You should know that many citations from the blogs come from published papers.
That is precisely why you are not reliable, it is not logical to brand all scientists opposed to your views hacks or spreaders of misinformation (as most blog posts and posters refer to published scientists)
You are really being silly, that Newscientist publication was mentioned because they do bother to check the current state of the science, from 2007 until today they are tracking the criticism of the deniers regarding the dendrochronology and other research involved with the Hockey Stick. Based on the latest updates they still conclude that the deniers are virtually not convincing anyone of importance that the hockey stick was not valid where is supposed to count.
What I see is that deniers are becoming unhinged as all their points are only burning the few hapless reporters that swallowed the BS from the deniers regarding the CRU hack (A lot of the CRU hack involved the hockey stick). What I’m saying here is that IMHO the reason why you and other deniers are screaming at the internet where you can, is because even guys like you are noticing that in the scientific and academic fields you are catastrophically losing ground.
No the debate is what I initially posted. The Kerry quote was to show this question is valid as I have heard this claim made frequently. I posted it in overlarge type this time since you just ignored it the first time I posted it.
I enjoy watching your blatant bias as you make no mention of those who declare victories against me.
Irrelevant to whether they are alarmists or not. I provided the method to identify them,
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.
Strawman, I did not brand all scientists opposed to my views as hack or spreaders of misinformation.
The Newscientist article does not include any commentary from McIntyre on their findings which is not how a balanced news report is supposed to be. Their arguments do not hold up to the refutations in the book. MM have convinced experts in statistics about their statistical criticisms. You obviously know little about this issue and are desperately Googling to try and defend it, I have a better idea, read the book.
You did no so such thing, you failed to show that the overwhelming majority of climate peer review papers and scientists involved with this issue still support AGW.
I can also identify idiots, they brand “alarmist” all that oppose to them.
Really? Now that I would like to see, **can you mention ONE climate scientist that oppose your views that is not a hack or spreader of misinformation?
**
AFAIK McIntyre was mentioned before in the Myth series, that he is not there now demonstrates how convincing he as become as time goes by.
You are a liar and an intellectually dishonest bully.
Thank you for proving my point as you have successfully gotten my thread censored. You got your ass handed to you on each count with your fraudulent charges against me and instead just used lied about them and buried the thread.
Let me know when you choose to gain some intellectual honesty.
Yes, you insulted Naomi Oreskes and Lambert. You numbskull.
Now who did show that that was the case, why it was Oreskes, but according to you she is not good. Now I wonder why that could be…
It easy to set your own rules in your Nowhere Land huh Jeremy?
That is what I will do Jeremy. But the facts of your land will only be successful there, you are a failure wherever you go out as I have seen you do in other science forums or science blogs.
GIGO thank you for confirming how dangerous this sort of information is if the general public found out. I was thinking of taking some time off but this just confirms that without question the list needs to be expanded and that project is currently underway.
**Poptech **, without wading through the seven layers of bullshit you’ve spread here, allow me to observe that you, sir, are fucking insane.
I’ll be traveling for the next day or so, but when i return, I look forward to reading your cosmic meltdown. Also guessing you probably won’t be able to post by the time I get back, so…bye.
No one has ever been able to provide evidence of this.
No claim can be made that anything more than a majority of these organizations council members support the position statements. Thus they are not evidence of consensus as is commonly propagandized by dishonestly including the membership body in support of the statements.
This is the Pit. That means I can call a muddle-headed bullshit artist a muddle-headed bullshit artist if I wanna. And you, sir, are a muddle-headed bullshit artist. Not a particularly creative one, but entertaining in a low brow sort of way.
