That’s why we don’t take the opinions of individual scientists. We look to the consensus of the scientific community.

Unfortunately, many of the people in what the left calls the scientific community are really not scientists.

Tell us lgm – WHO reviewed the computer model coding at the IPCC? Other computer modelers?

Stop making sense!!!!!

Danceswithdachshunds said (#78):

Here is PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE that refutes the alarmism by you, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the IPCC

lgm said:
That link is not peer reviewed. It refers to peer reviewed science, but it itself is not. If it were, there would be a citation somewhere in it.

And that’s all any of these environitwits can say. Don’t look at the peer reviewed science that disproves Al Gore and the AGW hysterics – focus on those who DARE to place that peer reviewed science on the table as evidence because no one reviewed them. It’s hard science fact that is being presented in that petition and not one AGW nitwit, certainly not lgm, can refute it.

Tell us lgm – WHO reviewed the computer model coding at the IPCC? Other computer modelers?

“Did you mean “beshat himself” instead of “beclowns himself?” “

I believe the latter subsumes the former!!!

(at least it ought to)

reminds me of an old simpsons gag:

Grampa Simpson is riding in the back seat with the kids.

Marge, who’s driving, looks in the rear view mirror and asks:

“Grampa, are you sitting on the apple pie I bought?”

Grampa, plaintively: ” I sure hope so!”

On June 9th, 2008 at 8:15 pm, fulldroolcup said:

btw: anyone bothering to link to the site #78 and lgm refer to will see that it offers a SUMMARY of PEER-REVIEWED scientific articles, with ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO citations.

So lgm’s quibble is nothing but that: an immaterial criticism , one that refuses to address the FACTS that (1) there is NO “consensus”, and (2) there is a lot of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE refuting the theory of AGW.

And if lgm is being paid by leftists to shill for AGW they should demand their money back, because he…is…a…..clown…who …beclowns himself…every time he writes.

Excellent point!

Did you mean “beshat himself” instead of “beclowns himself?”

Just asking!

On June 9th, 2008 at 6:11 pm, lgm said:

Danceswithdachshunds said (#78):

Here is PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE that refutes the alarmism by you, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the IPCC

That link is not peer reviewed. It refers to peer reviewed science, but it itself is not. If it were, there would be a citation somewhere in it.

Oh puhleeze! I happen to have some not insignificant experience with peer reviews, and I can tell you that there is a huge “tell them what they want to hear” factor to get funding. When the politics influence science, and this influences who gets funding and who does not, it sure as hell isn’t “consensus.” Actually, it is a form of fraud.

And lgm: how about a few answers to my questions in post #76? Question 10 is optional, but relevant nonetheless.

C’mon, lgm! And bring your pooper scooper!

So lgm’s quibble is nothing but that: an immaterial criticism , one that refuses to address the FACTS that (1) there is NO “consensus”, and (2) there is a lot of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE refuting the theory of AGW.

And if lgm is being paid by leftists to shill for AGW they should demand their money back, because he…is…a…..clown…who …beclowns himself…every time he writes.

You entered this thread repeating a mindless claim about “consensus”. I and others have pulverized that nonsense, so what do you do? Move onto something else w/o admitting error. Just as you always do.

Emily Litella comes to mind: “Never mind”. Or that twit who flits in and out of scenes saying inane things in the movie “Airplane”.

Dealing with you is just an on-line version of whac-a-mole.

Here is PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE that refutes the alarmism by you, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the IPCC

That link is not peer reviewed. It refers to peer reviewed science, but it itself is not. If it were, there would be a citation somewhere in it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/congress_fiddled_with_warming.html

“Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the IPCC to learn the names of these 2,500 scientists and just what exactly they endorsed. Writes Solomon:

“I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record. There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed – I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.”

The score thus far:

Reality-based scientists: infinity
Bong-hugging airheads : dick

fulldroolcup said:

… one can only wonder if lgm is playing with a full deck.

Wonder?

Good point about how politics and this ‘consensus’ crap is corrupting science. However, it doesn’t end there because environmentalism itself is being threatened by this Al gore scam. It used to be that the word ‘green’ meant something in favor of plants and trees – almost all of whom LOVE having much more CO2 to live on than we have now.

They can’t reconcile that fact or that there isn’t single piece of physical evidence to support their claim so they consistently ignore them .. just as LGM will.

lgm said:

Danceswithdachshunds said:

Then what do you say about people like Frederick Seitz or Richard Lindzen? Are they all a bunch of nuts?

I think those two are nuts. It’s interesting that you stopped there. There is no large group of qualified scientists on the “no global warming” side. You listed them all already.

And brilliant scientists can be nuts. Shockley (co-inventor of the transistor)was “out there“. The guy who invented PCR (a way to replicate DNA) is a big advocate of LSD.

That’s why we don’t take the opinions of individual scientists. We look to the consensus of the scientific community.

What part exactly of – “There are MORE scientists that DISAGREE with the IPCC than agree with them!” is it that you fail to comnprehend?

You are the ones who is nuts. There are 40 members of the National Academy of Science in the list! And then there are
9000 PHD’s ? What about THEM? Here are SCIENTIFIC backgrounds and numbers of some of the signers at The Petition Project (I left off the thousands more of MD’s and general science/engineers for brevity. I’ll be on the list myself soon…)

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)

2. Math (686)

I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)

I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)

2. Aerospace (585)

I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry ( 3,156)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)

Here is PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE that refutes the alarmism by you, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the IPCC

I am convinced that you are a paid shill for some leftist group.

If you go to Amazon you’ll find other books with the same theme, ALL backed with facts.

You can also check out climateaudit.org: it’s a bit technical, but if you have any technical background you can watch Steven McIntyre slice, dice and dissect the green weenies’ tendentious arguments, falsified (or secret) data. For example, nose around on the web and you’ll learn how NASA keeps tweaking its data to make them, shall we say, more compelling to the Green Weenie zealots.

Like Gore, who won’t debate any of these scientists because “the debate is over”, lgm obstinately refuses to take notice of the huge “pushback” among scientists who see the GW issue as politicizing and thus corrupting science.

The debate isn’t over; it’s just getting started.

And again, lgm betrays any knowledge of how science is done by trotting out the “consensus” argument. In science, there’s no….such….thing. Bohr overturned Einstein who overturned Newton who, along with Galileo and others, overturned Aristotle.

The theory of AGW is not scientific, in that it cannot be tested. There is NO experiment that can be done to falsify or confirm it, because no human being is capable of modeling the earth’s climate EXCEPT by dumbing it down via computer models that do not even take into account such key factors as cloud cover and water vapor. I

f lgm knew science, he would know that simply repeating another scientist’s opinion without subjecting it to falsification is NOT consensus, and NOT the way scence works.

Finally, the utter illogic of pointing to Shockley as a “nut” and concluding THEREFORE Lawrence might be, is so loopy that one can only wonder if lgm is playing with a full deck.