at 13:54 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "This is not true I have not libeled anyone here let alone done anything worse." Actually, you've consistently accused everyone here of rampant dishonesty-without even having the decency to provide a modicum of *proof* to back your claim-yet you get all huffy when others question the validity of your list-even citing specific *examples* to back their position. Makes you a hypocrite in my books. As to the release of personal information on line-it doesn't matter what you said or didn't say-the mere act alone proves that you're not above using intimidation to get your way. That you would have us believe that you don't think one of your fanatical, denialist mates wouldn't ever use that info to intimidate Ian simply stretches credulity to its absolute limit.
     0 0
223. pbjamm at 13:55 PM on 15 February, 2011
     BP @297 Funny, but not very helpful. I am interested in how to compile a list of papers that support the science of AGW. These could be on a huge number of topics and may not even have been intended as AGW research. I suppose the logical place to start would be with papers known to be supportive of AGW theory and compile a list of their references. Other thoughts?
     0 0
224. KR at 14:06 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "This is not true I have not libeled anyone here let alone done anything worse." I guess you're not counting repeated argumentum ad hominem statements claiming idiocy on the part of whoever objects to what you've said? The oft repeated "You don't know how to Google", among others? PopTech, I don't know where you learned rhetoric or debate, if you have had any training - but your approach is one guaranteed to get a bad reception. I don't agree with everyone's opinions - and in fact strongly disagree with many, and with peoples interpretations. But I've found it important to respect folks reasons for holding those opinions. Those reasons go straight to a persons worldview - and belittling that is a direct insult, which leads straight to the end of the discussion. Crying "Jerk!!!" gets you much the same reception as crying "Wolf!!!". You will be ignored and dismissed.
     0 0
225. KR at 14:13 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech - "This is not possible with results over 1000." Then filter it down. Go by year - you can get to 2003 before exceeding 1000. Filter on fewer categories: selecting "Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science." as the sole category and you get <1000 results in 2009. And even if you exceed 1000 by a hundred or so - sampling works. I cannot consider your complaints regarding that as a measure as reasonable - more of avoidance.
     0 0
226. Marcus at 14:44 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "So I am not allowed to voice disagreement with you? If I do it should be censored?" Wow, now whose sounding paranoid? Its just being rightly pointed out to you that, if you're going to repetitively deny or disagree with someone on some point, then you're either going to have to start presenting *evidence* to back you, or people will simply stop listening. If this is how strongly you misinterpret what people say, then I doubt very much that Ian *ever* said anything insulting or libelous to you.
     0 0
227. Marcus at 14:51 PM on 15 February, 2011
     The fact remains, PT, that despite how you try & sell it, policy or legal documents (based almost entirely on *opinion*) do not actually strengthen the skeptic position-*unless* they're backed up by *hard evidence*. Yet you consistently sell your list as though it *does* strengthen the skeptic position, simply by virtue of whether the person voicing the opinion *agrees* with the skeptic view (& even that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite-judging from your misrepresentation of Pielke). It certainly doesn't help you credibility when you infer that these kinds of papers somehow strengthen the skeptic position, when they *clearly* don't. That kind of padding out might play well with your fans, but it doesn't play well with those who are genuinely skeptical of global warming skepticism/denial.
     0 0
228. Phila at 15:38 PM on 15 February, 2011
     I disagree. If Poptech has a point to make beyond this aggressive, witless, totally unsubstantiated expression of ideological stubbornness, it eludes me. This is easily the most excruciating thread I've seen on SkS...the equivalent of trying to reason with a kindergartener whose response to every criticism is nuh uh.
     0 0
229. KR at 16:06 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Poptech "...but your approach is one guaranteed to get a bad reception." "Yet this exact comment is only ever stated by those who already disagree with me. I never delusional about getting a good reception here regardless." It's been my experience that, given a respectful attitude, I am welcomed back to various discussions even though the other participants know that I will likely hold differing opinions. And that's because I back up my arguments with reasons, with evidence, and actually take others comments seriously. You do not.
