APP - Expert Credibility in Climate Research

[Good Luck]

Since when does one have to cite references to ask questions?

Do you deny the fact that the earth was much warmer 1 million years ago?
Do you deny the fact that atmospheric CO2 was much higher?

If not, they why demand citations about commonly known facts of paleoclimatology?

If you DO deny these basic scientific facts, then you are, trruly, without any brains or substance whatsoever.

So, which is it? Do I need to prove to you the facts about climatology 1000,000+ years ago? Or will you accept the facts as well known, and therefore discuss why AGW theory ignores those facts?

But, just in case you desire to show howw truly brain dead you are and demand citations, here are are some:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
A study of paleoclimatology, in which MGTs are displayed over time from the precambrian to present.

Then there is the data on atmospheric CO2 contained in this study:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Combine the information into a comparative chart similar to the ones we see daily from the AGW crowd extolling the "correlation" between CO2 and MGT, and we get this chart assembled by the folks at Geocraft.com:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Now, let's get back to the questions:
WHY does AGW theory, along with all its brain dead proponents, government-grant whores, and other liars, totally and completely IGNORE the fact that their theory is based on claims that ignore any and all paleontological data prior to their precious ice core data?

WHY do they ignore and gloss over the FACT that the Earth, historically, is MUCH warmer than today?

WHY does AGW ignore the FACT that the so-called "normal" temperature they keep showing us creeping above is actually represents a MGT of a period of interglaciation during a MILLION YEAR LONG ICE AGE?

What is the justification for claiming "unprecedented" CO2 level increases when data clearly shows times when CO2 concentrations were over 20 times greater?

ANSWER the fucking questions you brain dead twit - if you can. They are, contrary to your LIES, quite legitimate questions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Good luck... that is his way of attempting to duck answering the questions. Apparently we can only question his religion if we have members of his religion pre approve the questions with 4000 page studies linked to sources that are 100% brain dead fear mongering global warming (I mean climate change) idiots.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I totally scanned the thread, and not one single, solitary link to a reputable scientific sources anywhere in sight from anyone in the Flat Earth Society. Just a bunch of conjectures, assertions, and unsubstantiated blather.

LMAO... still afraid to answer simple questions Cypress???? How shocking.

I'm adding a new rule to this:

If you don't want to accept or read the plethora of links to the world's most reputable scientific bodies I gave, if you are impervious to mountains of peer reviewed research, and to the virtually universal consensus of reputable climate researchers, no worries.

Here is a new rule for you Cypress. You are no longer allowed to speak, type or breath... because well... we just like making up stupid rules to counter your stupid rules. We HAVE read your links you moron. Unlike you, we are not afraid to read and address what those with opposing views.

Now... do continue cowering like the little brain dead fool that you are.

PS: I have a demanding job and a life, dudes. I'll try to inform you of my schedule for the few minutes I can spend here, so you're not waiting around for hours totally stressing out about me! Cheers and Carry on.

seriously man.... STOP... you are only embarrassing yourself with your stupidity.

 

[Cypress]

Sheesh, the flat earth society really gets upset about science.


If you think four investigations into Climategate at Penn State Uiversity and EAU, and a fifth investigation by the British Parliament were bogus, and that these five investigations colluded with, and provided cover to sweep a scientific fraud under the carpet, don't just stomp your feet, yell, and make unsubstantiated assertions and speculations.

Show your evidence.

Show me the reputable scientific organizations, and the legitimate mainstream news articles that have cast doubt on the validity of these five investigations.....backed up by evidence and facts.,,, And yo, sorry dudes, the random speculations of a rightwing blogger, an OP Ed columnist, or a message boarder just doesn't cut it.

Me? I provide evidence, links, and data in almost every post. And almost always from the world's most reputable scientific authorities. Are you flat earthers incapable of retorting in kind? That's a huge credibility gap you're carrying around man.

If you have evidence that the 2007 IPCC is all mucked up and full of lies, present it. Don't just pound your keyboards and assert it. Give me reputable scientific sources that show it, don't give me some crap rightwing blog, or some crap Rupert Murdoch London tabloid newspaper.

