The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Crazy Horse on February 20, 2008, 12:14:47 PM
-
I bet nobody can guess how the poo flinging primitives will react??
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2895266
BrklynLiberal (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:41 PM
Original message
Can you believe there is going ot be a conference in NYC on GLOBAL COOLING??!!!
Advertisements [?]Global Warming Skeptics Prepare for International Conference
by Cascade Policy Institute Monday, February 11. 2008
Hundreds of the world’s leading “skeptics†of the theory of man-made global warming will meet in New York City March 2-4, 2008 to present their case and discuss the latest scientific, economic and political research on climate change.
The conference is being organized by The Heartland Institute and a growing list of cosponsors, including Cascade Policy Institute, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
"The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts who dissent from the so-called ‘consensus’ on global warming,†said Heartland President Joseph Bast.
...
<snip>
more of this crap at..
http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php?/archives/1176-...
Why do I have this suspicious feeling about the sponsors of this "conference"?
The Heartland Institute, the Cascade Policy Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition as well as the Oregon Institute of Science amnd Medicine...Think it is safe to guess that all the members are probably Repukes...or Repukes who call themselves something else?
Do not.............I repeat do not dicredit and go against Saint Gore
Lars39 (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Enough intelligence and ability to fill and use a snack room.
amborin (351 posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. bogus, pseudo-scientific pretend think tanks
all of those mentioned are phony, quackery type places
pocoloco (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Anybody got the dates for the next Flat Earth Society meeting.
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 12:48 PM by pocoloco
Maybe I can fit both of them into my schedule.
Hollow Earth
?
islandmkl (556 posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. they won't have a hard time getting airplay...
limbo, slannity, o'really, gwen beck, schnitt (what the c and n are for is anybody's guess), bore-tz, rusty humpty, weiner, prager, etc....
these guys can't even relate global warming to cold weather...you know--cold weather disproves global warming...do you ever wonder if these guys even know how an ice cube cools a drink....
texastoast (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is Exxon a big financier of this claptrap? n/t
arcane1 (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. "Repukes who call themselves something else"
In other words, Repukes who call themselves scientists
krispos42 (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. There used to be a big concern about global cooling
Astronomers measured the Sun's neutrino output and found it to be much lower than the mathematical models showed it should be, meaning that the nuclear fusion was not happening at the rate needed to maintain the Sun's energy output. The possibility existed that the Sun was entering a cooling-off period.
However it turns out that there were different types of neutrinos and the detection equipment was only picking up about 1/3rd of solar neutrinos being produced. Once more sensitive equipment was built, they found the other neutrinos. The total neutrinos matched with the predictions of the models, and that meant the Sun was NOT cooling off, as feared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
BattyDem (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-20-08 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't understand the skeptics
Even if they are not 100% convinced, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? Don't they realize that even if they're just the slightest bit wrong, it will mean disaster for our planet? What is the downside of reducing greenhouse gases?
Developing alternative energy sources will create new jobs, reduce pollution and release us from our dependence on foreign oil. We will no longer be forced to bargain with oil-rich countries on their terms. These are all GOOD things!
Note to the skeptics: If you are wrong - just a little bit wrong - you and your family will meet the same fate as the rest of us. You will not be spared. You can't simply relocate - we don't have another planet!
never will they get it....................TNO in 3...2...1.
-
I thought they had agreed to call it "climate change" - that all-encompassing broadstroke that assumes man is in control of nature.....
-
I thought they had agreed to call it "climate change" - that all-encompassing broadstroke that assumes man is in control of nature.....
Teh DUmmies can't even control their own basements. :rotf:
algore will NOT be amused. :lmao:
-
The Heartland Institute, the Cascade Policy Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition as well as the Oregon Institute of Science amnd Medicine...Think it is safe to guess that all the members are probably Repukes...or Repukes who call themselves something else?
The OISM is a group of crackpots founded by Fred Seitz, a man who was deemed to be "not sufficiently rational" by his employers at the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company...
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html?pattern=fred%5Ba-z%5D%2A%5CW%2Bseitz%5Ba-z%5D%2A&#p1
-
islandmkl (556 posts) Wed Feb-20-08 12:50 PM
these guys can't even relate global warming to cold weather...you know--cold weather disproves global warming...do you ever wonder if these guys even know how an ice cube cools a drink....
I'd venture to say this guy would get it wrong as well, and it really doesn't matter as the outcome is the same. Whether or not the ice cube draws heat from the water, or the water warms the ice cube, the f'n ice cube is still going to melt. The physics behind it have no bearing on the topic at hand.
-
The Heartland Institute, the Cascade Policy Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition as well as the Oregon Institute of Science amnd Medicine...Think it is safe to guess that all the members are probably Repukes...or Repukes who call themselves something else?
The OISM is a group of crackpots founded by Fred Seitz, a man who was deemed to be "not sufficiently rational" by his employers at Phillip Morris Companies Inc..
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html?pattern=fred%5Ba-z%5D%2A%5CW%2Bseitz%5Ba-z%5D%2A&#p1
Not sure what your talking about TNO. The OISM was founded by Dr. Arthur Robinson and Bruce Merrifield. Fred Seitz isn't even a member of their Faculty.
Do you just not like them because their petition against the idea of Man Made Global Warming has been signed by 19,000 scientists, there by threatening your "concensus".
By the way, reading the Bio of some of the faculty of the OISM, I'd say you are doing a HUGE injustice by calling them crack pots. Quite frankly, this one post of yours has caused me to lose more respect for your thinking faculties then anything else you've done here.
-
The Heartland Institute, the Cascade Policy Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition as well as the Oregon Institute of Science amnd Medicine...Think it is safe to guess that all the members are probably Repukes...or Repukes who call themselves something else?
The OISM is a group of crackpots founded by Fred Seitz, a man who was deemed to be "not sufficiently rational" by his employers at Phillip Morris Companies Inc..