     0 0
230. Marcus at 16:41 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "Do you support Pielke's position on hurricanes? "my analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend" - Roger Pielke Jr." You keep coming back to this as though its relevant. Do you deny that Pielke has publicly commented-to you-that you're *wrongly* claiming his papers back the skeptic view? His views on hurricanes-& whether I support them or not-are quite clearly irrelevant to the fact that *he*, not me, is of the opinion that you've misrepresented his work-yet still you have failed to have the common decency to remove those papers from your list.
     0 0
231. Marcus at 16:44 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science" Wow, citing your own web-site as "proof" of the claim you're trying to make-talk about circular reasoning-just what I expect of a denialist. Also, I'd say that this could be classed as libelous, so is it OK if Rob publishes your details on the internet....oh, that's right, he doesn't need your permission, does he?
     0 0
232. Marcus at 16:48 PM on 15 February, 2011
     '"Did you ever get past third grade in your education? It may help your case if you advanced yourself up the educational ladder before inflicting your denier garbage on an educated body of people." - Ian Forrester "Poptart, you provide evidence to support my comments every time you post your garbage and lies." - Ian Forrester "You must be really stupid to keep on writing the same nonsense over and over again, each time showing how increasingly stupid and dishonest you are." - Ian Forrester' I never said he was being *friendly*, just that your decision to post his details on the internet is a classic overreaction to what are-at best-mild insults-& a level of insult that you have been equally-if not more-guilty of here. Yet I bet you'd be pretty upset if we now turned around & posted your details on the internet. As I said, such behaviour is the hallmark of a *thug* who tries to intimidate others into silence when the argument isn't going your way-much like your good pal, Monckton.
     0 0
233. Ron Crouch at 16:51 PM on 15 February, 2011
     PT do you realize that if you leave that picture posted in it's current context that it constitutes an act of terrorism. I'll lend you a shovel if you'd like to dig yourself a bigger hole.
     0 0
234. Marcus at 18:03 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "He made no mention that his paper cannot support skeptic's arguments against AGW Alarm. His basis for the allegation of false representation was unfounded so why would I remove them?" Oh, what a preening egotist you are. As Pielke was the writer of the papers in question, I'd argue that he-not *you*-has a far better understanding of whether you're falsely representing his position by including them on your list. Yet, like the egotist you are, you refuse to admit *any* error on your part. "That is not circular reasoning but an example of where I provided evidence to support my arguments. The post I linked is sourced throughout to Google Scholar search results and documentation." Yet more towering egotism on your part-this time in thinking that only *you* know how to use Google Scholar correctly. You've already been shown that your claims are based entirely on *false* assumptions-& your accusations of "illiteracy" are-by your standards-libelous (though you seem to have a pretty liberal view of what libel is.) I'd suggest you spend more time reading *your* list of papers before seeing fit to correct the work of other (though I'm not holding my breath on this one). "Repeating this libelous claim does not make it anymore true." No, its the available *facts* that make it true. Your response to some rather childish insults was to post that person's details on the internet-without their permission-knowing *full well* that doing so might result in his coming to harm at the hands of one of your more....overzealous fans. Now either this is a *gross* overreaction on your part, or its a barely veiled threat to other visitors to your site that dissent of any kind will *not* be tolerated. It represents a crossing of a line that definitely constitutes intimidation, & intimidation is the tool of a *thug*. Your mate Monckton uses similar measures to silence his critics-showing the very dark nature of the Denialist Cult.
     0 0
235. gmb92 at 18:07 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Where this thread has ended up is no surprise. "You have been shown to be a liar, propagandist and smear merchant." Even creepier is PopTech's tendency to bold the ad hominens. PT's parting shot PT's debating style I liked KAP's analysis.
