McIntyre did use innuendo and even direct accusations:
And double nope:
You do not know what it means to “blew the stuffings out of a number of scientific claims” He still has to publish in peer review journals to blew the stuffing were it counts, otherwise he is just useful to yahoos like Inhofe.
And this is a complete lie as in the past there was discussion about the “science” mentioned in those lists.
As Inhofe helpfully remarks in his minority report (that is the so called 700 list)
As anyone that has followed current and previous discussions it is clearly a lie to say that what those (many times misquoted, and most of them not involved in climate research) researchers said was not discussed.
As far as I know, no one has rebutted the ideas in the GRL article, so they stand until someone does.
I’m tired of discussions of Inhofe and asinine accusations of “cherry picking”. I’ll let that cite above stand as an example of GIGObuster’s crap. Yes, some of the ideas on the Inhofe list have been discussed sometime somewhere in the SDMB. No, in the current thread where this is an issue, they have not been discussed until GIGObuster’s most recent post, which he probably posted just so he could say I was wrong.
One is a “Communications Arising”. The other two, as far as I know, are “papers”, which is what I called them. What would you call them? And what possible difference does it make? Is this nitpicking the best you can do? Pathetic.
More on McIntyre … someday you guys are going to learn that attacking me just allows me to spread my seditious ideas further and further, and get more and more people to read my citations. You provide ad hominem attacks … I provide citations. My profound thanks, it’s a great deal.
I don’t think that latin term means what you think. It does not mean pointing out that a lone nut with no scientific qualifications does not have an opinion on climate change worth the breath it takes to utter it.
Now - you got any serious cites? One maybe not from someone with a career in dirty fossil fuels to safeguard?
So it was rebutted, it was so spectacularly rebutted when the “hockey stick” researches came recently with more evidence that confirmed their previous research. McIntyre and the trash at Climate audit had to fall on innuendo and accusations of cherry picking that were debunked almost immediately. (hmm, how is it that when McIntyre backpedaled on the cherry picking accusations that then that does not lead to realize that Mann and others were and are correct?)
I have to report is that I was not correct on McIntyre not publishing before, but the point on the previous discussion was that McIntyre needs to publish again to rebutt the new researched rebuttal.
But one thing I have to thank the denier here is that by pointing to that publication it demonstrated that McIntyre **failed **to impress other climate researchers, he was dismissed then and even more recently.
Heck, he even failed to impress the AGU that publishes the place that paper of McIntyre was published.
Yes, indeed discussed before, and it was a lie that I would only like to talk about Inhofe, but you keep wringing up his discredited list with discredited points.
All you are doing is just demonstrating that you don’t know what debunked means, the idea that McIntyre is gaining support where it counts is a fairy tale.
Yes. I edited his real name out of the quote, not that it’s more than 1 click away anyway.
Oh, eventually, maybe. But not until long after this resort he’s building has made enough money to pay him. No need to scare the customers in the meanwhile, though.
Psst, The WSJ opinion pieces are not considered valid sources by many over here.
On the contrary, I welcome cites that are wonderful examples of lack of logic and ignorance to tell others what to avoid.
Here the author ignores that people like Inhofe fell for it.
later the opinion piece reports that climate scientists laugh at the mention of McIntire’s name.
That right wing piece of crap opinion was published today, the bitch slap of McIntye by Keith Briffa and others was reported back in September and October.
“Revenge of the Climate Layman”? more like “the return of the killer tomatoes” McIntyre is only good for a laugh in research and academic circles and good as a pied piper for the right wing media.
GIGObuster, I like you, and I am saying this for friendship’s sake: don’t do it. He will just drive you crazy. One of three things is going to happen
[ol]
[li]He is going to completely ignore your post and it’s linked citations and continue to talk about the discredited hockey stick. [/li][li]He will thank you for your post and claim that the rebuttals you posted are not valid because of some completely random and unrelated statistical phenomenon (* intention: “GIGO, old chum, thanks but the “non-centered” Principal Components Analysis (PCA) convention cannot be used when delineating the relative statistical strength of the correlating samples unless the dynamic convolution kernel is normalized to an independent data source.”). This will waste a day or two of your time to figure out what the fuck he is claiming and then do a proper rebuttal that shows that he is full of shit. This rebuttal he will then completely ignore or will pull the same shit again in response.[/li][li]Or, finally, he will claim that the linked rebuttals are just ad hominem attacks and thus dismiss them entirely without ever examining their merits.[/li][/ol]
He pulls this shit in every fucking thread he participates in.
Not a real quote, but there is a 33% chance it will be in the future!
As I said before, I’m not important. The joke is on him by wasting his time replying to me and not dealing with the rebuttals, the ones from before and today. What is fun now is finding evidence of the certifiable pathetic levels of support guys like him and McIntyre get in the real world.
It does make me happy that he wasted some considerable amount of time scrolling through all seven hundred names to find 40 that have actual credentials in some sort of climate science.
As an educator it is really interesting to find out **how and why **is it that organizations like the AGU and the Meteorological society dismiss the deniers.
It is really ridiculous to assume that most top researchers ignore the deniers research, far from it, they do see it and continue to find many errors, what I think is that the flaws we laymen notice are even more glaring for active scientists. It is clear that deniers are now unable to convince most members of those scientific organizations and so deniers are falling back to the tactic of attempting to mislead people outside the research world and academia.