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html?pattern=fred%5Ba-z%5D%2A%5CW%2Bseitz%5Ba-z%5D%2A&#p1
Yeah, anything that disputes the theory of man-made global warming is "crackpot" to moonbats
-
By the way, reading the Bio of some of the faculty of the OISM, I'd say you are doing a HUGE injustice by calling them crack pots. Quite frankly, this one post of yours has caused me to lose more respect for your thinking faculties then anything else you've done here.
dj, I'm surprised that you give TNO any credit for his thinking faculties.....they are largely limited to his ability to cut and paste, a simple motor skill....very little thought involved....
doc
-
Not sure what your talking about TNO. The OISM was founded by Dr. Arthur Robinson and Bruce Merrifield. Fred Seitz isn't even a member of their Faculty.
You're right. Fred Seitz is not the founder of the OISM, but the OISM Global Warming Petition was an OISM project done in collaboration with Seitz and Seitz seems to have headed the project...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Do you just not like them because their petition against the idea of Man Made Global Warming has been signed by 19,000 scientists, there by threatening your "concensus".
Some things you should know...
The OISM petition consists of the names of some scientists but mostly of people who work in science-related fields. For instance, when I first heard of the OISM petition, I searched the Internet for one of the names on the petition and found that it belongs to an ophthalmologist. Who gives a shit what an ophthalmologist thinks about global warming? On the subject of global warming, the opinions of those scientists who are actually studying it should be given the most consideration.
Also, the OISM petition was so crudely conducted that a prankster managed to get the name Dr. Geri Halliwell on the list.
-
Some of those "crack pots"
Professor Kamen was the discoverer of Carbon 14 and the originator of many of the techniques for the use of radioactive tracers in biochemistry and molecular biology. He also carried out extensive research that underlies much of our understanding of the biochemistry of photosynthesis. From 1964 until Professor Kamen's death in 2002, he and Professor Robinson worked together on a variety of collaborative projects.
For his discovery of Carbon 14 and work on radioactive tracers, Professor Kamen received in 1995 the Enrico Fermi award, the highest honor in physics awarded in the United States. His autobiography, Radiant Science, Dark Politics, Martin D. Kamen, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985 describes the unusual life and accomplishments of this extraordinary scientist.
Professor Merrifield was the originator of solid phase organic chemistry, which now underlies many of the essential techniques in peptide, protein, and DNA chemistry and other fields of biochemistry. He invented and perfected solid-phase peptide synthesis, with which he carried out the first chemical synthesis of an enzyme. In recognition of these accomplishments, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1984.
Professor Fred Westall is an expert in the biochemistry of immunology and autoimmune disease. Educated at the University of California at San Diego, he later served as director of laboratory work for Jonas Salk at the Salk Institute. His research has included definitive elucidation of the peptide and protein structures that stimulate experimental allergic encephalomyelitis, a primary experimental model for study of Multiple Sclerosis and related diseases.
Professor Arthur Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of home schooling techniques and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense. Approximately 60,000 American children use the Robinson home school curriculum, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency has commended and utilized Robinson work on emergency preparedness. Dr. Robinson also edits the newsletter, Access to Energy.
Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Diego, UCSD, Dr. Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973. Beginning with their initial work together on general anesthesia and the structure of water at Caltech in 1961, Pauling and Robinson carried out published research on a wide variety of topics from nuclear physics to nutrition until 1978. They ceased work together in 1978 because of a disagreement between them on the effects of ascorbic acid on the growth rate of cancer in mice.
Professor Zachary Robinson is a chemist and doctor of veterinary medicine educated at Oregon State University and Iowa State University. In addition to his work in veterinary medicine, Professor Robinson supervises animal work at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has included extensive studies of the effects of elevated levels of carbon dioxide on the health and longevity of mice.
Zachary Robinson is coauthor of the research review Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by A. B. Robinson, S. L. Baliunas, W. Soon, and Z. W. Robinson (1998) J. Am. Phys. Sur. 3, 171-178 and Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas, A. B. Robinson, and Z. W. Robinson (1999) Climate Research 13, 149-164, which were the most extensively cited articles in the world on this subject during the past nine years.
Yep... a bunch of raving crack pots right there. :mental:
-
The OISM petition consists of scientists and people who work in science-related fields. For instance, when I first heard of the OISM petition, I searched the Internet for one of the names and found that it belonged to an ophthalmologist. Who gives a shit what an ohpthalmologist thinks about global warming? On the subject of global warming, the opinions of those scientists who are actually studying it should be given the most consideration.
Also, the OISM petition was so crudely conducted that a prankster managed to get the name Dr. Geri Halliwell on the list.
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
-
By the way, as for the people that support GW as man made, I've seen that list as well and there are a shitload of Sociologists, etc. Talk about supporters with degrees in a non-related field.
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
...and you discount the opposing scientists who don't buy it. Clearly your agenda is more important than the truth.
-
Not sure what your talking about TNO. The OISM was founded by Dr. Arthur Robinson and Bruce Merrifield. Fred Seitz isn't even a member of their Faculty.
You're right. Fred Seitz is not the founder of the OISM, but the OISM Global Warming Petition was an OISM project done in collaboration with Seitz and Seitz seems to have headed the project...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Do you just not like them because their petition against the idea of Man Made Global Warming has been signed by 19,000 scientists, there by threatening your "concensus".
Some things you should know...
The OISM petition consists of the names of some scientists but mostly of people who work in science-related fields. For instance, when I first heard of the OISM petition, I searched the Internet for one of the names on the petition and found that it belongs to an ophthalmologist. Who gives a shit what an ophthalmologist thinks about global warming? On the subject of global warming, the opinions of those scientists who are actually studying it should be given the most consideration.
Also, the OISM petition was so crudely conducted that a prankster managed to get the name Dr. Geri Halliwell on the list.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf
Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training or
specialized experience in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes many of
those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, and related disciplines.
Having a Phd in Opthamology doesn't preclude one from having a degree in another field of study.
-
Yep... a bunch of raving crack pots right there. :mental:
You're wasting your time....to TNO anyone that disagrees with the "consensus" on AGW MUST be a crackpot.....liberal playbook 102....if you can't refute the premise, you MUST attack the messengers.....
TNO is now busily attempting to find out how many DWI's these scientists might have on record, so that he can cut and paste more links.....
doc
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
Except for scientists who disagree with the theory. Those ones are "crackpots" to you.