     0 0
236. les at 18:51 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Now I'm confused. I posted up the discussion of the use of his papers by Roger Pielke Jr - stating that his paper does not show what pop tech thinks it shows - on the populartechnology link posted by pop tech above, and it doesn't appear in comments. Is that site censored?
     0 0
237. DonaldB at 19:19 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "Is that site censored?" Yes, unfavourable comments either never appear or disappear. The irony of course is that poptech will rage about censorship if he's not allowed to post. See Greenfyre's posts on poptech.
     0 0
238. les at 19:34 PM on 15 February, 2011
     338, DonaldB. That is very peculiar. It the intention is to persuade people, who might be of a skeptical disposition, that this list is a worth piece of information, he's doing a very poor job. Particularly if one is expecting clarification on important parts of the data. probably just a waste of time, then.
     0 0
239. les at 19:55 PM on 15 February, 2011
     340: Why are you replying that here and not on your own site? I was well aware of the date of his post etc as well as that Hurricanes are within scope of that discussion... So, clearly, you agree that you are continuing to make an error that you made over a year ago with out correction. I think that's important data. Remember you are mostly talking to scientists here, we tend to look as much at the development of data and ideas as at the 'facts' presented at a given moment. Improvements of results, correction of errors and such like a 'signals' (as an economist would say) of integrity... or visa versa. We're all looking at your approach to the issues raised here, elsewhere and before; and forming our own opinion of the reliability, usefulness and integrity of the information presented... it's not looking good, mate.
     0 0
240. DonaldB at 20:00 PM on 15 February, 2011
     "Ian was a very nasty individual who kept insulting and making libelous statements about me. After I provided his contact information his attitude changed very quickly." Then, in the interest of fairness, you won't object to me reminding you that your own name is a matter of public record now?
     0 0
241. les at 20:16 PM on 15 February, 2011
     #344 - thanks for the comments. Noted. You clearly think you've made no error or that you've sufficiently clarified or amended what you present; others disagree and, like I said, we all get to form an opinion. Clearly you care very deeply about your work otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time trying to defend it... clearly your defense isn't working and, I suppose, this maybe because you don't understand your audience. I was merely opinioning that, after 7 pages here, it isn't looking good. Just some feed back. Oh, and, there really is no point in posting questions to me in bold, I'm not here to do your work for you; nor telling me what to do or not do... I'm more than capable of deciding that for my self, given the information presented.
     0 0
242. les at 20:38 PM on 15 February, 2011
     347: Really "not here to convince anyone" but "here to correct misinformation" ... but surely to do the latter, you must do the former?!?!? Bit confused there. But sure, you decide to find any allegations I make meaningless; that's up to you... like I said, we all get to form our opinion based on what we see. If you don't want to raise you game to suit your (adopted) audience here, that's also your choice.
     0 0
243. JMurphy at 21:15 PM on 15 February, 2011
     Why is someone who censors comments to their own secretive website allowed to post spam freely on other open websites...and then make claims about censorship ? Now we have three crucial words that mean something in the real world, and something entirely different in a strange denier world : 'AGW Alarm', 'skepticism' and 'censorship'. It really is impossible to rationally debate (well, at least we do try the rational stance !) with someone who has their own versions and definitions of words than everyone else. It's like trying to argue with a 9/11 troofer, whose bottom-line is that anything coming from or associated with the government is false : you hit a brick wall very quickly. Once that happens, the best thing is to move away slowly and get back to the world of rationality as quickly as possible.
     0 0
244. les at 23:58 PM on 15 February, 2011
     350: I'm not demanding you raise your game... Obviously when I said "that's also your choice" it clearly wasn't a demand. It was, obviously, just advice; again, you are as free to take or leave it as I am to answer or not answer your or anyone else's questions. Equally it's up to you to try to "correct misinformation" without being convincing... The reason I bothered to post what that opinion is that I read SkS because, as much as anything, it's high quality science and debate - I just happen to like watching a good bit of science being done from time to time, in fields I'm not directly involved in. Some of the debate on this thread has not been up to the normal standard and I'd hope that, having the privilege of having the subject of the article available for comment, we'd get a high-level consideration of the issues. Some have tried, but the quality of the responses hasn't been up to the quality of the rest of the site, which is a shame.