Me? I've provided links to some of the world's most reputable science organizations that have independently validated and corroborated IPCC's finding. Outside of a couple of trivial mistakes, and a trivial error or two in referencing, the the IPCC's conclusions are corroborated by the most prestigious scientific institutions in the United States. And a detailed investigation by the Dutch government also validated the IPCC. Three of the UK's most reputable scientific organizations - the UK Met, the Royal Society, and the UK Environment Council said just last month that IPCC's conclusions not only stand, but that the science since 2007 is stronger for human induced climate change, and that in effect, IPCC's conclusions are conservative broadly speaking. We are edging towards the worst case projections.


You can yelp out "But it was really HOT, like 60 million years ago!" if you must...but then clearly you are way out of your league here. These are not legitimate questions I have to answer. They've been answered, the links I've provided substantiate them, and scientists have explained why the warming this century is different, is not natural, and is a threat. A potentially catastrophic threat.


My questions to you are: Were you wrong about Climate gate? Yes or no? And also, why can't you provide any credible, legitimate, and reputable scientific links to support your assertions, speculations, and questions?





Here's another good article about how the anti-science cabal is engaged in disinformation, death threats, and harassment of climate scientists. It's comical man, why does the reich wing routinely hate science? Who the f issues death threats against scientists who are just doing their job, on a scientific topic that now has virtually universal consensus among actual climate researchers? It's whacked, and strangely hilarious, man.

Personally, I like Dr. Shmidt's response to this: aka, the belligerent and comical Gate Clowns and the unapologetic science-deniers are magnificently bonkers, and are only worthy of derision and bemusement. History is going to judge them the same way that history judges the tobacco company scientists and their right wing defenders - who spent decades denying the links to cancer, or the health effects of second hand smoke.

It's actually pretty much at the point where the belligerent climate gate clowns can be lumped in with the Intelligent Design dupes. Good times!

Climate Scientists Targets of Abuse, Death Threats

Professor Stephen Schneider, a climatologist based at Stanford University in California, whose name features in the UEA emails, says he has received "hundreds" of violently abusive emails since last November. The peak came in December during the Copenhagen climate change summit, he said, but the number has picked up again in recent days since he co-authored a scientific paper last month which showed that 97%-98% of climate scientists agree that mankind's carbon emissions are causing global temperatures to increase.

Schneider described his attackers as "cowards" and said he had observed an "immediate, noticeable rise" in emails whenever climate scientists were attacked by prominent right-wing US commentators, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

"[The senders] are not courageous people," said Schneider. "Where are they getting their information from? They just listen to assertions made on blogs and rightwing talkshows. It's pathetic."

Professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and leading proponent of the "Hockey Stick graph", said his experiences of hate mail were "eerily similar" to those described by Schneider. "I'm not comfortable talking about the details, especially as some of these matters remain under police investigation," he said. "What I can say is that the emails come in bursts, and do seem to be timed with high-profile attack pieces on talk radio and other fringe media outlets."

Last month, Mann told ABC News in the US that the following message was typical of the emails he has been receiving: "Six feet under with the roots is where you should be. I was hoping I would see the news that you'd committed suicide. Do it, freak." Another climate scientist, who wished to remain anonymous, said he had had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now travels with bodyguards.

Dr Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and co-author of the RealClimate website, said he had chosen to adopt a different strategy and now largely ignores the abusive emails he receives. "I learned a while ago that there is no way to prevent people who have no idea who you are, or what you think, or what you do, using your name to project their problems onto," he said. "Should I be offended and get annoyed, or should I just look upon my interlocutor with bemusement and pity?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sheesh, the flat earth society really gets upset about science.

LMAO.... no one is upset about SCIENCE Cypress.... we are mocking your consistent refusal to ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RELIGION. Just admit you are scared to answer them and move on. You are only furthering your own embarrassment.

If you think four investigations into Climategate at Penn State Uiversity and EAU, and a fifth investigation by the British Parliament were bogus, and that these five investigations colluded with, and provided cover to sweep a scientific fraud under the carpet, don't just stomp your feet, yell, and make unsubstantiated assertions and speculations.

Again... WHO RAN the 'investigations?????

WHO Chose the panel?