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
Of course not. Any group which associates itself with the not sufficiently rational Fred Seitz is a bunch of crackpots.
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
Don't hold your breath.....
You're messin with his "religion" doncha know.....
doc
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
Of course not. I'm a crazy moonbat
Fixed
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
Of course not. Any group which associates itself with the not sufficiently rational Fred Seitz is a bunch of crackpots.
This from a guy who thinks Al Gore is perfectly rational.
Thanks--and you owe me a new monitor.
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
Of course not. Any group which associates itself with the not sufficiently rational Fred Seitz is a bunch of crackpots.
I think you've just done more to make yourself look like an idiot then I'll ever be able to do.
-
TNO, are you going to withdraw your statement about calling the faculty of OISM crackpots?
Of course not. Any group which associates itself with the not sufficiently rational Fred Seitz is a bunch of crackpots.
This from a guy who thinks Al Gore is perfectly rational.
Thanks--and you owe me a new monitor.
:lmao:
-
I don't know why you guys are putting trust in Fred Seitz and the OISM. According to the OISM website, the study which was used as the basis for the OISM petition on global warming has been peer reviewed, but the study has never been published in a peer reviewed science journal...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
So, which scientific journal has published the study on the OISM webpage? None have.
Why trust liars?
-
blah blah blah
Why trust liars?
Why trust Al Bore?
-
Why trust Al Bore?
I have never cited Al Gore's work as the basis for anything I've written about global warming.
-
TNO... lets take this from the top. You claim Frederick Seitz is "mentally imbalanced". You reference some scanned document typed in 1989. It makes the assertation that some person by the name of Bill (William) Hobbs claims that Seitz is pretty much losing it.
Who is Bill Hobbs? Why he was the Chief Executive Officer of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. He is not a psychiatrist, or a doctor who would be sufficiently capable of making a judgement of someones mental faculties.
So you slander the names of many extremely prominent scientists based on this one scan, which references one persons claim, when that person isn't even certified to make such a judgement.
And you call these people the bad scientists... ::)
-
Here is what one respected science journal had to say about the fraud perpetrated by the OISM...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/280/5361/195a
Science 10 April 1998:
Vol. 280. no. 5361, p. 195
DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5361.195a
News & Comment
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Advocacy Mailing Draws Fire
David Malakoff
In early March, tens of thousands of U.S. scientists received a bulk-mailed letter from a former president of the National Academy of Sciences inviting them to sign a petition urging lawmakers to reject the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty. Now some scientists and environmentalists are crying foul because its centerpiece is an article that looks like--but is not--a reprint from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
:lmao:
-
Why trust Al Bore?
Global warming is teh true religion! all bow down for al gore. Bush is teh evil!!11!1
No thanks.
-
Why trust liars?
You're finally getting the point. No one here trusts Al Bore....or you.
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
Let me guess...."consensus" right?
-
I don't know why you guys are putting trust in Fred Seitz and the OISM. According to the OISM website, the study which was used as the basis for the OISM petition on global warming has been peer reviewed, but the study has never been published in a peer reviewed science journal...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
So, which scientific journal has published the study on the OISM webpage? None have.
Why trust liars?
Published in "Energy & Environment" volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999
As well as "Climate Research" Vol. 13: 149-164, October 26 1999
And I'm sure there are many many more to find, but I didn't want to try to hard...
-
Published in "Energy & Environment" volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999
As well as "Climate Research" Vol. 13: 149-164, October 26 1999
And I'm sure there are many many more to find, but I didn't want to try to hard...
Energy & Environment and Climate Research are not recognized as peer reviewed science journals. You've been had by Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD.
http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Publications//
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
-
Let me guess...."consensus" right?
Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? :-)
-
Let me guess...."consensus" right?
Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? :-)
Dunno but I'm willing to bet the term Box of Rocks is involved. :-)
-
Let me guess...."consensus" right?
Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? :-)
Dunno but I'm willing to bet the term Box of Rocks is involved. :-)
Actually, I was leaning more towards "bag of hammers" myself.
-
Published in "Energy & Environment" volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999
As well as "Climate Research" Vol. 13: 149-164, October 26 1999
And I'm sure there are many many more to find, but I didn't want to try to hard...
Energy & Environment and Climate Research are not recognized as peer reviewed science journals. You've been had by Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD.
http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Publications//
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
You do raise a good point, and my limited time at the moment has stopped me from doing an extensive online search for a journal. I have contacted the OISM through email and have asked for the information. Being a Weather Forecaster, I'm reasonably hopeful they'll respond to my request.
I'll hopefully have a response by tomorrow when I get back to work. As for now, I must prepare for shift change.
-
In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.
-
You do raise a good point, and my limited time at the moment has stopped me from doing an extensive online search for a journal. I have contacted the OISM through email and have asked for the information. Being a Weather Forecaster, I'm reasonably hopeful they'll respond to my request.
I'll hopefully have a response by tomorrow when I get back to work. As for now, I must prepare for shift change.
For the record, I don't blame anyone for being duped by the OISM. The OISM appears, upon casual inspection, to be a legitimate scientific organization.
I've known about the OISM for about a year and I've never been able to find out why people who have solid credentials have associated themselves with it.
-
You do raise a good point, and my limited time at the moment has stopped me from doing an extensive online search for a journal. I have contacted the OISM through email and have asked for the information. Being a Weather Forecaster, I'm reasonably hopeful they'll respond to my request.
I'll hopefully have a response by tomorrow when I get back to work. As for now, I must prepare for shift change.
For the record, I don't blame anyone for being duped by the OISM. The OISM appears, upon casual inspection, to be a legitimate scientific organization.
I've known about the OISM for about a year and I've never been able to find out why people who have solid credentials have associated themselves with it.
I haven't conceded anything yet, and I still say your remarks where offbase and derogetory. You yourself say that you don't understand why people with such solid credentials would associate themselves with it. Well maybe it's because you are wrong in your thinking about the OISM.
-
Wild-eyed socialists crackpots who all share the same goal of destroying the economy of the USA = Climate experts
Reasonable climate scientists who disprove the socialist crackpots' "theory" = Enemy of Mankind
Go figure. ::)
-
In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.
