Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:11:30 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:59:35 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Just one. If you do that, and if I haven't read it yet, I'll go ask the
author for a copy and do so. Either way, I will prepare myself from it
and then we can discuss it and see where you are coming from.

Here's two:
http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Nope. I asked:
"Provide me with just one peer-reviewed paper on some technical and
quantitative facet relating to climate science that you have actually
read thoroughly yourself, with good understanding, and which well
supports some conclusion you've made here on the topic that disagrees
with the IPCC AR4. Just one."

You replied with something at a web site that is about "seeking
innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems." That
is not a citation of a peer-reviewed paper, Rich. It's a "primer"
prepared for a 'public policy' purpose.

Caution: 184 MB video:
http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

I already watched the whole thing, long before. One of the scientists
who was interviewed on the program insisted that he was lied to by the
producers before appearing, that his responses, as edited, were
grossly misleading and didn't present his perspective, and demanded to
have his presence removed. In later showings, they did that much.
Another scientist in England, prepared an analysis of the program for
his undergraduate science class, which essentially pointed out that at
least one of the graphs presented in the show had to have been
doctored up -- and he was able to show how and with which data, they
most likely did it.

Again. And I repeat myself, sadly. Provide me with just one
peer-reviewed paper on some technical and quantitative facet relating
to climate science that you have actually read thoroughly yourself,
with good understanding, and which well supports some conclusion
you've made here on the topic that disagrees with the IPCC AR4. Just
one.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... quantitative facet relating to climate science that you have actually ... is not a citation of a peer-reviewed paper, ... prepared for a 'public policy' purpose. ... One of the scientists ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Ooooopppssss!!!! Its about that "record re-freezing of Arctic ice"
    ... Broad consensus of scientists that agree with your politically biased ... Global Climate Science Communications ... Media "understands" uncertainties in climate ... Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... None of the wikipedia pages mentions they have worked for tobacco companies. ... So it is legitimate to doubt AGW on scientific grounds? ... They claim to be scientists but are little more than paid liars spreading disinformation to confuse the public. ... Well, I have never read any research from them, as far as I know, and indeed my objections are purely based on the apparent complete lack of climate science to produce a theory which matches experimental data, which is a fundamental requirement of a science. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: OT- Another split in the Global Warming debate
    ... The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the ... scientists were wrong and sorry about the mess the planet is in. ... degree average warming and a 5 degree average warming are ... Whilst I agree about that climate science is being co-opted for the ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • hansen suggests ipcc far too cautious
    ... "But a study led by James Hansen, the head of the climate science ... Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia ... melting ice could sink cities in the United States to Bangladesh. ... "I believe there is pressure on scientists to be conservative. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)