Who made up the panels?

Why can't you answer simple questions Cypress?

Me? I provide evidence, links, and data in almost every post. And almost always from the world's most reputable scientific authorities.

So what you are saying is that you are only intelligent enough to post links but not intelligent enough to comprehend what the links tell us and thus are not able to answer any questions posed to you?

You can yelp out "But it was really HOT, like 60 million years ago!" if you must...but then clearly you are way out of your league here.

The only one 'yelping' is you.... in your non stop desperation to avoid answering simple questions.

These are not legitimate questions I have to answer. They've been answered, the links I've provided substantiate them, and scientists have explained why the warming this century is different, is not natural, and is a threat. A potentially catastrophic threat.

Again.... NO YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THEM. YOU CONTINUE TO DUCK THEM LIKE A COMPLETE COWARD.

My questions to you are: Were you wrong about Climate gate?

I am sorry, but that is not a legitimate question.

And also, why can't you provide any credible, legitimate, and reputable scientific links to support your assertions, speculations, and questions?

We have. You ignore it or dismiss it with such facts as 'that university is laughable' or 'not enough people have heard of that guy'

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?

 

[zappasguitar]

LMAO.... no one is upset about SCIENCE Cypress.... we are mocking your consistent refusal to ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RELIGION. Just admit you are scared to answer them and move on. You are only furthering your own embarrassment.



Again... WHO RAN the 'investigations?????

WHO Chose the panel?

Who made up the panels?

Why can't you answer simple questions Cypress?

Yer kidding right? First it's the taunting and mocking and now you fixate of some ridiculously miniscule bit of info as though it will prove all your garbage.

You read a liberal political agenda into EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of Cypress' side of this debate, yet you will not allow him to question any agenda you might have...typical. If your trying to make a point,then go find your own damn info and present it, don't expect others to do your legwork for you.

So what you are saying is that you are only intelligent enough to post links but not intelligent enough to comprehend what the links tell us and thus are not able to answer any questions posed to you?

No, it appears as though he is saying that if you can read, then it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to find your own answers in what he has provided. You refuse to reciprocate when it's Cypress asking the questions...SEE BELOW...why should he spoon feed you?

Again.... NO YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THEM. YOU CONTINUE TO DUCK THEM LIKE A COMPLETE COWARD.

Insults and namecalling...this debate appears over.

I am sorry, but that is not a legitimate question.

I am sorry, but if you expect answers, then you don't get to decide what is and isn't a "legitimate" question...SEE ABOVE...

We have. You ignore it or dismiss it with such facts as 'that university is laughable' or 'not enough people have heard of that guy'

Which is still more acceptable than calling him "moron" or "braindead" like you do whenever he gets you cornered.

 

[zappasguitar]

ANSWER the fucking questions you brain dead twit - if you can. They are, contrary to your LIES, quite legitimate questions.

Yeah, that's how to promote civil discourse and the free give and take of ideas...YOU GO!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yer kidding right? First it's the taunting and mocking and now you fixate of some ridiculously miniscule bit of info as though it will prove all your garbage.

Feeble attempt on your part to try and protect Cypress. If it is such miniscule information, then Cypress should have NO problem producing the answers.

You read a liberal political agenda into EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of Cypress' side of this debate, yet you will not allow him to question any agenda you might have...typical. If your trying to make a point,then go find your own damn info and present it, don't expect others to do your legwork for you.

ROFLMAO.... My agenda is quite clear... it is to get Cypress to answer questions regarding his belief in global warming. He has started at least ten threads proclaiming the 'independent' reviews have exonerated the climate scientists at East Anglia and Mann at Penn St. If he is going to champion the review panels... he should at least be able to tell us WHO was on them and WHO selected the panels.

No, it appears as though he is saying that if you can read, then it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to find your own answers in what he has provided. You refuse to reciprocate when it's Cypress asking the questions...SEE BELOW...why should he spoon feed you?

Why are you so desperately trying to protect Cypress? Asking him for his source material is hardly out of line. He is not being asked to spoon feed me. Some of those questions can ONLY be answered by him.... as they are ASKING FOR HIS OPINION/COMMENTS. The other questions, as I mentioned, are asked of him because HE is the one that continually champions these review panels.