The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.
-
The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what Seitz says about global warming.
So...yet again...basically you can't back up your stupid claim.
-
The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.
Is there a consensus on it? Or are you just taking that one guy's word for it? :whatever:
You seem to be very inconsistent in your approach.
-
In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.
The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.
So by your judgement, if I where to say your opinion could not be relied apon, that is simple grounds enough for people to go around on the internet and call you a crack pot?
The man holds a PhD in Physics. He was the President of the National Academy of Sciences. He was the President Emeritus of Rockefeller Univerisity. The man is a genius, but because one guy who has no qualifications at all to make such a judgement, says he's not right in the head, that gives you grounds to slander him. ::)
Your not doing yourself any favors bud.
-
Wild-eyed socialists crackpots who all share the same goal of destroying the economy of the USA = Climate experts
Reasonable climate scientists who disprove the socialist crackpots' "theory" = Enemy of Mankind
Go figure. ::)
Neither Fred Seitz nor Arthur B. Robinson, the scientist who conducted the study which Seitz uses as the basis for his opinion on climate change, are climate scientists. Go figure.
-
Roy Spencer...Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was also a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
The fact is, science doesn't understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade.
For instance, you might have heard claims to the effect that no peer-reviewed scientific study has refuted the claim that global warming is manmade. Well, there have indeed been some papers that have at least questioned the theory that our current warmth is manmade....but the publishing of alternative explanations is hindered by the fact that our long-term global climate observations (e.g. of cloud characteristics) are not good enough to measure the small changes that might offer an alternative explanation for our current warmth.
Science can not deal with what we can not measure. But scientists could at least admit to incomplete knowledge -- unfortunately, most of them do not.
I can not overemphasize this -- the theory that our current warmth is manmade is largely the result of not having good enough global observations over a long enough period of time to rule out natural causes. Therefore, the current widespread support for the theory of manmade global warming is NOT because the alternative explanations have been ruled out. It is because our poor understanding of natural climate variability does not yet permit alternative explanations to be investigated thoroughly.
Thus, while it is indeed possible to explain much of the warming over the last 100 years with manmade greenhouse gas increases, this is only one possible explanation -- one that necessarily ignores or minimizes any natural sources of temperature variability.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
You were saying TNO?
-
So by your judgement, if I where to say your opinion could not be relied apon, that is simple grounds enough for people to go around on the internet and call you a crack pot?
The man holds a PhD in Physics. He was the President of the National Academy of Sciences. He was the President Emeritus of Rockefeller Univerisity. The man is a genius, but because one guy who has no qualifications at all to make such a judgement, says he's not right in the head, that gives you grounds to slander him. ::)
Your not doing yourself any favors bud.
Fred Seitz may be a PhD and a celebrated scientist but he is also close to 100 years old.
-
Neither Fred Seitz nor Arthur B. Robinson, the scientist who conducted the study which Seitz uses as the basis for his opinion on climate change, are climate scientists. Go figure.
Too bad you can't try the same routine on the source I used.
-
(http://www.weatherquestions.com/UAH_LT_with_IPCC_projections_small.jpg)
-
Roy Spencer...Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was also a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
You were saying TNO?
As far as I know, Roy Spencer is not associated with the OISM.
-
Fred Seitz may be a PhD and a celebrated scientist but he is also close to 100 years old.
Ahh, now it's his age. How many times are you going to move these ****in' goal posts?
-
Nasa officials have admitted that for the past seven years they have used the wrong temperature statistics to assess global warming trends.
The mistake was spotted by a blogger, and forced Nasa to declare that last year was only the fourth-hottest year on record in the United States, rather than the third hottest.
Climate scientists were insistent yesterday that the flawed data had a negligible effect on global warming statistics, and none at all on the overall warming trend.
The figures related to temperature readings in the US, which scientists at the Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Science had neglected to adjust to be compatible with other readings. The changes meant that, on average, Nasa’s figures on US temperatures since 2000 had been too high by up to 0.15C (0.27F).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2274346.ece
-
Too bad you can't try the same routine on the source I used.
I've never suggested that all scientists who have studied global warming are in agreement about what is causing it.
-
Wild-eyed socialists crackpots who all share the same goal of destroying the economy of the USA = Climate experts
Reasonable climate scientists who disprove the socialist crackpots' "theory" = Enemy of Mankind
Go figure. ::)
Neither Fred Seitz nor Arthur B. Robinson, the scientist who conducted the study which Seitz uses as the basis for his opinion on climate change, are climate scientists. Go figure.
Since you don't really have any scientific grounding in this area, I will just let you know that a PhD in Physics more then justifies an opinion on climate change.
The entire climate system is based off of physics. Meteorology as a whole is nothing more then a subsect of Physics.
And as for your remark about his age really holds no grounds. Until you can come up with some doctors reports about dementia or the like, your just pissing in the wind.
-
As far as I know, Roy Spencer is not associated with the OISM.
No but he is a climatologist. And he says the whole man made Global Warming thing is a steaming pile of BS.
Just like the people you are trying to discredit.
-
In the mean time, I would still like you to explain how that source of yours "proves" that Frederick Seitz is mentally imbalanced.
The opinions of those who employed Fred Seitz don't prove anything, but they are enough for me to make a judgement about the man and they should be enough to cause everyone to question what he says about scientific matters such as global warming.
And my old employer (manager) thinks I'm an asshole with a bad attitude. Doesn't necessarily make it so.
And it certainly doesn't qualify someone with an axe to grind against a subordinate.
-
Fred Seitz may be a PhD and a celebrated scientist but he is also close to 100 years old.
Ahh, now it's his age. How many times are you going to move these ****in' goal posts?
As many as it takes until we all just throw up our hands and refuse to debate his ignorant ass.
-
Ahh, now it's his age. How many times are you going to move these ******' goal posts?
I'm trying to be delicate. The fact that Fred Seitz is very elderly makes the claim that he is "not sufficiently rational" highly plausible.
-
Ahh, now it's his age. How many times are you going to move these ******' goal posts?
I'm trying to be delicate. The fact that Fred Seitz is very elderly makes the claim that he is "not sufficiently rational" highly plausible.
