The right-wingers in this thread want to dismiss and distract from the powerful point of the thread - there is little to no quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence against AGW while there is a mountain of evidence for it. It's just another example of how right-wingers can't handle reality.

(11-28-2013 10:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Peer review is largely a process designed to make sure nobody rocks the conventional wisdom boat. I say that as someone who has published numerous peer reviewed articles. It's a game and I know how to play it.

I really love to hear you talk more about how "it's a game" and "how to play it". Please, tell more.

(11-29-2013 03:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The right-wingers in this thread want to dismiss and distract from the powerful point of the thread - there is little to no quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence against AGW while there is a mountain of evidence for it.

Actually, neither of those points were demonstrated in this thread. Once again, science is beyond you. And it's hilarious that you consider yourself educated.

Quote: It's just another example of how right-wingers can't handle reality.

Oh do tell.

(11-29-2013 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The right-wingers in this thread want to dismiss and distract from the powerful point of the thread - there is little to no quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence against AGW while there is a mountain of evidence for it.

Actually, neither of those points were demonstrated in this thread. Once again, science is beyond you. And it's hilarious that you consider yourself educated.

Quote: It's just another example of how right-wingers can't handle reality.

Oh do tell.

(11-29-2013 04:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The right-wingers in this thread want to dismiss and distract from the powerful point of the thread - there is little to no quality peer-reviewed scientific evidence against AGW while there is a mountain of evidence for it.

Actually, neither of those points were demonstrated in this thread. Once again, science is beyond you. And it's hilarious that you consider yourself educated.

Quote: It's just another example of how right-wingers can't handle reality.

Oh do tell.

um2001 will keep posting his idiocy no matter how hard you work to explain it to him.

Lot of email exchanges between these peers who review each other.

(11-29-2013 07:49 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Lot of email exchanges between these peers who review each other.

Because 30,000 climate scientists are in on a big secret.

Don't think 30,000 are but many are. Most just lack integrity.

(11-29-2013 08:10 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Don't think 30,000 are but many are. Most just lack integrity.

I'm sure you came to this conclusion through a thorough investigation. You're pretty much insulting the integrity tens of thousands of scientists from all walks of life based on speculation. It's a pretty bold claim. When it comes down to it, the conspiracy theory about climate change is based almost entirely on speculation. You know what isn't? The link between global warming skeptics and fossil fuel money. All you have to do it a Google search to figure out who's paying for results. Luckily, they haven't been more successful than they have already.

I mean to insult them.

And I get no fossil fuel money.

(11-29-2013 08:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  And I get no fossil fuel money.

I'm talking about the "skeptics" with publicity. They get paid to stir up doubt among people like you. If you don't believe me, look up any well known skeptic personality. Who's funding the think tanks they get money from?

They all get accused of being funded by oil companies. Just background noise. Save your distractions.

(11-29-2013 08:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  They all get accused of being funded by oil companies. Just background noise. Save your distractions.

Looks like someone is in denial. Are you saying that the rather public link between skeptics and right wing interests are fake?

I'll give you a hint, they aren't:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/...xon-links/

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/r14/...rong-video

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...e-20130912

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...ossilfuels

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/leaked-d...id=5240854

This part is my favorite:

Quote:“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

Quote:Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, has no bearing on results of the research.

It seems as if honest skeptics do end up coming to a conclusion once they study the subject for themselves. If you don't know he is, Muller was a very strong critic of Mann and his infamous hockey stick graph. More from Miller:

Quote:"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections."

It's a false charge that all skeptics are funded by oil companies. Would you like me to repeat that a third time?

Look into the funding of the boogie men.

(11-29-2013 09:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It's a false charge that all skeptics are funded by oil companies. Would you like me to repeat that a third time?

I didn't say all skeptics. Do you have a response for anything else?

I said all and you quibbled with that and started posting links.

(11-29-2013 10:34 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I said all and you quibbled with that and started posting links.

Sounds like you just want to nitpick. The links I posted don't even claim that all skeptics are oil funded...

Virtually none are.