     0 0
245. Eric (skeptic) at 00:25 AM on 16 February, 2011
     Poptech, about two years ago I saw your list on a conservative forum. I had already read a number of the papers, but I looked at others since then. As just one example, Arthur Rorsch (phlogiston paper) presents Beck's CO2 findings and a non-quantitative GH theory to question "enhanced" GH effect (a nonsequitur). He claims "poor correlation" between the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and estimated anthropogenic emissions. How is this paper helpful? OTOH, the Bellamy-Barrett paper "Climate stability: an inconvenient proof" clearly shows the temperature increase from added CO2 (Modtran results) and then casts doubt on climate model results (clouds different from measurements), mentions some negative feedbacks (nonquantitatively), and a loose (IMO useless) section on solar. Not a perfect paper, but coherent with science of GHG physics and radiative balance. My point of this contrast is that your list is self-defeating in the long run unless it is reviewed and quality controlled. Above all, it needs to be sorted into categories.
     0 0
246. Eric (skeptic) at 01:04 AM on 16 February, 2011
     I see a single alphbetized list http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Your idea that including incoherent, contradictory material is simple "non-discriminatory" is not useful over the long haul. My job as skeptic is to understand the science with every possible alternative and your list helped for that because it has everything. However my other job is to correct people on forums arguing that CO2 is not a GHG and similar assertions. I wouldn't mind doing this, but your list is a hindrance for propagating a coherent alternative to CAGW. You are making my life more difficult because you won't do or delegate the detailed reviewing that needs to be done.
     0 0
247. Eric (skeptic) at 01:06 AM on 16 February, 2011
     BTW, your categories need to include "uses Beck's CO2 measurements" and similar caveats.
     0 0
248. RickG at 01:23 AM on 16 February, 2011
     #352 Poptech: It looks like various posts of mine have been deleted throughout this discussion. That tends to happen when the "comments Policy" is violated. I would imagine comments opposed to your position, also in violation, are deleted as well.
     0 0
249. Eric (skeptic) at 01:32 AM on 16 February, 2011
     #352 Poptech, yes some of your posts have been deleted. I read most or all of them and of the remaining, quite a few should be edited to remove personal disputes, repetition, unsupported claims, etc. It is too big a job for the mods, not to mention the serious effects on discourse. Please try to understand the purpose of this website: it is to provide a convenient resource for other websites to link to so that they can debunk common "skeptic" arguments that have no merit (in the opinion of individual authors). The website allows critiques from skeptics to strengthen the final product: a better debunking article. Accordingly if some author here sees fit, they will use the results of a thread like this to write a better debunking article, perhaps one that highlights the many extremely unscientific articles in your list. I understand that you might take this personally since you spent considerable time compiling your list. Perhaps no author here will bother critiquing it further than this thread, but don't take that as a stamp of approval. To put it as bluntly as possible: your list is very low quality and needs thorough review and filtering to be a useful (for example, that I could use to support my arguments on other threads here).
     0 0
     Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you.
250. Utahn at 01:43 AM on 16 February, 2011
     Poptech: "Obviously hundreds of published peer-reviewed papers in scholarly peer-reviewed journals supporting skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm would strengthen the skeptic's position." No, not at all. That is the point of this post. If I find one peer-reviewed article that finds no correlation between smoking and cancer, but there are 10000 stating there is, does the one article strengthen the skeptic's position on smoking and cancer? I agree with you that the posted denominator is a guess without looking at each hit, but the point stands that 850 means very little without some kind of denominator. Do you agree?
     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.