And yet liberals revere the opinions of geriatrics like Ted Kennedy, Robert "Sheets" Byrd, and Mike Wallace, for starters.
-
I'm trying to be delicate.
That would be a first. :rotf:
-
And yet liberals revere the opinions of geriatrics like Ted Kennedy, Robert "Sheets" Byrd, and Mike Wallace, for starters.
I try be respectful of elders. That said, I wouldn't have difficulty believing the claim that Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Mike Wallace are not all there mentally.
-
I'm trying to be delicate.
That would be a first. :rotf:
:-)
-
The greatest argument against Worldwide Warming is the fact liberals support the "theory". It is widely known to all thinking people that everything supported by liberals is anti-humanity and dishonest. Everything. No exceptions.
Any goal pushed by liberals is automatically suspect, accordingly. The harder liberals push for a goal and try to deny other voices a chance to expose the liberals goal, the more dishonest and anti-humanity is the liberals goal. This is not a theory. It is reality and factual history.
Remember above all: Liberalism, a known proved failure, would not exist without lies and deceit. Lies and deceit are the foundation on which all liberalism is built.
-
Time Magazine June 24, 1974:
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
-
I would tend to believe a man that accomplished, who was born in 1911, over some idiot like Gore or some 40 Y/O PhD. He's observed this planet's climate for almost 100 years.....in person.
-
More from the Time Article:
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
-
More from the Time Article:
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Which thye've been predicting since I was in Highschool back in the late 60's/early 70's
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
I think it was -31 this morning in Fargo, ND. A record.
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
Silly, it is no longer global warming, it's "Global Climate Change TM".
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
I think it was -31 this morning in Fargo, ND. A record.
Damn that Global Warming, huh? :lmao:
-
Mr. Owl,
Why do you bother? Honestly. No one here finds you the least bit credible. You never argue facts, you attack the messenger. When you do get backed into a corner, you simply ignore it and build another straw man. Do you do this so you can go back to what ever liberal board you call home with a sackful of bouncy stories? If guilt by association were enough to taint a person's credibility (and I certainly hope the irony of anyone on the left citing RJ Reynolds as a credible source hasn't escaped you), then those pictures of Algore with Democrat Fred Phelps, Clinton worshiping at the feet of Fulbright, Byrd's association with the KKK, and Kerry's pushing fake atrocity stories by fake vets would've sent them to the dustbin of history a long time ago.
The fact is global cooling was all the rage when I was growing up. You couldn't open a newspaper or an issue of TIME without some reference to it. We discussed it in science class. It was dire. The world was going to end. Pardon those of us who remain skeptical of the hysteria, but we've seen this before. Suddenly because there's "consensus" that's supposed to matter? Used to be there was "consensus" that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. If consensus was all it took, we'd still believe those things. Just because Heidi the Weather Channel Bimbo says scientists who don't believe in Global Warming (oops, I mean Global Climate Change...want to be accurate for when the goal post is moved to support the latest drooling hysteria yet again) should be banished from the scientific community doesn't make her an "expert".
Most of those going against the current hysteria are willing to look further back in the earth's history than a few decades or even a few hundred years. Whether you subscribe to an earth that's only a few thousand years old or one that's billions of years old, tracking back decades or even a couple hundred years is hardly enough to declare the planet doomed. How fricking arrogant and self-centered does a species have to be to think that they've had that big of an impact in the short time they've inhabited the planet. Or that mother nature (I won't use the "G" word...promise) isn't tough enough to handle whatever we can dish out. It's not like those on the right haven't studied your arguments. We're inundated with them on a daily basis, we don't have much choice. That being the case, we have to research more deeply to find the other side. And there are credible arguments against the end of the world. That used to be the way things worked...scientists WANTED to be scrutinized and challenged...today they want to pretend they're the second coming. Science unchallenged is simply sociology for biology majors.
Which brings us to that all important "peer reviewed" thingy. When "the peers" all drink from the same kool-aid, it's kind of hard to get in their cute little publications. I bet Galileo's article on the earth revolving around the sun probably wouldn't have found it's way into the 16th century peer reviewed "Astronomy Times Magazine" either. So what? It used to be scientists appreciated challenging one another. Peer reviewed didn't mean "we all think alike", it meant this is based on sound, scientific principles. What we have today would be sort of like the Academy of Motion Pictures choosing the Oscar winners from their own membership pool...oh wait! So, until you're willing to deal with the CONTENT of those arguments that don't support your POV instead of attacking everything but you have absolutely no credibility.
Cindie
-
Mr. Owl,
Why do you bother? Honestly. No one here finds you the least bit credible. You never argue facts, you attack the messenger. When you do get backed into a corner, you simply ignore it and build another straw man. Do you do this so you can go back to what ever liberal board you call home with a sackful of bouncy stories? If guilt by association were enough to taint a person's credibility (and I certainly hope the irony of anyone on the left citing RJ Reynolds as a credible source hasn't escaped you), then those pictures of Algore with Democrat Fred Phelps, Clinton worshiping at the feet of Fulbright, Byrd's association with the KKK, and Kerry's pushing fake atrocity stories by fake vets would've sent them to the dustbin of history a long time ago.
The fact is global cooling was all the rage when I was growing up. You couldn't open a newspaper or an issue of TIME without some reference to it. We discussed it in science class. It was dire. The world was going to end. Pardon those of us who remain skeptical of the hysteria, but we've seen this before. Suddenly because there's "consensus" that's supposed to matter? Used to be there was "consensus" that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. If consensus was all it took, we'd still believe those things. Just because Heidi the Weather Channel Bimbo says scientists who don't believe in Global Warming (oops, I mean Global Climate Change...want to be accurate for when the goal post is moved to support the latest drooling hysteria yet again) should be banished from the scientific community doesn't make her an "expert".