I am sorry, but if you expect answers, then you don't get to decide what is and isn't a "legitimate" question...

You really should try to read the thread and the ten others Cypress has started on this topic. That was poking fun at his standard spin.

Which is still more acceptable than calling him "moron" or "braindead" like you do whenever he gets you cornered.

tell us... if HE is the one that has ME cornered.... why is it that HE is the one refusing to answer questions with every bit of spin he can muster????

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, that's how to promote civil discourse and the free give and take of ideas...YOU GO!

You are just as big a moron as Cypress.... he STARTS these threads and then refuses to answer any questions on the topic he starts and you wonder why people call him an idiot?

Funny.... but Cypress's refusal to discuss any dissenting views is EXACTLY the same problem the other fear mongers have.

 

[Good Luck]

So, questions which challenge the conclusions of AGW are illegitimate? Here is where AGW becomes religion rather than science. Questions will not be answered. No one has shown one single sentence fragment sentence of evidence proving the current trend is not natural. AGW is nothing more than research specifically designed to fit preconclusions. Mankind releases CO2 into the atmosphere through use of fossil fuels. The MGT has risen in the last century. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". LEAP to the conclusion that human CO2 is the primary driver of increased MGT.

Problem: data does not support the conclusion except when it is tailored. For instance, it is a well known fact that CO concentration record clearly indicate a significant and measurable lag between increased CO2 levels and temperature increases. Last I checked my physics texts, cause does not come after effect. But this fact does not faze the religious. Man made CO2 is still the main cause because "something else" started it, but now man took over from nature.

Also ignored is the fact that planetary modeling studies clearly show that CO2 as a green house gas does not contribute significantly to atmospheric heat retention at low concentrations. Current CO2 levels are below 400 ppmv. According to planetary modeling, CO2 heat retention does not become significant until concentrations reach 1000-1200 ppmv. I have posted a definitive study showing WHY low concentrations of CO2 do not contribute significantly to atmospheric heat retention. Rather than dispute the scientific content of the article, they attacked how the article is posted on the internet. http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm Totally ignored were articles from "reputable scientific source" (ie: Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy) which shows the same conclusions on CO2 heat retention in low concentrations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...3e8b7b8a8b702b

Nor has anyone from the AGW camp explained why paleoclimatic data from as little as 200,000 years prior to the oldest ice core data (ie: data showing global temperatures much higher than the ice-age ccycle shown by ice cores) is disregarded. IOW, no, we do NOT have to go back 60 million years to show the claims of "unprecidented" temps and CO2 levels to be based on a deliberately narrowed focus on very recent (in geologic terms) set of data. Refusal to address the fact that the Earth has, on numerous occasions held NATURALLY to far higher MGTs than today just continues to reveal the religious mania of AGW proponents.

The "correlation between CO2 and MGT" is another area in which AGW theory focuses on a recent set of data with no explanation why earlier data (which completely demolishes the correlation) should not be included. I'd say a study which deliberately truncates data that diminishes the R2 value of the study is poor science. What PERMANENT change in the Earth happened 600,000-800,000 years ago that makes climatic and atmospheric data prior to that cutoff no longer valid? Because unless some permanent change of factors influencing global climate and atmospheric content can be shown, there is no valid reason for using only data in the 600,000 years ago to present data in analyzing the relationship between MGTs and atmospheric CO2. (The INVALID reason for excluding data prior to the focus of AGW is readily apparent - if they include it, one of their main supports falls to pieces.)

Bottom line: AGW is poor science. I do not care HOW many "reputable" scientist have bought into it. The problems with the theory are readily apparent to anyone reasonably familiar with scientific method. The entire concept is based on the idea that global climate of written history is the definition of "normal" with a "generous" expansion of a "normal" cycle between glaciation and interglaciation over a whole 600,000 years. IOW, the conclusions are based an an arbitrary and very humano-centric definition of "natural" - a definition deliberately narrowed to support the conclusion that current events are not not natural.

