wrote:
kT wrote:

wrote:

kT wrote:
Frigid -40 Below Zero Global warming wind chills wrote:

kT wrote...

Joe *******i - Accuweather ******* on Steroids.
Joe Sobel - Accuweather Paid Liar.
Science is one area of endeavor where credentials or a license are not
required at all to participate, and one's success is based solely on the
veracity of one's results. Weather prediction is not science.

Joe Sobel is a scientific failure. You can't call meteorology at a local
weather station 'science'. Especially if you are doing it commercially.
The reader needs more than just seeing some anonymous poster assert
things about Joe *******i or Joe Sobel. You need to provide specifics
that the reader can check for accuracy. Or, as you put it, "one's
success is based solely on the veracity of one's results."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...&btnG=Sea rch

Nothing in his name, a couple of 'thank-you's' from actual scientists.

That would be evidence supporting your "not a scientist" claim.

I just provided it. There are no verifiable citations.

Where is the evidence supporting your "Paid Liar" claim?

He works for Accuweather.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accu-Weather's_science_for_hire

Where is the evidence supporting your claims about Joe *******i?

He has a BSc from PSU. He's a body builder, not a scientist.

Again, The reader needs more than just seeing some anonymous poster
assert things about Joe *******i or Joe Sobel. You need to provide
specifics that the reader can check for accuracy. You haven't done
that.

Yes I have. You are an anonymous usenet poster.

I have provided links, you have not.

Go for it, nobody.

marcodbeast wrote:

wrote:

kT wrote:

Frigid -40 Below Zero Global warming wind chills wrote:

kT wrote...

Joe *******i - Accuweather ******* on Steroids.

Joe Sobel - Accuweather Paid Liar.

Science is one area of endeavor where credentials or a license are
not required at all to participate, and one's success is based
solely on the veracity of one's results. Weather prediction is not
science.

Joe Sobel is a scientific failure. You can't call meteorology at a
local weather station 'science'. Especially if you are doing it
commercially.

The reader needs more than just seeing some anonymous poster assert
things about Joe *******i or Joe Sobel. You need to provide specifics
that the reader can check for accuracy.

Not really - this is a common denialist mistake. There is no more debate,
AGW has been detected and we are now determining its effects. It won't
matter a hill of beans what anyone says, or thinks. Kind of like during
Katrina. Levees - and glaciers - don't care.

An amazing departure from logical thought...

I never denied or supported global warming. I said nothing at
all on that particular subject, nor do I intend to do so.

What I *did* do is to ask for some sort of evidence supporting
kT's claims regarding Joe *******i and Joe Sobel. Which he failed
to provide.

Is the above the level of scientific rigour I can expect from
your side, or are you an isolated case of stupidity that makes
the others who support your position wince?

wrote:

What I *did* do is to ask for some sort of evidence supporting
kT's claims regarding Joe *******i and Joe Sobel. Which he failed
to provide.

What you DID NOT do is make any counter claims to my documentation, nor
have you provided any EVIDENCE to counter my claims.

Is the above the level of scientific rigour I can expect

But you can't deliver that scientific rigor yourself, and for some
reason you do not believe you should be held to the same standards.

wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:

wrote:

kT wrote:

Frigid -40 Below Zero Global warming wind chills wrote:

kT wrote...

Joe *******i - Accuweather ******* on Steroids.

Joe Sobel - Accuweather Paid Liar.

Science is one area of endeavor where credentials or a license are
not required at all to participate, and one's success is based
solely on the veracity of one's results. Weather prediction is not
science.

Joe Sobel is a scientific failure. You can't call meteorology at a
local weather station 'science'. Especially if you are doing it
commercially.

The reader needs more than just seeing some anonymous poster assert
things about Joe *******i or Joe Sobel. You need to provide
specifics that the reader can check for accuracy.

Not really - this is a common denialist mistake. There is no more
debate, AGW has been detected and we are now determining its
effects. It won't matter a hill of beans what anyone says, or
thinks. Kind of like during Katrina. Levees - and glaciers - don't
care.

An amazing departure from logical thought...

A ridiculous lie. Where I come from, statements of fact are statements of
fact.



I never denied or supported global warming. I said nothing at
all on that particular subject, nor do I intend to do so.

What I *did* do is to ask for some sort of evidence supporting
kT's claims regarding Joe *******i and Joe Sobel. Which he failed
to provide.

Why would he bother providing common knowledge? Time-wasters are common
here, we've all seen it before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_*******i
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sobel


Is the above the level of scientific rigour I can expect from
your side, or are you an isolated case of stupidity that makes
the others who support your position wince?

Denialistspeak for "I cannot refute a word you said."

Your sad sorry lies about what I am and what I posted make you a
laughingstock - adding mention of 'scientific rigor' is the frosting on that
cake. lol

marcodbeast wrote:
wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:
wrote:

kT wrote:
Frigid -40 Below Zero Global warming wind chills wrote:
kT wrote...

Joe *******i - Accuweather ******* on Steroids.
Joe Sobel - Accuweather Paid Liar.
Science is one area of endeavor where credentials or a license are
not required at all to participate, and one's success is based
solely on the veracity of one's results. Weather prediction is not
science.

Joe Sobel is a scientific failure. You can't call meteorology at a
local weather station 'science'. Especially if you are doing it
commercially.
The reader needs more than just seeing some anonymous poster assert
things about Joe *******i or Joe Sobel. You need to provide
specifics that the reader can check for accuracy.
Not really - this is a common denialist mistake. There is no more
debate, AGW has been detected and we are now determining its
effects. It won't matter a hill of beans what anyone says, or
thinks. Kind of like during Katrina. Levees - and glaciers - don't
care.
An amazing departure from logical thought...

A ridiculous lie. Where I come from, statements of fact are statements of
fact.

And a tautology is a tautology.

Why would he bother providing common knowledge?

Indeed, why would I bother supplying links to common knowledge that
anyone can get by simply typing a name in the wiki search bar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_*******i
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sobel

kT wrote:

Where is the evidence supporting your claims about Joe *******i?

He has a BSc from PSU. He's a body builder, not a scientist.

Evasion noted. Being a body builder and non-scientist does not
make one an "Ignorant American Fascist."

Again, The reader needs more than just seeing some anonymous poster
assert things about Joe *******i or Joe Sobel. You need to provide
specifics that the reader can check for accuracy. You haven't done
that.

Yes I have.

No. You haven't.

You are an anonymous usenet poster.

Irrelevant.

I have provided links

In response to my queston? No you didn't. I am not going to go and
check your entire posting history. If you have a link, post it.

you have not.

Nor have I made any claims requiring documentation. You have.

kT wrote:

wrote:

What I *did* do is to ask for some sort of evidence supporting
kT's claims regarding Joe *******i and Joe Sobel. Which he failed
to provide.

What you DID NOT do is make any counter claims to my documentation,

What documentation? You haven't posted any.

nor have you provided any EVIDENCE to counter my claims.

You are the one making the claim. The burden is upon you to
provide evidence that it is true. I hereby claim that you have
sex with sheep. Go ahead and post "EVIDENCE to counter my claims."

kT wrote:

Indeed, why would I bother supplying links to common knowledge that
anyone can get by simply typing a name in the wiki search bar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_*******i
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sobel

I read the entire wikipedia article. No mention of him being
a Fascist. Or being born out of wedlock. What a shock.

Let me know if you ever come up with a link that documents
THE ACTUAL CLAIMS YOU MAKE IN YOUR POSTS rather than documenting
something else entirely.