Most of those going against the current hysteria are willing to look further back in the earth's history than a few decades or even a few hundred years. Whether you subscribe to an earth that's only a few thousand years old or one that's billions of years old, tracking back decades or even a couple hundred years is hardly enough to declare the planet doomed. How fricking arrogant and self-centered does a species have to be to think that they've had that big of an impact in the short time they've inhabited the planet. Or that mother nature (I won't use the "G" word...promise) isn't tough enough to handle whatever we can dish out. It's not like those on the right haven't studied your arguments. We're inundated with them on a daily basis, we don't have much choice. That being the case, we have to research more deeply to find the other side. And there are credible arguments against the end of the world. That used to be the way things worked...scientists WANTED to be scrutinized and challenged...today they want to pretend they're the second coming. Science unchallenged is simply sociology for biology majors.
Which brings us to that all important "peer reviewed" thingy. When "the peers" all drink from the same kool-aid, it's kind of hard to get in their cute little publications. I bet Galileo's article on the earth revolving around the sun probably wouldn't have found it's way into the 16th century peer reviewed "Astronomy Times Magazine" either. So what? It used to be scientists appreciated challenging one another. Peer reviewed didn't mean "we all think alike", it meant this is based on sound, scientific principles. What we have today would be sort of like the Academy of Motion Pictures choosing the Oscar winners from their own membership pool...oh wait! So, until you're willing to deal with the CONTENT of those arguments that don't support your POV instead of attacking everything but you have absolutely no credibility.
Cindie
(http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/files/images/can%20of%20worms.jpg)
You opened it.
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
Well, I, too am a Lesbian Quilter! And we don't even need to bother to list Undies -- it is a given.
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
Well, I, too am a Lesbian Quilter! And we don't even need to bother to list Undies -- it is a given.
Lesbian Quilter's UNITE!
-
yadda, yadda, yadda....
Why trust liars?
You mean like all those folks who are competing for "research" dollars to study globalwarming? :whatever:
-
Let me guess...."consensus" right?
Wonder what the consensus on TNO is right now? :-)
Ok, now YOU owe me a monitor cleaning. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
Like the DUmb****s, TNO will probably try to claim that global warming causes cooling or some other idiotic contradiction.
-
There's a Lunar Eclipse tonight. I bet it's caused by Global Warming(TM).
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
Well, I, too am a Lesbian Quilter! And we don't even need to bother to list Undies -- it is a given.
Lesbian Quilter's UNITE!
Well girls are a lot more huggy-kissy than boys. I think girls can be sentimental and huggy without being quilters.
Cindie
-
There's a Lunar Eclipse tonight. I bet it's caused by Global Warming(TM).
And there was a solar eclipse (annular) just two weeks ago. Coincidence?
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
Are you really so naive that you think the weather on one given day says something about climate? Are you really so naive that you think global warming means warm weather all the time?
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
Are you really so naive that you would think that the weather on one given day says something about climate? Are you really so naive that you think that global warming means warm weather all the time?
Are you really so naive to buy into the pure bullshit that is Global Warming? Oh wait, you're a big fat lib.... so, that answers that question.
-
TNO, where the **** is that global warming at you are screaming about? I just went out to walk my dog and get cigarettes and soda...it's 6 degrees out with a windchill of -16. Where is it, because I could sure use some!
Are you really so naive that you would think that the weather on one given day says something about climate? Are you really so naive that you think that global warming means warm weather all the time?
Are you really so naive as to call anything that disputes global warming "crackpot"?
-
There's a Lunar Eclipse tonight. I bet it's caused by Global Warming(TM).
And there was a solar eclipse (annular) just two weeks ago. Coincidence?
:ohnoes:
Is it Human Induced Eclipse Syndrome?
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
HUH?
I LIKE Cindie. . .but how did this outbreak of teh dyke start?
*TKay*
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
HUH?
I LIKE Cindie. . .but how did this outbreak of teh dyke start?
*TKay*
Be like me and roll with it...
-
Why do you bother? Honestly. No one here finds you the least bit credible. You never argue facts, you attack the messenger. When you do get backed into a corner, you simply ignore it and build another straw man.
Feel free to point out any important fact you think I've ignored or any strawman argument you think I've put up.
The fact is global cooling was all the rage when I was growing up. You couldn't open a newspaper or an issue of TIME without some reference to it. We discussed it in science class. It was dire. The world was going to end.
Again with the global cooling. As I've pointed out at least a few times now, the idea that Earth is entering an ice age is an idea which gained a lot of publicity in the 1970s news media but which did not gain a lot of support amongst scientists studying climate...
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
-
And yet a large number of scientists do not support the theory of man-made global warming either.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
-
Are you really so naive as to call anything that disputes global warming "crackpot"?
I don't consider all scientists who dispute the idea of anthropogenic global warming to be crackpots.
-
And yet a large number of scientists do not support the theory of man-made global warming either.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Yeah, but they are discredited by the Daily Kos and Al Gore says they aren't really scientist, so they don't count! /TNO mode. :-)
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
So......what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
-
So......what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
:werd:
We've pretty much been a ball of ice a few times, and a planet where we had vineyards in England. The Earth's climate is ever-so changing. A few two-legged ants on it aren't going to change it.
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
So......what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
I set the Global Thermostat to 85 F but I think the darn thing is broken. We'll be lucky to reach 20 F today :(
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
So......what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
I set the Global Thermostat to 85 F but I think the darn thing is broken. We'll be lucky to reach 20 F today :(
It's out of calibration. You need a Honeywell with a dial face. Get rid of that hi-tech sh*t.
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
So......what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
I set the Global Thermostat to 85 F but I think the darn thing is broken. We'll be lucky to reach 20 F today :(
It's out of calibration. You need a Honeywell with a dial face. Get rid of that hi-tech sh*t.
I was going to take a sledge hammer to it today but the hammer froze and shattered when I merely tapped it against a snow drift. Maybe it's not 20 F but 20 K?
-
Just out of curiosity, what scientific degree of higher learning does Al Gore hold?
My position on global warming is based on what scientists who have studied it are saying, not on what activists are saying.
So......what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
I set the Global Thermostat to 85 F but I think the darn thing is broken. We'll be lucky to reach 20 F today :(
It's out of calibration. You need a Honeywell with a dial face. Get rid of that hi-tech sh*t.
I was going to take a sledge hammer to it today but the hammer froze and shattered when I merely tapped it against a snow drift. Maybe it's not 20 F but 20 K?
