In article .com,
"bill" wrote:
I've seen what they've said, yes. Have you?

you lie. flat out, straight up, lie.


http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...olicy_general/
000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Cute, but try reading the scientific journals. Or the National Academy of
Sciences report.

"Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate
change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading
atmospheric physicists."

He is no such thing.


http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/nzct48.htm


Try a science source, doofus.

these are a bare few of the dissenters among scientists that wrote
in the tar or are cited in it. face it dude, it is a political
document, not a scientific one.

Face it, dude, you're an idiot who knows zilch about science.

Neither do you.

Wanna match science credentials? Tell us your science degrees.


you take everything that the un spews at face

The UN isn't spewing anything. The IPCC is a group of hundreds of scientists
from all over the world.

And is the National Academy of sciences part of the UN? NASA? NOAA? EPA?

value and discount anything coming from anywhere else as "creationist",
or "right wing blog".

Yeah, I believe scientific papers over blogs. Bite me.


In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.

And what points have I been "cornered on"?


I rather
expect the insult game from owl, it is all he is here for, but you
claim to be a scientist.

Who doesn't suffer fools.


get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.

As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

In article .com,
"bill" wrote:
I've seen what they've said, yes. Have you?
you lie. flat out, straight up, lie.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...olicy_general/
000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Cute, but try reading the scientific journals. Or the National Academy
of
Sciences report.
"Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate
change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading
atmospheric physicists."
He is no such thing.


http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/nzct48.htm


Try a science source, doofus.

these are a bare few of the dissenters among scientists that wrote
in the tar or are cited in it. face it dude, it is a political
document, not a scientific one.

Face it, dude, you're an idiot who knows zilch about science.

Neither do you.
Wanna match science credentials? Tell us your science degrees.

you are living proof that there are no letters you can have after
your name that eliminate the possibility of stupid. I am an engineer,
you are a chemist, we are both equally qualified to consider subjects
so far outside of our field of expertise.

you take everything that the un spews at face

The UN isn't spewing anything. The IPCC is a group of hundreds of
scientists
from all over the world.

the ipcc is a un mouthpiece.

Sigh. So hundreds of scientists from all over the world are engaged in some
big conspiracy, and only a few right-wing blowhards see through it?


And is the National Academy of sciences part of the UN? NASA? NOAA? EPA?

EPA is muscle for organized crime, NASA does good science, NOAA
does good science. but they don't say much about the ipcc report.

They all agree on AGW.


value and discount anything coming from anywhere else as "creationist",
or "right wing blog".

Yeah, I believe scientific papers over blogs. Bite me.

so do I, but not all the things you have acused of being blogs are
so. and I still don't consider the TAR to be in the least bit
scientific.


As we know, you have no training, no background, and no expertise in science,
so you can consider atoms to be inhabited by leprechauns too, and it's equally
valid.

In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.
And what points have I been "cornered on"?

What modeling system did the ipcc use? They published a paper
based on modeling that did not reflect the emissions cases.

They reviewed the scientific data out there.


There is
NO raw data anywhere in the TAR. There are no statistical analyses
anywhere in it, all it is is a long list of he-said-she-said. if this
is what you consider science, I am afraid for the quality of future
chemists.

It's a REVIEW. Do you know what REVIEWs in science do? They're not original
research; you can go to the original papers for that.


I rather
expect the insult game from owl, it is all he is here for, but you
claim to be a scientist.

Who doesn't suffer fools.

boy, it must suck not to be able to suffer yourself.

get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.
As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

background is 1 thing, aptitude is something else entirely.
Ignoring evidence is unscientific.
Holding to 1 political source because it fits your viewpoint is
unscientific.
have you EVER had a thought that wasn't spoon-fed to you?


So again you refuse to tell us your scientific background. Well, I guess that
says a lot.

In article .com,
"bill" wrote:
In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.

And what points have I been "cornered on"?

And chris landsea's letter? one of the lead authors of the TAR?
your reply was the delightfully dismissive "cute".


And did it dispute that GW is occurring, or humans are causing it? No.

