My research is extensive, I just have no interest in wasting my time with this paper with you.
Please provide his stance on AGW and if he believes government should take action against man-mage GHGs.
Strawman as I made no claim to have convinced any scientific organization with my list.
All appropriate changes have been made to the list. It is likely the contrarians in the SDMB have no need to defend something I am already doing an excellent job of. There are no thoroughly debunked or misinterpreted papers on the list despite your repetition of this talking point. The list is incredibly useful as it is widely cited and used.
No I didn’t. Stating this sort of misinformation is not helpful to you.
It helps if you understand what Wikipedia is, “Truth based on who edits last”. My extensive background in computer science allows me to understand this much better than those who try to cite it.
No they have to do with the design which is flawed.
There is no evidence nor can it ever be determined that a particular page at a particular time is “well edited” on wikipedia.
Please provide the complete vote of any of those scientific organizations in support of the position statements released by a majority of a dozen or so council members. Thus position statements do not provide evidence of consensus.
This thread has nothing to do with consensus as neither the title nor the opening post mention the word. The existence of these papers is relevant to the existence of debate of AGW alarm in the peer-reviewed literature.
The propaganda off the Youtube link is to spread misinformation about the subject. Why did Potholer not mention the rebuttal to the article? I thought you claimed he was objective? Why did you present the Mann article without the rebuttal? Clearly this is demonstrating you to be unreliable by not presenting the whole truth and hiding information from those reading this thread.
That list is the best evidence to show how useless denier talking points are becoming. Even evidence that is discrediting to the movement continues to be employed. One only needs to point to the clear misrepresentations to show all in this discussion how off base these deniers are becoming.
I have no idea and I doubt it would change the mind of a majority of the current council members on any of the scientific organizations that released position statement in support of government action relating to AGW. I am more interested in the membership body of these organizations who had no say in the creation or endorsement of those position statements and I can confirm many emails from scientists expressing thanks for creating the list and not a single complaint.
This list is overwhelming evidence of peer-reviewed papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of “man-made” global warming. It has nothing to do with denying anything. What is clear is the desperation that people like you try and fail to attack the list. If it is of no importance then you should just ignore it. The problem is you are well aware it is not being ignored and has been used as evidence to the U.S. Congress.
Nope, it is clear that the items mentioned in the 3 points were not explained. You really do not know how to scroll down? The response to the rebuttal is still there.
I will let others to judge that, what it is clear is that for a guy with computer experience it is very odd that you do not know how to scroll down on a PDF (or you are assuming that others can’t)
Since we do not have a Pissing Contest forum, I am stuck with watching this nonsense.
However, EVERYONE will dial back on the ad hominem arguments and the “nyah, nyah, you are not responding” claims or I am going to shut this down.
[ /Moderating ]
No, it was not presented intentionally or you failed to properly research and provide the whole truth on this issue. Either way this does not look good for your ability to provide complete and accurate information. Thankfully I have been able to provide what you failed to do.
Anyone would read the conclusion of that and come out with the idea that they give more weight to the hypothesis that:
If you conclude from that that they are refuting AGW more than they are supporting it…
Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. The fact is that that paper is supporting more the IPCC position (and current consensus) than the position you are trying to assign to it.
It is not my imagination, you are really assuming no one will scroll down, the last words in that citation are the response to the rebuttal. (If you are still missing it, the RESPONSE (in big letters also) is the rebuttal to the rebuttal.
Senator Inhoffe was the one that brought that “evidence” to congress, as it was pointed many times before Inhofe is the most unscientific guy in congress; as the skeptical article and the video showed, it is very likely that that paper was tailor made to seed doubts when the hearings on the new law regarding CO2 emission controls took place. By the time that paper was shown to be full of errors the hearings had already ended with the result that the bill was not even voted on.
That paper does not support the IPCC position. It helps if you read the paper as the authors do not support your assertion,
Hardly an endorsement of the IPPC position.
Strawman as I have made no claim. I am providing the balance you failed to objectively provide and thus demonstrated your unreliability in these matters.
The key is “did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings” They are saying that the IPCC was missing even more causes of concern, and they also refer to human based ones, still more in favor of AGW, not much so of the IPCC.
And I just mentioned the final word on the citation, I’m just saying.