Well, set it back to what it should be. All this global warming is making me freeze my ass off when I talk my dog out on a daily walk. :-) 10 degrees with 3 inches of snow and ice on the ground does not make for a pleasant walk when the dog wants to take YOU for a "pull".
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
HUH?
I LIKE Cindie. . .but how did this outbreak of teh dyke start?
*TKay*
I've been labeled "The Lesbian Quilter" by a few CC members. I declared my love for Cindie even though I knew "Lesbian Quilter" would be whispered behind my back. :-*
-
By the way, reading the Bio of some of the faculty of the OISM, I'd say you are doing a HUGE injustice by calling them crack pots. Quite frankly, this one post of yours has caused me to lose more respect for your thinking faculties then anything else you've done here.
Aw DJ, don' be mad at TNO; he don't know no better, he's just repeating what the lib websites tell him to say.
-
I love Cindie and I'm not afraid to be called a Lesbian Quilter for it.
HUH?
I LIKE Cindie. . .but how did this outbreak of teh dyke start?
*TKay*
I've been labeled "The Lesbian Quilter" by a few CC members. I declared my love for Cindie even though I knew "Lesbian Quilter" would be whispered behind my back. :-*
Don't worry about those types, BEG...I've seen your picture...you're damn cute, I'd quilt with you any ole day!
Cindie
-
There's a Lunar Eclipse tonight. I bet it's caused by Global Warming(TM).
And there was a solar eclipse (annular) just two weeks ago. Coincidence?
:ohnoes:
Is it Human Induced Eclipse Syndrome?
those cartoon characters are some of my favorites of all time... they are splendidly perfect in their simplicity.. :-)
-
There's a Lunar Eclipse tonight. I bet it's caused by Global Warming(TM).
And there was a solar eclipse (annular) just two weeks ago. Coincidence?
:ohnoes:
Is it Human Induced Eclipse Syndrome?
those cartoon characters are some of my favorites of all time... they are splendidly perfect in their simplicity.. :-)
Me too! I think it's my favorite one.
-
I'm a lesbian quilter trapped in a man tailor body.
-
I'm a lesbian quilter trapped in a man tailor body.
I guess that's better than being a lesbian quilter trapped in Rod Taylor's body. :tongue:
-
TNO, here's that response.
You asked for proof, here it is right from the horses mouth. You got issues with it, you can go to Mr. Robinson himself and ask about it.
As shown on page 1 of the paper, it was published by the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is peer reviewed.
Moreover, it is a review article - not an original research article.
Therefore - as is ordinary practice - all facts in the article are referenced to the peer reviewed research literature - in the 132 references included.
Art Robinson
Now at any time you may withdraw your statement about the OISM.
-
Now at any time you may withdraw your statement about the OISM.
One thing you'll learn about TNO as time goes by...he never retracts...even when he's hopelessly wrong.
He either moves the goal posts...claims we didn't understand the nuance of one particular word he was splitting hairs on or ignores the thread from here on out.
-
TNO, here's that response.
You asked for proof, here it is right from the horses mouth. You got issues with it, you can go to Mr. Robinson himself and ask about it.
As shown on page 1 of the paper, it was published by the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is peer reviewed.
Moreover, it is a review article - not an original research article.
Therefore - as is ordinary practice - all facts in the article are referenced to the peer reviewed research literature - in the 132 references included.
Art Robinson
Now at any time you may withdraw your statement about the OISM.
Oh... my... God! A study on climate change reviewed by a medical journal. You have got to be kidding me.
First, the American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the MEDLINE/PubMed database of medical literature and does not, as far as I know, show up in other lists of peer reviewed science journals.
Second, the AJPS has been listed as untrustworthy by Quackwatch...
http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperiodicals.html
But even if the AJPS were considered a legitimate science journal, the fact that the OISM had to go to a medical journal to get its study on climate change published says everything one needs to know about the OISM. The OISM is a fraud.
-
Hmmm...sounds like you're just spewing a lot of opinion with no real fact to back up what you say.
Didn't you try to tsk tsk us for the same thing recently?
*sniff* Yup hypocrisy is in the air.
But hey TNO you go ahead...and continue to deflect from the OP and hammer away at some senseless point that has nothing to do with the original subject.
No one but you really cares. We showed what a fraud you are a long time ago.
-
If quackwatch.com is a legit source does that mean junkscience.com is also a legit source?
-
You never fail to dissapoint. I knew the first words out of your mouth would be that AJPS was a medical journal and not something related to climatology.
Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for taking the word of someone who holds a PhD over yours. As I said, if you want to take issue with Dr. Robinsons methods, then you can speak to him directly about it. I've done my leg work, and now if you want to continue this discussion, you need to do yours.
-
You never fail to dissapoint. I knew the first words out of your mouth would be that AJPS was a medical journal and not something related to climatology.
Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for taking the word of someone who holds a PhD over yours. As I said, if you want to take issue with Dr. Robinsons methods, then you can speak to him directly about it. I've done my leg work, and now if you want to continue this discussion, you need to do yours.
Even if the AJPS were qualified to assess climate science, and it is not, the fact remains that it is not recognized as a legitimate peer reviewed science journal.
Perhaps Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD considers the AJPS to be legitimate.
-
You never fail to dissapoint. I knew the first words out of your mouth would be that AJPS was a medical journal and not something related to climatology.
Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for taking the word of someone who holds a PhD over yours. As I said, if you want to take issue with Dr. Robinsons methods, then you can speak to him directly about it. I've done my leg work, and now if you want to continue this discussion, you need to do yours.
Even if the AJPS were qualified to assess climate science, and it is not, the fact remains that it is not recognized as a legitimate peer reviewed science journal.
Perhaps Dr. Geri Halliwell PhD considers the AJPS to be legitimate.
Like I said, take it to him. I'm sure he'll love to listen to your reasoning.
-
QUERY: Would "peer-review" be defined as "those who espouse AGW"?
-
If quackwatch.com is a legit source does that mean junkscience.com is also a legit source?
Quackwatch is a nonprofit organization affiliated with the National Council Against Health Fraud and was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of 9 trustworthy websites which provide reliable information to the public.
