As mentioned before, the shoe of the tactics being used does fit as the MIT science reported showed. This BTW is a key point in this discussion IMHO. I could also say that proponents of homeopathy use the same tactics but that does not mean that they are creationists.
The groups behind virtually all the cites you brought regarding the “whitewash” of the CRU hack scandal have declared or heavily implied that scientists are involved in a conspiracy.
I am not here to discuss individual papers, that is what the authors are for. If you have any questions regarding the paper I suggest contacting them. What I have done is provide the peer-reviewed publication requested and then the peer-reviewed rebuttal of the comment on it, successfully refuting the only published criticism.
This discussion is not about individual papers but whether peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-mad” global warming. They overwhelmingly do.
Alarmists at alarmist blogs and forums? Too funny.
You have failed to provide a proper criticism and thus no changes have been made based on your “feelings”. Repeating your talking points in a desperate attempt to dismiss list is getting old.
He hasn’t shown me anything. Why you keep repeating these smears I have no idea. None of the papers are discredited or have been debunked outside of your repetition of these talking points. None of the authors of any of the papers on the list have conceded to any comments on their papers and no retraction of any of the papers has been made.
Nope, successful would imply other evidence than just “because I say so”
Looking at the discussions among scientists it is clear that the papers mentioned so far are failures.
http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/
Oh well, that does sound like the Nowhere Man from 'Yellow Submarine" always making sure that not check his reviews.
The alarmist hack who wrote that piece has only demonstrated his knack for propaganda. Bringing up the non-science of creationism is a sign of intellectual dishonesty as I have made no mention of it and have no association with them.
Could you provide these groups position statement on this issue to support this unfounded allegation, thanks.
Extensive evidence is supplied in the reply.
Yes alarmist shill posters at a forum deny the refutation. This has been established and meaningless.
AFAIK one could count with ones fingers the number of times a retraction of a paper has been done, scientists are content on doing the usual “science marches on” and just dismiss and forget the errors of the past. The point here is that what you say here is silly as talking point.
That is indeed implying a conspiracy.
What is clear here is that no matter who is making the criticism, science reporters, scientists, science bloggers or people with good logic ALL remain alarmist shills in your view.
That is evidence enough to dismiss you as it is clear that no evidence will be good enough for you ever to request changes to the list.
You have failed to provide evidence outside of the existence of a published criticism for a particular paper. Valid criticisms are addressed and corrections released. Those that are not continue to be debated or the original criticism dismissed. All you have said are talking points that are unsubstantiated.
No, I made no mention of any conspiracy. You are obsessed with conspiracy because you cannot understand that people can be considered to have similar beliefs that allow then to draw similar conclusions. This has nothing to do with some cabal meeting in dark rooms plotting.
You are not presenting just anyone but well-known alarmists. All of these sources are well known in the debate to support the alarmist position and are not objective sources but you are attempting to use them as propaganda for people who do not know any better.
No objective source or anyone who is intellectually honest brings creationism into a debate about climate change. It is a pathetic smear to desperately try and associate credentialed scientists with the scientifically illiterate creationists.
You have failed to provide any evidence to support your repetitive talking points. You not liking a paper is not a reason for removal from the list. If you can find a paper that has been retracted then let me know.
Then everything you’ve posted in this thread is rhetorically empty. Kooks and oil-company shills backing each others’ nonsense up does not make the papers “peer-reviewed” in any meaningful way. That an absurd amount of money has been spent by energy concerns isn’t in doubt. That one by-product of this cooperative arrangement is circular support for groundless claims is rhetorically meaningless—it does nothing to bolster the underlying* subject of the papers.
You were responding to a question about whether or not one of those papers debunked the underlying theory behind the greenhouse effect. You pointed one out. Asked about a glaring mistake and egregious error in the abstract*, you resort to a different subject—utterly failing to answer the question.
Again, the paper you are pointing to makes a substantial error in its abstract. This error is extraordinarily obvious—it completely ignores the source of energy and instead misstates a fundamental aspect of the greenhouse effect. If you (or anyone, really; it could just as easily be me that’s mistaken) cannot show why this is not in error, why the entire paper is not founded on a fundamental flaw, than pointing to it as anything more than pure fiction is rhetorically empty.
Once again you have no evidence whatsoever that he is a hack, one can only say that by assuming a conspiracy.
As for Fox News and others:
That is wrong as many of the posters here do know better. It is still silly to brand all your opposition alarmist, that is indeed a meaningless point. Even in the few cases were I have seen honest to goodness alarmists sounding the alarm it does not mean that they are automatically wrong.
I made no mention of any conspiracy so you can say no such thing. The word hack was used to denote that he has no talent.
Those are not position statements from the organizations but comments from the authors.
LOL, back to the Youtubes and potholer. This is sad.
No actually they do not know better unless they have been involved in the debate as I have.
How to identify an alarmist - Alarmists can be identified by the use of the word “denier” and/or attempts to associate skeptics with creationists, conspiracy theorists, energy companies, or politically right-wing groups.
Intellectually honest inquisitors do not behave like this.
How to identify an alarmist?
Works every time.
No I explained that only the author could answer your questions and I suggested contacting them.
We await your peer-reviewed rebuttal. When it is published let me know. In the mean time the only published comment has been shot down in flames.
That depends on how you quantify “an extensive amount.”
And how you define peer. Are the authors recognized scholars in geophysics, climatology or meteorology? Do the reviewers have equivalent (or better) stature in those fields?
What is the scientific definition of skepticism? “I dunno, seems weird to me” won’t cut it.
Why say “man made” (in quotes) when you mean anthropogenic?
Alarm? Really?
If you truly wish to represent your viewpoint, why not pick just one of these articles–one of the best. Give us a link. Present a brief summary–or abstract–but in our own words. Then open the discussion, as they do in the journal clubs you’ll find in most academic settings.
This scattershot approach isn’t doing your cause any good.
You didn’t have to - the context in which you advanced it said it for you. Or are you now saying that it doesn’t matter if E&E is peer-reviewd or not? Because you certainly kicked up a fuss about it not being in ISI…
And *why *would you say that if it didn’t advance your argument?:dubious:
So, a fellow from MIT has no talent? Do tell.
I mentioned as a group, unless you can point at the editors being refuted by their peers, it is indeed what they agree with.
And as mentioned before, that is truly an illogical response. Deal with his points.