There is no definitive explanation of what causes the Earth to enter a period of glaciation, nor what causes periods of interglaciation during the current (yes CURRENT) ice age. Bigger yet, there is no definitive explanation what causes ice ages in the first place, nor what triggers the Earth to come out of an ice age. Therefore, there is NO WAY for scientists to state definitively that what we see happening today is NOT natural. The conclusion is based on unsupported assumptions of what defines natural.

 

[Cypress]

So, questions which challenge the conclusions of AGW are illegitimate? Here is where AGW becomes religion rather than science. Questions will not be answered. No one has shown one single sentence fragment sentence of evidence proving the current trend is not natural. AGW is nothing more than research specifically designed to fit preconclusions. Mankind releases CO2 into the atmosphere through use of fossil fuels. The MGT has risen in the last century. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". LEAP to the conclusion that human CO2 is the primary driver of increased MGT.

Problem: data does not support the conclusion except when it is tailored. For instance, it is a well known fact that CO concentration record clearly indicate a significant and measurable lag between increased CO2 levels and temperature increases. Last I checked my physics texts, cause does not come after effect. But this fact does not faze the religious. Man made CO2 is still the main cause because "something else" started it, but now man took over from nature.

Also ignored is the fact that planetary modeling studies clearly show that CO2 as a green house gas does not contribute significantly to atmospheric heat retention at low concentrations. Current CO2 levels are below 400 ppmv. According to planetary modeling, CO2 heat retention does not become significant until concentrations reach 1000-1200 ppmv. I have posted a definitive study showing WHY low concentrations of CO2 do not contribute significantly to atmospheric heat retention. Rather than dispute the scientific content of the article, they attacked how the article is posted on the internet. http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm Totally ignored were articles from "reputable scientific source" (ie: Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy) which shows the same conclusions on CO2 heat retention in low concentrations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...3e8b7b8a8b702b

Nor has anyone from the AGW camp explained why paleoclimatic data from as little as 200,000 years prior to the oldest ice core data (ie: data showing global temperatures much higher than the ice-age ccycle shown by ice cores) is disregarded. IOW, no, we do NOT have to go back 60 million years to show the claims of "unprecidented" temps and CO2 levels to be based on a deliberately narrowed focus on very recent (in geologic terms) set of data. Refusal to address the fact that the Earth has, on numerous occasions held NATURALLY to far higher MGTs than today just continues to reveal the religious mania of AGW proponents.

The "correlation between CO2 and MGT" is another area in which AGW theory focuses on a recent set of data with no explanation why earlier data (which completely demolishes the correlation) should not be included. I'd say a study which deliberately truncates data that diminishes the R2 value of the study is poor science. What PERMANENT change in the Earth happened 600,000-800,000 years ago that makes climatic and atmospheric data prior to that cutoff no longer valid? Because unless some permanent change of factors influencing global climate and atmospheric content can be shown, there is no valid reason for using only data in the 600,000 years ago to present data in analyzing the relationship between MGTs and atmospheric CO2. (The INVALID reason for excluding data prior to the focus of AGW is readily apparent - if they include it, one of their main supports falls to pieces.)

Bottom line: AGW is poor science. I do not care HOW many "reputable" scientist have bought into it. The problems with the theory are readily apparent to anyone reasonably familiar with scientific method. The entire concept is based on the idea that global climate of written history is the definition of "normal" with a "generous" expansion of a "normal" cycle between glaciation and interglaciation over a whole 600,000 years. IOW, the conclusions are based an an arbitrary and very humano-centric definition of "natural" - a definition deliberately narrowed to support the conclusion that current events are not not natural.

There is no definitive explanation of what causes the Earth to enter a period of glaciation, nor what causes periods of interglaciation during the current (yes CURRENT) ice age. Bigger yet, there is no definitive explanation what causes ice ages in the first place, nor what triggers the Earth to come out of an ice age. Therefore, there is NO WAY for scientists to state definitively that what we see happening today is NOT natural. The conclusion is based on unsupported assumptions of what defines natural.

Your "science direct" link doesn't work for me, and I stopped reading when I got to your second link.

It's wildly outdated (from 2000, a decade ago), it's not peer reviewed, it's not published in a reputable scientific journal, and it's written by an electrical engineer with no qualifications, track record, or peer reviewed publications in actual climate science.

