It took a while but I read all your links. The only one of any interest is the last. Finally, a peer-reviewed article in a real scientific journal by a GW skeptic! One might wonder why you have never once linked to a scientific article supporting manmade GW but the answer is obvious. You ignore evidence for that position, regardless of how many studies there are, or how prestigious the scientists, and you leap at anything that supports your position, no matter how unsupported or disreputable. Your past posts have proven that. But I give you credit today. This is not a LaRouche magazine or an op-ed by Fred Singer, you have a real study in a real journal. I could cite a hundred links on the other side, but I will let you have your moment.
It is foolish, of course, to suggest that one article disproves global warming (although a lot of bloggers apparently do take that leap)but I concede that this article supports your position.
This one involves a lot of math and statistic and is way over my head. But you're a genius so I'm sure you will be able to point out it's flaws, if any.
Yeah thanks pal thats sweet of you. So by my math, now that Ive posted ONE peer reviewed article that makes the score The Aurora 1, Gary 0 as you have still been unable to provide us with any proof that man made carbon is responsible for the recent warming. Sure youve posted a plethora of articles giving peer reviewed opinions, yet no proof. We deal in science here Gary, try and keep up (and maybe go back and read the archives)
For the record we have posted numerous peer reviewed aricles citing actual science about what is the cause of or not the cause of the warming/cooling cycle. But as your modus jackassandi is to make ad hominem attacks, you focus one the one Larouche article (which for the record was right) or Exxon because thats all your intellect allows you to grasp.
What I find funny is how you constantly cry peer review then post a critique of my post from a non peer reviewed blog. Your argument as always is weak hypocritical and without merit.
Please provide a peer reviewed study that proves the correlation between the CO2 output of man and warming/cooling once and for all or shut the fuck up on this subject. While youre googling, please provide a peer reviewed study on how and why the cap n trade bill will work?
Any other comment than what I asked and Im closing this thread. I wont allow you to continue to attack our position or methodology without offering any proof of your own.
Actually on second thought now that I just found out that realclimate.org was founded by Al Gore's press secretary, Im closing thread anyways. You are a fraud and sheep. Bah-bye.
7 comments:
It took a while but I read all your links. The only one of any interest is the last. Finally, a peer-reviewed article in a real scientific journal by a GW skeptic! One might wonder why you have never once linked to a scientific article supporting manmade GW but the answer is obvious. You ignore evidence for that position, regardless of how many studies there are, or how prestigious the scientists, and you leap at anything that supports your position, no matter how unsupported or disreputable. Your past posts have proven that. But I give you credit today. This is not a LaRouche magazine or an op-ed by Fred Singer, you have a real study in a real journal. I could cite a hundred links on the other side, but I will let you have your moment.
It is foolish, of course, to suggest that one article disproves global warming (although a lot of bloggers apparently do take that leap)but I concede that this article supports your position.
For the record, the study itself:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/mclean_defreitas_carter_jgr_2009.pdf
And a critque:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/friday-round-up-3/
And another critique:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
This one involves a lot of math and statistic and is way over my head. But you're a genius so I'm sure you will be able to point out it's flaws, if any.
Yeah thanks pal thats sweet of you. So by my math, now that Ive posted ONE peer reviewed article that makes the score The Aurora 1, Gary 0 as you have still been unable to provide us with any proof that man made carbon is responsible for the recent warming. Sure youve posted a plethora of articles giving peer reviewed opinions, yet no proof. We deal in science here Gary, try and keep up (and maybe go back and read the archives)
For the record we have posted numerous peer reviewed aricles citing actual science about what is the cause of or not the cause of the warming/cooling cycle. But as your modus jackassandi is to make ad hominem attacks, you focus one the one Larouche article (which for the record was right) or Exxon because thats all your intellect allows you to grasp.
What I find funny is how you constantly cry peer review then post a critique of my post from a non peer reviewed blog. Your argument as always is weak hypocritical and without merit.
Please provide a peer reviewed study that proves the correlation between the CO2 output of man and warming/cooling once and for all or shut the fuck up on this subject. While youre googling, please provide a peer reviewed study on how and why the cap n trade bill will work?
Any other comment than what I asked and Im closing this thread. I wont allow you to continue to attack our position or methodology without offering any proof of your own.
Link proof (not opinion) or stay down.
Actually on second thought now that I just found out that realclimate.org was founded by Al Gore's press secretary, Im closing thread anyways. You are a fraud and sheep. Bah-bye.
Post a Comment