Nope I have not misrepresented anything and everything is fully cited for people to read for themselves.
Not many people publicly have the ability to deal with your tangental bombardment in support of alarmism so you will not see them comment here - they don’t want to deal with arguing with you. But from the tons of emails I have been receiving many are very appreciative of the list.
Poptech, listing 120 web sites is not a valid debate tactic. No one is going to read them all. So listing a handful of well-chosen links would support your argument just as well unless your aim is to shout your opponents down by deluging them in text. (And I mean ‘handful’ literally: five or fewer.) I already explained this upthread and in a separate thread. Since you have ignored it again, this is a second formal warning.
The warning was for calling someone a liar. I have not done so since as you requested.
SCI says different.
Poptech, I apologize. I had thought that you did not think global warming was real, or that anthropogenic climate change is real. Now I see that you are just arguing that there are skeptics regarding anthropogenic climate change and global warming, and some of them skeptics are scientists.
Meh. I, for one, will give it to you. You win. There are skeptics, thousands of them, including scientists, but that does not change the fact that the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change by a large margin. There are also skeptics that US astronauts landed on the moon and I am sure that some of those skeptics are scientists also. Doesn’t make them right.
Larger than you may realise. Here’s a handy infographic which puts it in perspective. 31,000 scientists?
Thanks. But I also told you to stop posting these lists. I made the following post in this thread and a separate climate change thread, and you responded to it earlier:
Science Citation Index (SCI) is a commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and uses a subjective inclusion process. Whether a journal appears there or not in no way determines if it is peer-reviewed.
It determines whether I think it’s a legitimate journal or a hack rag. That you favour Google Scholar over SCI says plenty to me.
And the fact that it’s a commercial product is a good thing, for a change. Much better than an open CI, where Hexxxon can pay a bunch of code monkeys to “legitimize” their pet scientists.
It’s pretty much the same as the method to determine if someone has expertise in any scientific field.
As you know.
Well since we don’t care about your opinion and are dealing with facts. E&E is peer-reviewed,
EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)
As for Google Scholar, if it was up to Google we would have free access to every peer-reviewed journal ever published. Instead of having to pay multi-billion dollar corporations for access to scienctific information but elitists like yourself prefer it that way, I know.
Poptech, you’re new here, so please familiarize yourself with the rules. Insults are not allowed in this forum (and yes, I’m taking that dig about ‘elitists’ as an insult, since it’s an ad hominem.)
Fair enough but why are no warnings given for when someone calls me a denier?
Yes I believe there has been a slight (+0.6 C) warming since the end of the little ice age.
The problem with these statements is that it is not a yes or no answer. There is a large scale of support and disagreement. I believe that it is possible for humans to influence the climate (at least locally - urbad heat island) but hardly that we are a global driver, it is serious or there is any chance of a catastrophe.
This has never been proven and I have yet to be given a scientific method for determining who a climate scientist is.
This sort of nonsense is a distraction and designed to lump climate skeptics with conspiracy theorists. And no you will not find over 30,000 scientists skeptical of the moon landings.
If you could please provide this method as I would like to know since so many throw this term around like there is some objective way to determine this.
Because it isn’t an insult. I don’t agree with your contention that it is.
That is bullshit and intellectually dishonest.
I disagree, and I found your ‘they’re trying to associate us with Holocaust deniers!’ argument to be incorrect and very cynical. “Denier” is a perfectly accurate word for someone who denies that something exists. You’ve found one columnist who compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, but that’s not how the phrase is generally used and I’m not going to expand the definition of the word insult to help you make your case. If you want to argue about this further, take it to the About This Message Board forum. If not, drop it.
That is intellectually dishonest. If you know enough to meaningfully discuss this subject at all, then you know perfectly well what constitutes expertise in a scientific field, and what credentials may or may not be cited to show it, and that expertise in one scientific field does not automatically translate to another.
Really so what am I denying exists?