My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Flying Binghi]

Is Wikipedia really a credible reference ? ... i guess it is for school kids -

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information...

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? | NewsBusters.org

[Flying Binghi]

I'm still wondering where the proof is to support the hysterical AGW claims

...every time there is a proof presented (the latest was the Antartic warming claims) we discover what appears to be (to me) corrupt metholds used to obtain the 'proof'

I only have to go here http://www.climateaudit.org/ to see just how easy it is to rebutt the AGW nonsence

[litespeed]

TO ALL.

Whatever you believe is responsible for Warming and Cooling over tens of thousands of milenia, I believe the following statement summarizes it all: Warm is good, Cold is bad.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. ~Paul Erdos

waste of coffee if'n ya ask me

[litespeed]

Warm v Cold,

The same people who seem hyperventilated by GW, apparently are the same people who, even still, warn us of catastrophic nuclear winter. Further, the Jurassic Period (?) seems to have endedd with mass extinction due to global cooling. In addition, just recently it is reported the Human Species was reduced to a few thousand individuals in Africa some time ago, by the mechanizim of a ROUTINE Ice Age.

Fianally, right here, in this forum, I see arguements the Little Ice Age is an independent variable from sunspots etc.Yet I do not hear these voices telling us the Little Ice Age, with famine, plague, and mass deathe was a good thing. Versus, for instance, The Early Warming Of The Roman Era when the British Isles exported wine.

Warm is Good. Cold is Bad.....

To this very day I have yet to see "UK Wine" listed in ANY of the large wine stores, such as Sams of Chicago. I believe the GW crowd are tea-totalers, and have missed the Cold Wine Boat To China.

[litespeed]

Final Callege to The GW Crowd.

Please list the eras of mass extinction attributed to Global Warming.

[Eclipse Now]

1. What does Co2 do REPEATEDLY, DEMONSTRABLY, and with the possibility of FALSIFICATION under a spectrometer? Please do tell how it interacts with various spectra of light and energy.

2. How much Co2 was there before the Industrial Revolution, and how do we know?

3. How much is there now?

4. What does this equate to in extra retained energy.

Thanks so much in advance for your objective answers with the backing of verifiable, peer reviewed papers

( — not material written by quacks — yes, the types who really do paint themselves in glue and wrestle enormous bales of duck feathers).

[Flying Binghi]

the backing of verifiable, peer reviewed papers

...and make sure they been properly audited too.

Amazing how when things get a proper audit, peer review is shown to be next to useless as a guide to scientific validity.

Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

Peer review gets a bad rap these days, and there is much talk that something should be done about it
Quality and value: How can we research peer review?


But peer review, especially its anonymous variant, might not improve the rigor of the review process and thus not adequately facilitate objectivity (van Rooyen et al. 1999). http://decodingliberation.blogspot.com/2008/02/problems-with-peer-review-part-one.html


...Journal editors may sometimes be tempted to violate this policy, in order to clear the manuscript table, but this will not influence the status of a reviewer. In essence, editors must punish wrongdoers, full stop.

As humans, we are highly sensitive to rewards and punishments, perhaps not as exquisitely as rats in the proverbial Skinner box, but close enough. Clearly, the review process is broken. It is time to consider a fix. We have proposed a solution based on the logic of economic incentives and the evolutionary origins of human nature.
PLoS Biology - An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem


Blah, Blah, Blah....... and on it goes.

[Eclipse Now]

Whatever you do, don't answer the 4 MAIN questions in this debate. (Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more! Please...)

Oh, and I'm REALLY going to go chasing all your diversionary tales about the horrors of the peer review process. They must be true because you "learned them on that there internet thang".

You know, when you quote that many things against, and only against, the peer review process, it makes you look like you don't value the entire scientific process and method. I'm not saying "peer review" IS the scientific method, but that the scientific debate amongst the review of a scientists' peers is a great place for laymen to start. Your bias against the overwhelming majority of climate science says more about your own prejudices than it does about the science.

So go ahead, throw around more glue and feathers... don't answer questions (how troll-like) and after the process, rinse and repeat. I know who's starting to look like a goose.

The 4 questions please. Then and only then do we have a chance at a remotely rational conversation. Oh, but I forgot... we already did that and you failed to demonstrate the slightest interest in being rational.

I note that was 50 pages of your drivel ago. 50 pages! No wonder I get nauseated when I come back to this thread now and then. I'm amazed that you haven't been moderated off this list.

[Flying Binghi]

Whatever you do, don't answer the 4 MAIN questions in this debate. (Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more! Please...)

Oh, and I'm REALLY going to go chasing all your diversionary tales about the horrors of the peer review process. They must be true because you "learned them on that there internet thang".

You know, when you quote that many things against, and only against, the peer review process, it makes you look like you don't value the entire scientific process and method. I'm not saying "peer review" IS the scientific method, but that the scientific debate amongst the review of a scientists' peers is a great place for laymen to start. Your bias against the overwhelming majority of climate science says more about your own prejudices than it does about the science.

So go ahead, throw around more glue and feathers... don't answer questions (how troll-like) and after the process, rinse and repeat. I know who's starting to look like a goose.

The 4 questions please. Then and only then do we have a chance at a remotely rational conversation. Oh, but I forgot... we already did that and you failed to demonstrate the slightest interest in being rational.

I note that was 50 pages of your drivel ago. 50 pages! No wonder I get nauseated when I come back to this thread now and then. I'm amazed that you haven't been moderated off this list.

Heres me thinking my post was entirely in keeping with this -

Thanks so much in advance for your objective answers with the backing of verifiable, peer reviewed papers

( — not material written by quacks — yes, the types who really do paint themselves in glue and wrestle enormous bales of duck feathers).

But what do i know........... probably why, after i presented references, (google it, theres a million or so more) i went, Blah, blah, blah..........