I don't know enough about Junkscience.com to make a judgment about it. Feel free to inform me of any accolades or recognition Junkscience.com has received from the scientific community.
-
I don't know enough about Junkscience.com to make a judgement about it.
Liberal code for I can't refute anything they've said so I'm just gonna plead ignorance and pretend those pesky facts that counter my "feelings" don't exist.
-
You never fail to dissapoint. I knew the first words out of your mouth would be that AJPS was a medical journal and not something related to climatology.
And yet the Libs like TNO will hold up Algores movie like it's the Gospel.
-
And yet the Libs like TNO will hold up Algores movie like it's the Gospel.
If they want to stuff dirty socks in their ears and call it educating their minds they're free to do it but what chafes me about TNO and his sort is they insist on using their "science" to impose their laws without the consent of the governed.
In short: environmentally-based dictatorship
-
You never fail to dissapoint. I knew the first words out of your mouth would be that AJPS was a medical journal and not something related to climatology.
And yet the Libs like TNO will hold up Algores movie like it's the Gospel.
Feel free to point out any posts I've made in which I cite Al Gore's work as the basis for my position on climate change.
-
Like I said, take it to him. I'm sure he'll love to listen to your reasoning.
Come on, Djones... I know that you have a large capacity for critical thinking which must have caused alarm bells to go off in your head when you found out that Arthur Robinson's study about climate change was reviewed by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
By the way, I just read that Jane Orient, the director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons which publishes the JPandS, also happens to be an professor at... guess where... the OISM.
And, guess who happens to be a notable member of the AAPS... wait for it... wait for it... Ron Paul... or, as he is called here at CC, Dr. Nutz.
OISM and AAPS... crackpots, quacks, and frauds.
-
Are you going to keep chasing these red herrings TNO or are you going to actually comment on the OP?
-
Are you going to keep chasing these red herrings TNO or are you going to actually comment on the OP?
He just wants to spout.
When you ask him what sort of practical policy agenda he has there's suddenly nought but crickets to be heard.
-
No actually, it didn't send of any warnings. If you read the first page of the study you will see why being posted in a medical journal would be relavent. It makes a strong case about how Global Warming would be a good thing for the health of mankind.
I'm not suprised by your attack against it's veracity (and the AAPS) though, since it's a very large advocate of privatized healthcare, and has been a key player in keeping a national healthcare plan out of this country.
-
No actually, it didn't send of any warnings. If you read the first page of the study you will see why being posted in a medical journal would be relavent. It makes a strong case about how Global Warming would be a good thing for the health of mankind.
I'm not suprised by your attack against it's veracity (and the AAPS) though, since it's a very large advocate of privatized healthcare, and has been a key player in keeping a national healthcare plan out of this country.
Some of the arguments Arthur Robinson makes in his study on climate change might be vaguely relevant to the medical community, but that doesn't mean that the JPandS review of Robinson's study constitutes a peer review. For instance, the idea that we should consider the JPandS review of Arthur Robinson's position on climate modelling to be authoritative is patently absurd.
-
No actually, it didn't send of any warnings. If you read the first page of the study you will see why being posted in a medical journal would be relavent. It makes a strong case about how Global Warming would be a good thing for the health of mankind.
I'm not suprised by your attack against it's veracity (and the AAPS) though, since it's a very large advocate of privatized healthcare, and has been a key player in keeping a national healthcare plan out of this country.
Some of the arguments Arthur Robinson makes in his study on climate change might be vaguely relevant to the medical community, but that doesn't mean that the JPandS review of Robinson's study constitutes a peer review.
*sighs* Did you even read this part of his response? It was only about 90% of it.
Moreover, it is a review article - not an original research article.
Therefore - as is ordinary practice - all facts in the article are referenced to the peer reviewed research literature - in the 132 references included
-
Moreover, it is a review article - not an original research article.
Therefore - as is ordinary practice - all facts in the article are referenced to the peer reviewed research literature - in the 132 references included
The OISM website refers to Arthur Robinson's study on global warming as a peer reviewed research paper, not a review article...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Whatever Robinson's work is, it should not be considered authoritative until it undergoes the peer review process. For all we know, Robinson misrepresented the science he reviewed in his study.
-
Well, this is where we hit that wall. I'm done trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen to reason.
-
Well, this is where we hit that wall. I'm done trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen to reason.
Welcome to debate TNO style. :whatever:
He's going to do what he normally does and avoid any meaningful discussion in favor of splitting hairs over the difference between "article" and "paper".
It's his standard MO
-
Well, this is where we hit that wall. I'm done trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen to reason.
Welcome to debate TNO style. :whatever:
He's going to do what he normally does and avoid any meaningful discussion in favor of splitting hairs over the difference between "article" and "paper".
It's his standard MO
I'm not drawing a distinction between an article and a paper. I'm simply pointing out that what the OISM is dishonestly passing off as a "peer reviewed research paper" is not a peer reviewed research paper.
-
I'm not drawing a distinction between an article and a paper. I'm simply pointing out that what the OISM is dishonestly passing off as a "peer reviewed research paper" is not a peer reviewed research paper.
You are splitting hairs to avoid trying to take about the OP. It's your typical style of "debate".
Again...do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to add to the subject or are you going to insist on trying to take this thread down a completely different road?
-
Again...do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to add to the subject or are you going to insist on trying to take this thread down a completely different road?
Regarding the Cascade Policy Institute conference... I just think that the OISM's presence at the Cascade Policy Institute conference tells us something about the merit of the conference, and none of it is good. Then again, perhaps people are attending the conference with the hope that Geri Halliwell PhD will be there.
Have I worn out the Geri Halliwell PhD joke yet?
:-)
-
Again...do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to add to the subject or are you going to insist on trying to take this thread down a completely different road?
Regarding the Cascade Policy Institute conference... I just think that the OISM's presence at the Cascade Policy Institute conference tells us something about the merit of the conference, and none of it is good. Then again, perhaps people are attending the conference with the hope that Geri Halliwell PhD will be there.
Have I worn out the Geri Halliwell PhD joke yet?
:-)
Translation from libspeak:
Anything that disputes AGL is wrong! al gore is teh demigod!!!!!11OneOne