I do not care HOW many "reputable" scientist have bought into it.

There ya go, compadres. Science denialism is based on emotion, foot stomping, ideology, and anger. I get it, dude.

I refuse to join rightwingers in degrading science. The whole "teach the debate!" crapola is what anti-evolution theocrats do. It's an insult and dishonor to science to put pundits, op-ed columnists, and people who don't actually do climate research on the same par as the world's best climate scientists. The people on this board who have science degrees, or a profound respect for science probably know where I'm coming from.

I am not at all surprised to learn that evolution deniers and climate science deniers have joined forces to attack public school science education.

Everything you think you know from reading your blogs, and your non-peer reviewed articles on obscure websites I reject with extreme prejudice. If you fell for Climate Gate, you don't have a leg to stand on, and everything you think you've learned on rightwing blogs isn't actual science. It's editorializing, pontificating, and cherry picking, freed from the constraints of academic peer review, and scrutiny.

Are you really asking me to accept some ten year old blog article from an electrical engineer, and put it on the same par as the literally hundreds of links, reports and citations I've given you from the world's best climate scientists and institutions?

Don't make me laugh man, I'm am not going to waste my time on that.


Please get back to me when you have peer reviewed science and reputable links to provide. I do not accept the premise of your assertions and guesses, unless it's substantiated by an actual body of peer reviewed science and credible scientific links. In short, I reject everything you think you know because you read it on a blog, or in some non-peer reviewed web article.

 

[tinfoil]

Cypress doesn't seem to understand what corruption is

 

[Good Luck]

Your "science direct" link doesn't work for me, and I stopped reading when I got to your second link.

It's wildly outdated (from 2000, a decade ago)...

"Wildly outdated"? What a fucking \weak minded dweeb you are.

Tell us again, how old is the data used to define the so-called hockey stick graph? What about ice core studies? Have they tossed out those because they got old? Your excuses are pure bullshit.

Also, the studies referenced are an analysis using quantum physics to describe the heat retention properties of CO2 at different concentrations. PHYSICS DOES NOT CHANGE because it is 10 years later! Of course, if you'd read the information, you'd know that. Instead all you did was hunt for publication date and author - because I doubt you even know enough science to dispute the content even if you did read it.

Nor does the physics of heat quantum retention change depending on who does the analysis. If a person understands the math and the concepts heat retention in gasses (like, say, an electrical engineer with a specialty in electrical plasmas), they are fully qualified to do the analysis. Again physics does not change according to who does the analysis.

Now, do you want to actually discuss the SCIENCE of the studies?

CAN you discuss the science of the studies?

I doubt it. If you EVER knew something about science, you obviously lost it when you had your mandatory modern liberal lobotomy. You'll just continue with the "if they disagree with my religion, they're not qualified to comment".

You are, without a doubt, one of the most pathetically brain washed idiots ever to claim the ability to debate.

 

[Good Luck]

BTW: are you still claiming the need to links in "reputable science publications" with respect to climatic data prior to 600,000 years ago? Are you actually going to stand by "you won't discuss it" when it is COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE that the Earth was a hell of a lot warmer as recent as 1 million years ago (that's a little over 0.02% of the Earth's age). Are you actualy saying you won't answer the question why climatic data from the period prior to the start of the current ice age is being left out of AGW analysis because I do not provide a peer reviewed study on paleo climate?

Again, you are the most brain dead pathetic excuse for a thinking man I have ever debated. Do you READ the opinions mandated for you by your political masters, or do you have a built in link they can use to simply upload their latest into that laughable organ you call a brain?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Cypress doesn't seem to understand what corruption is

Well I guess that's a fair comment for you to make considering you don't know what science is! LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

BTW: are you still claiming the need to links in "reputable science publications" with respect to climatic data prior to 600,000 years ago? Are you actually going to stand by "you won't discuss it" when it is COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE that the Earth was a hell of a lot warmer as recent as 1 million years ago (that's a little over 0.02% of the Earth's age). Are you actualy saying you won't answer the question why climatic data from the period prior to the start of the current ice age is being left out of AGW analysis because I do not provide a peer reviewed study on paleo climate?