I rather
expect the insult game from owl, it is all he is here for, but you
claim to be a scientist.

Who doesn't suffer fools.


get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.

As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.


For the fourth time, no answer.

I've seen what they've said, yes. Have you?
you lie. flat out, straight up, lie.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...olicy_general/
000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Cute, but try reading the scientific journals. Or the National Academy of
Sciences report.
"Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate
change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading
atmospheric physicists."
He is no such thing.


http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/nzct48.htm


Try a science source, doofus.

these are a bare few of the dissenters among scientists that wrote
in the tar or are cited in it. face it dude, it is a political
document, not a scientific one.

Face it, dude, you're an idiot who knows zilch about science.

Neither do you.
Wanna match science credentials? Tell us your science degrees.

you are living proof that there are no letters you can have after
your name that eliminate the possibility of stupid. I am an engineer,
you are a chemist, we are both equally qualified to consider subjects
so far outside of our field of expertise.

you take everything that the un spews at face

The UN isn't spewing anything. The IPCC is a group of hundreds of scientists
from all over the world.

the ipcc is a un mouthpiece.

And is the National Academy of sciences part of the UN? NASA? NOAA? EPA?

EPA is muscle for organized crime, NASA does good science, NOAA
does good science. but they don't say much about the ipcc report.

value and discount anything coming from anywhere else as "creationist",
or "right wing blog".

Yeah, I believe scientific papers over blogs. Bite me.

so do I, but not all the things you have acused of being blogs are
so. and I still don't consider the TAR to be in the least bit
scientific.

In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.
And what points have I been "cornered on"?

What modeling system did the ipcc use? They published a paper
based on modeling that did not reflect the emissions cases. There is
NO raw data anywhere in the TAR. There are no statistical analyses
anywhere in it, all it is is a long list of he-said-she-said. if this
is what you consider science, I am afraid for the quality of future
chemists.

I rather
expect the insult game from owl, it is all he is here for, but you
claim to be a scientist.

Who doesn't suffer fools.

boy, it must suck not to be able to suffer yourself.

get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.
As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

background is 1 thing, aptitude is something else entirely.
Ignoring evidence is unscientific.
Holding to 1 political source because it fits your viewpoint is
unscientific.
have you EVER had a thought that wasn't spoon-fed to you?

In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.

And what points have I been "cornered on"?

And chris landsea's letter? one of the lead authors of the TAR?
your reply was the delightfully dismissive "cute".

I rather
expect the insult game from owl, it is all he is here for, but you
claim to be a scientist.

Who doesn't suffer fools.


get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.

As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/nzct48.htm


Try a science source, doofus.

these are a bare few of the dissenters among scientists that wrote
in the tar or are cited in it. face it dude, it is a political
document, not a scientific one.

Face it, dude, you're an idiot who knows zilch about science.

Neither do you.
Wanna match science credentials? Tell us your science degrees.

you are living proof that there are no letters you can have after
your name that eliminate the possibility of stupid. I am an engineer,
you are a chemist, we are both equally qualified to consider subjects
so far outside of our field of expertise.

you take everything that the un spews at face

The UN isn't spewing anything. The IPCC is a group of hundreds of
scientists
from all over the world.

the ipcc is a un mouthpiece.

Sigh. So hundreds of scientists from all over the world are engaged in some
big conspiracy, and only a few right-wing blowhards see through it?

sigh... no, moron, hundreds of politically hand-picked
pseudo-scientists are engaged in a marketing campaign to promote kyoto,
and hundreds of scientists see it, including many who wrote in earlier
versions. and it is only hand-wringing emotional nutjobs like you who
don't see it.

And is the National Academy of sciences part of the UN? NASA? NOAA? EPA?

EPA is muscle for organized crime, NASA does good science, NOAA
does good science. but they don't say much about the ipcc report.

They all agree on AGW.

yes, that's because AGW is a fact. It is not in dispute here.
What is in dispute here is the IPCC's purported ability to forecast
what effects it will have in what region and what the overall effects
will be. positive, negative and profoundly negative. Really, it would
help if you could keep your mind on-topic.

value and discount anything coming from anywhere else as "creationist",
or "right wing blog".

