You don’t even understand what your own side is saying, let alone what the other side is saying. Anyway, I have spent hours and hours reading articles, blog posts, and IPCC reports on the warmist side of the debate. Because I actually care about learning the truth.
Anyway, you have not answered my question. I asked if it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming controversy but does not even know that water vapor feedback is at the core of the controversy?
You evaded that question by asserting that there is not a controversy. I disagree, but I will rephrase the question:
Do you think it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming hypothesis but does not even know what the core components of that hypothesis are?
:shrug: GIGOBuster repeatedly refused to answer a simple, reasonable question about his position. If Warren Meyer had done the same thing to you, you would be justified in refusing to engage with him any more.
Do you look at all of them? Or are you selective? If you are selective, how do you choose them? And do scrutinize them for logical flaws?
How do you make sure that you are fairly considering the arguments against your position?
I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you denying that none of the computer simulations have been validated by making interesting, accurate, bona fide, consistent predictions?
First things first:
What exactly is my “view,” according to you? And where is your proof that most of the scientists working on the question disagree with me?
I’m extremely skeptical of this especially given that Jones has published a lot of papers. Can you quote, cite, and link the relevant language?
My response: Shoplifting is absolutely wrong.
Ok, now please answer my question:
And please show me where Michael Mann condemned Jones’ conduct just as I condemned shoftlifting.
Umm, I have no idea what your point is here. Are you claiming that any of these 6 studies contradict my point? If so, please QUOTE the relevant language from the studies.
My claim is that the research is suspect. I did give an example of bias however. So I’m not sure what more you want from me.
It’s discussed in the article I linked which you refused to read. Chapter 4, just do a word search for the word “Briffa.”
By the way, it appears you have not answered my questions from before:
(1) Do you agree that according to Michael Mann, recent temperatures represent a thousand-year high?
(2) Do you agree that the Berkeley paper you cite does not go back anywhere near that far?
These are very simple questions. I apologize if you answered them and I missed your answers.