Again, you are the most brain dead pathetic excuse for a thinking man I have ever debated. Do you READ the opinions mandated for you by your political masters, or do you have a built in link they can use to simply upload their latest into that laughable organ you call a brain?

So let me see. Cypress is referencing and linking reputable and current peer reviewed articles by trained and credentialed climate scientist while you're referncing right wing political blogs as evidence and you're accusing him of political bias and lacking in objectivity?

Sorry....not buying it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Wildly outdated"? What a fucking \weak minded dweeb you are.

Tell us again, how old is the data used to define the so-called hockey stick graph? What about ice core studies? Have they tossed out those because they got old? Your excuses are pure bullshit.

Also, the studies referenced are an analysis using quantum physics to describe the heat retention properties of CO2 at different concentrations. PHYSICS DOES NOT CHANGE because it is 10 years later! Of course, if you'd read the information, you'd know that. Instead all you did was hunt for publication date and author - because I doubt you even know enough science to dispute the content even if you did read it.

Nor does the physics of heat quantum retention change depending on who does the analysis. If a person understands the math and the concepts heat retention in gasses (like, say, an electrical engineer with a specialty in electrical plasmas), they are fully qualified to do the analysis. Again physics does not change according to who does the analysis.

Now, do you want to actually discuss the SCIENCE of the studies?

CAN you discuss the science of the studies?

I doubt it. If you EVER knew something about science, you obviously lost it when you had your mandatory modern liberal lobotomy. You'll just continue with the "if they disagree with my religion, they're not qualified to comment".

You are, without a doubt, one of the most pathetically brain washed idiots ever to claim the ability to debate.

Notice how he attacks the author's credentials, yet REFUSES to provide a list of the panelists of the so called 'independent' reviews so that we can take a look at THEIR credentials.

As for actually reading the study... of course he won't do that. He did the same to a study I gave him posted by a CLIMATOLOGIST from 2006. He first called it outdated. Then he stated that not enough scientists had 'heard of' the scientist that wrote the 50 page paper, then he stated that the University of Delaware (where said scientist worked) was 'laughable'.

Thus it does not matter if you follow his supposed rules regarding whose research 'counts'.... he ALWAYS makes up an excuse as to why he refuses to read the information or comment on it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So let me see. Cypress is referencing and linking reputable and current peer reviewed articles by trained and credentialed climate scientist while you're referncing right wing political blogs as evidence and you're accusing him of political bias and lacking in objectivity?

Sorry....not buying it.

It is sad to see you take up Cypress's line of bullshit. Calling things 'right wing' or dismissing them because you don't like what they say are not legitimate within a debate.

As I stated, I posted a 50 page PEER REVIEWED paper from a CLIMATOLOGIST and HE STILL REJECTED it due to 'not enough scientists have heard of that guy' and 'his University is laughable'.

He also refuses to link us to WHO WAS ON THE PANELS so that we can actually check THEIR credentials.

I asked you to provide the same since you like pretending Cypress is providing 'credible links/sources' .... I am sure you just happened to miss that.

 

[zappasguitar]

BTW: are you still claiming the need to links in "reputable science publications" with respect to climatic data prior to 600,000 years ago? Are you actually going to stand by "you won't discuss it" when it is COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE that the Earth was a hell of a lot warmer as recent as 1 million years ago (that's a little over 0.02% of the Earth's age). Are you actualy saying you won't answer the question why climatic data from the period prior to the start of the current ice age is being left out of AGW analysis because I do not provide a peer reviewed study on paleo climate?

Again, you are the most brain dead pathetic excuse for a thinking man I have ever debated. Do you READ the opinions mandated for you by your political masters, or do you have a built in link they can use to simply upload their latest into that laughable organ you call a brain?

See, you basically had two choices in front of you before you posted what you wrote above...

1)...Respond with the facts and data you CLAIM is "common fucking knowledge" and shut down Cypress right then and there.

OR...

2)...Respond with a bunch of F bombs and ad homs.

Now, which choice do YOU think is going to make it look like you've got big heaping piles of both "Jack" and "Squat" at the ready to back up your allegations?