Yeah, I believe scientific papers over blogs. Bite me.

so do I, but not all the things you have acused of being blogs are
so. and I still don't consider the TAR to be in the least bit
scientific.
As we know, you have no training, no background, and no expertise in science,
so you can consider atoms to be inhabited by leprechauns too, and it's equally
valid.

LLoyd, I admit that my degree is a bachelors of science in
engineering. I admit that the only thing that this qualifies me to do
is to look at the maths and methods used in studies and to read what
other scientists have written about them and make decisions about the
factual content of each based on it's own merits. now, you consider
yourself to be above such trivial things as research and thinking
because you have a piled-high-and-deep and therefore you use the
ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY which may work on your students, but no one else
in the real world. your phd is in chemistry, which makes you no better
qualified to review these reports than I am.

In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.
And what points have I been "cornered on"?
What modeling system did the ipcc use? They published a paper
based on modeling that did not reflect the emissions cases.
They reviewed the scientific data out there.

which data did they review to make ANY of their specific
predictions? One of my biggest problems with the TAR is that there are
no attributions to any of their specific predictions, so I cannot go to
the source and say "what exactly did this report say?" without wading
thruough ALL the documents that are cited.

There is
NO raw data anywhere in the TAR. There are no statistical analyses
anywhere in it, all it is is a long list of he-said-she-said. if this
is what you consider science, I am afraid for the quality of future
chemists.
It's a REVIEW. Do you know what REVIEWs in science do? They're not original
research; you can go to the original papers for that.

again, which original papers, their bibliography lists thousands
of papers written about the climate with no data whatsoever about where
any given bit came from.

get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.
As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

background is 1 thing, aptitude is something else entirely.
Ignoring evidence is unscientific.
Holding to 1 political source because it fits your viewpoint is
unscientific.
have you EVER had a thought that wasn't spoon-fed to you?
So again you refuse to tell us your scientific background. Well, I guess that
says a lot.

read the past posts in this thread, I have said repeatedly that I
am a BSCE. no bones about it. this is another pathetic attempt to use
the argument by authority by you. put up some real data other than "I
said so" or shut up.

In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.

And what points have I been "cornered on"?

And chris landsea's letter? one of the lead authors of the TAR?
your reply was the delightfully dismissive "cute".
And did it dispute that GW is occurring, or humans are causing it? No.

nor did I, read the thread and pull your head out of there.

I rather
expect the insult game from owl, it is all he is here for, but you
claim to be a scientist.

Who doesn't suffer fools.

get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.

As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.


For the fourth time, no answer.

for the 20th time, BACHELORS SCIENCE, CIVIL ENGINEERING. which
you would have known if you had read the past posts here. Jesus, is
your entire world wrapped up in that piece of bull**** you have hanging
on your wall? In what way does that make you more qualified to review
Climate papers than I am? The climate is outside of both our areas of
expertise and your claim that having wasted 10 years of your life
studying the interaction of flourine with nitrogen alkaloids makes you
a reliable source on a completely separate subject is bogus in the
extreme.
Put up or shut up, show me where NOAA or NASA endorses the IPCC
report, show me anything other than this continuous stream of "well,
there were a bunch of guys in white coats involved, it must be right
(blink-blink)" and we can start to have a conversation.

In article .com,
"bill" wrote:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/nzct48.htm


Try a science source, doofus.

these are a bare few of the dissenters among scientists that
wrote
in the tar or are cited in it. face it dude, it is a political
document, not a scientific one.

Face it, dude, you're an idiot who knows zilch about science.

Neither do you.
Wanna match science credentials? Tell us your science degrees.

you are living proof that there are no letters you can have after
your name that eliminate the possibility of stupid. I am an engineer,
you are a chemist, we are both equally qualified to consider subjects
so far outside of our field of expertise.

you take everything that the un spews at face

The UN isn't spewing anything. The IPCC is a group of hundreds of
scientists
from all over the world.

the ipcc is a un mouthpiece.

