|
icecreamdose (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
"not "consensus" but universal,"you lying bastard
icecreamdose (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
"not "consensus" but universal,"grastog you liar. I have sent peer-reviewed works from the literature that show your side is wrong.you are lying. Stop lying.also you continue to post the same comments. you are a spammer. your conscience doesnt bother you??
icecreamdose (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
now grastog is claiming to be a peer-reviewer, literally claiming to be a peer-reviewer, and i quote "As one who has participated in the peer review process as both reviewer and reviewee". previously he had claimed he has gotten grant money. but seeing how small his mind is he is probably lying on both counts.
icecreamdose (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
THE EARTH WILL CONTINUE TO COOL2008, so far, is tied for #3 for fewest sunspots in the last 100 years. By end of December it could easily end up #2.
ziljn (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
"Since when did 'consensus' come to mean those who reviewed the IPCC report?"Since the repeated statements were made that the "worlds top 2500 scientists..." and other derivatives of such claims. That includes all reviewers.So mathematics ability qualifies Gavin but mathematics ability isn't good enough when we're talking about McIntyre, whose expertise in statistics has been proven time and again to climate "experts" practicing statistics w/o a license.Hypocrisy.
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
In the science literature, recognition of anthropogenic warming is not "consensus" but universal, based on an enormity of evidence readers can find there. For those without journal access, I've suggested the wikipedia "Global Warming" article as a starting point for climate change understanding, and "Climate Book" for those with mathematical sophistication. The IPCC WG consensus is also universal on major points, if not on all details. Reviewers are not WG scientists, nor always even scientists.
jffryfnt (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
"I'm just putting your statements together."You're twisting them beyond comprehension.Since when did 'consensus' come to mean those who reviewed the IPCC report?"Gavin holds no education in climatlogy or earth science, so his record is meaningless..again, you're own argument." I did not say this.YOU did. If you knew ANYTHING about Earth science, mathematical ability is certainly asset. I was attempting to focus your attention of the fact that he's well published in this field. Meaningless?
ziljn (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Heh.According to you this consensus includes "anyone" who "asked" to review the report, including those apparently unqualified to do so. So what does that say about this consensus? It's your argument, not mine. I'm just putting your statements together.But I see the simple logic trail eludes you so I'll try to be more direct in the future, and use smaller words perhaps.Gavin holds no education in climatlogy or earth science, so his record is meaningless... again, you're own argument.
jffryfnt (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Yes, strawman, you misrepresented my position. You falsely assumed I think that a consensus does not exist, in which it clearly does. Gavin is a hell of a lot more qualified than McIntyre and his publication record is a testament. Where do you come up with your empty rhetoric? hypocrisy?? Yeah, to your amusement--ignorance is indeed bliss.
grastog1313 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
I'm not convinced of the value of more argument here about the IPCC and the literature. As one familiar with the literature, its universal recognition of anthropogenic warming, and near universal perception of it as a potentially dangerous threat, I judge the IPCC reports to be a highly reliable distillation of the evidence, with minor exceptions. Others appear to disagree, but it would seem best at this point for viewers to read the IPCC reports and journals to draw their own conclusions. |