Sigh. So hundreds of scientists from all over the world are engaged in
some
big conspiracy, and only a few right-wing blowhards see through it?

sigh... no, moron, hundreds of politically hand-picked
pseudo-scientists

You are clueless.


are engaged in a marketing campaign to promote kyoto,

Does the IPCC report push Kyoto? No.

and hundreds of scientists see it, including many who wrote in earlier
versions. and it is only hand-wringing emotional nutjobs like you who
don't see it.

OK, so I assume the scientific literature is full of papers to support your
view. And I assume you've got scientific agencies lined up who endorse your
view too?


And is the National Academy of sciences part of the UN? NASA? NOAA?
EPA?

EPA is muscle for organized crime, NASA does good science, NOAA
does good science. but they don't say much about the ipcc report.

They all agree on AGW.

yes, that's because AGW is a fact. It is not in dispute here.
What is in dispute here is the IPCC's purported ability to forecast
what effects it will have in what region and what the overall effects
will be. positive, negative and profoundly negative. Really, it would
help if you could keep your mind on-topic.

So your only disagreement is with the magnitude and timing of the effects?
That's not how you come across.


value and discount anything coming from anywhere else as "creationist",
or "right wing blog".

Yeah, I believe scientific papers over blogs. Bite me.

so do I, but not all the things you have acused of being blogs are
so. and I still don't consider the TAR to be in the least bit
scientific.
As we know, you have no training, no background, and no expertise in
science,
so you can consider atoms to be inhabited by leprechauns too, and it's
equally
valid.

LLoyd, I admit that my degree is a bachelors of science in
engineering.

So you're no different from an English major when it comes to science.


I admit that the only thing that this qualifies me to do
is to look at the maths and methods used in studies and to read what
other scientists have written about them

And HAVE you read any of the scientific journals?


and make decisions about the
factual content of each based on it's own merits. now, you consider
yourself to be above such trivial things as research and thinking
because you have a piled-high-and-deep and therefore you use the
ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY which may work on your students, but no one else
in the real world. your phd is in chemistry, which makes you no better
qualified to review these reports than I am.


Of course it does. I'm a scientist; you're not.

In addition, when you are cornered on a point,
you immediately revert to insults or drop that subthread.
And what points have I been "cornered on"?
What modeling system did the ipcc use? They published a paper
based on modeling that did not reflect the emissions cases.
They reviewed the scientific data out there.

which data did they review to make ANY of their specific
predictions? One of my biggest problems with the TAR is that there are
no attributions to any of their specific predictions, so I cannot go to
the source and say "what exactly did this report say?" without wading
thruough ALL the documents that are cited.

There is
NO raw data anywhere in the TAR. There are no statistical analyses
anywhere in it, all it is is a long list of he-said-she-said. if this
is what you consider science, I am afraid for the quality of future
chemists.
It's a REVIEW. Do you know what REVIEWs in science do? They're not
original
research; you can go to the original papers for that.

again, which original papers, their bibliography lists thousands
of papers written about the climate with no data whatsoever about where
any given bit came from.

get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.
As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

background is 1 thing, aptitude is something else entirely.
Ignoring evidence is unscientific.
Holding to 1 political source because it fits your viewpoint is
unscientific.
have you EVER had a thought that wasn't spoon-fed to you?
So again you refuse to tell us your scientific background. Well, I guess
that
says a lot.

read the past posts in this thread, I have said repeatedly that I
am a BSCE. no bones about it. this is another pathetic attempt to use
the argument by authority by you. put up some real data other than "I
said so" or shut up.

Argument by authority seems to be attacked when all the authorities are
against you.

are engaged in a marketing campaign to promote kyoto,
Does the IPCC report push Kyoto? No.

yes. By exagerating the differences in the 100 year condition for
it's different emissions cases. By taking as it's worst case emissions
case a condition which cannot be obtained with currently existing
fossil fuel reserves.

and hundreds of scientists see it, including many who wrote in earlier
versions. and it is only hand-wringing emotional nutjobs like you who
don't see it.
OK, so I assume the scientific literature is full of papers to support your
view. And I assume you've got scientific agencies lined up who endorse your
view too?

The literature is full of examples where the IPPCC report neglects
forcing and negative feedback effects, yes. and they are full of
examples of the IPCC underplaying uncertainties in the validity of
modeling, and many other details which add up to bad science.

And is the National Academy of sciences part of the UN? NASA? NOAA?
EPA?
EPA is muscle for organized crime, NASA does good science, NOAA
does good science. but they don't say much about the ipcc report.
They all agree on AGW.
yes, that's because AGW is a fact. It is not in dispute here.
What is in dispute here is the IPCC's purported ability to forecast
what effects it will have in what region and what the overall effects
will be. positive, negative and profoundly negative. Really, it would
help if you could keep your mind on-topic.

So your only disagreement is with the magnitude and timing of the effects?
That's not how you come across.

You read what you want to read. Perhaps there have been so many
right-wing nutjobs posting here that you assume that any dissenter is
one. I have however clearly and repeatedly stated that I am in
agreement with the general case of AGW and specifically anthropogenic
AGW. Don't blame me if you have missed them

value and discount anything coming from anywhere else as "creationist",
or "right wing blog".
Yeah, I believe scientific papers over blogs. Bite me.
so do I, but not all the things you have acused of being blogs are
so. and I still don't consider the TAR to be in the least bit
scientific.
As we know, you have no training, no background, and no expertise in
science,
so you can consider atoms to be inhabited by leprechauns too, and it's
equally valid.
LLoyd, I admit that my degree is a bachelors of science in
engineering.
So you're no different from an English major when it comes to science.

now LLoyd, the first 3 years of my education were nothing but
science courses. One of the things that they teach clearly and
distinctly is that no one has a monopoly on science. Einstein was a
patent clerk.

I admit that the only thing that this qualifies me to do
is to look at the maths and methods used in studies and to read what
other scientists have written about them
And HAVE you read any of the scientific journals?

Yes. I have read reports of the methane release in the siberian
permafrost, unmentioned in the IPCC report. I have read extensive
reports of AGW and increased co2 accelerating plant growth, glossed
over in the ipcc report. I have read reports of algal blooms in the
Gulf of Mexico, convincingly attributed to agricultural runoff in the
missippi watershead. I have read papers about the potential shutdown
of the gulfstream due to freshwater melts inhibiting the thermohaline
cycle, with the attendent effects on the climate of europe/Northern US.
There is a lot that I have not read, but there always will be.

and make decisions about the
factual content of each based on it's own merits. now, you consider
yourself to be above such trivial things as research and thinking
because you have a piled-high-and-deep and therefore you use the
ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY which may work on your students, but no one else
in the real world. your phd is in chemistry, which makes you no better
qualified to review these reports than I am.
Of course it does. I'm a scientist; you're not.

you are a chemist, I am an engineer, neither of us is a
climateologist. No reputable scientist would claim authority this far
out of his area of expertise.

again, which original papers, their bibliography lists thousands
of papers written about the climate with no data whatsoever about where
any given bit came from.
get your head out of your ass and act like
one. you claim expertise so far out of your fiend that the two topics
are not even tangentially connected. bottom line, you are a doofus
with no knowledge of science.
As I said, put up or shut up -- tell us YOUR scientific background.

background is 1 thing, aptitude is something else entirely.
Ignoring evidence is unscientific.
Holding to 1 political source because it fits your viewpoint is
unscientific.
have you EVER had a thought that wasn't spoon-fed to you?
So again you refuse to tell us your scientific background. Well, I guess
that says a lot.
read the past posts in this thread, I have said repeatedly that I
am a BSCE. no bones about it. this is another pathetic attempt to use
the argument by authority by you. put up some real data other than "I
said so" or shut up.

Argument by authority seems to be attacked when all the authorities are
against you.

The only Argument by authority culprit is you. Every other
poster, including OWL makes at least an effort to back up their claims
with actual data. The REAL authorities on the subject are VERY careful
to present and carefully evaluate actual data before making sweeping
statements.