I am mystified why AGW proponents use the following answers as valid.
1. It was paid for by big oil, there for it is not acceptable. Sorry, but that answer goes to ANY study. they are all paid for by someone with an agenda. The data is the only thing that matters.
2. The <fill in the blank> web site is known "deniers" so can not be trusted. Again, it all has to do with the data, not the source. If not for many of these websites, then people would still be saying the hockey stick was a valid study.
3. I know the study was flawed, fraudulent, wrong, misguided, etc, but we know it is happening even if the study does not show it. WTF? If the study is any of the above, then we throw out the study and call the theory wrong. Some examples are the hockey stick, the fact that this is not the warmest climate in history, etc.
2009-12-11T06:33:03Z
Say no to Stop Signs, 1. Huh? You have no point here or argument so I will go to the next point.
2. I am very knowledgable on the subject. The only difference is, when I see a syudy which reeks, I have the mental fortitude to call it a stinker and move on.
3. Your ignorance really shows through. You must have done NO actual reading on this subject.
This site sums up the debate. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html And PLEASE, do not say this is a blog page. I know that, but it has a nice summary. If you disagree with what is said, then prove other wise.
How about the Wegman report which states the study is only valid for the past 400 years? So his trrying to eliminate the Medeaval warm period never happened.
Anonymous2009-12-11T06:13:29Z
Favorite Answer
First of all as the majority of the money coming into their religious movement is supplied by Exxon/Mobil and Standard/Chevron/Texaco through the Rockefeller family who organized and promoted the entire AGW con game it is only natural for them to believe it is some of their competitors that are funding the opposition. You need to recognize liberals are semi incompetent mentally or they would not be liberals as this infirmity is caused normally from the inability to visualize problems with a large number of complicated variables. This is why I continuously point the truth out as simply as I can by saying that it is the sun, but they still can not get it for some silly reason. Maybe that explanation is still to complicated for their simple minds.
Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Edwina should check the mirror next time before calling someone a dodo.
1. It was paid for by big oil, (Alarmist translation: paid for by evil corporation bent on polluting the world. It is a childlike Austin Powers outlook of the world)
2. Mann has resurected his schtick and alarmists are bowing dutifully before it. You cannot destroy a religious symbol
3. You can't destroy a religious symbol, in this case a "L" and you will only confuse alarmists with the facts. It is difficult to argue with someone that won't think logically.
1. Both sides claim that those doing studies have agendas.
2. There are some websites that have a history of leaving out important details in the data, performing questionable data analysis, and coming to the completely wrong conclusions from the data. Generally when people say a denier website cannot be trusted, it is not the raw data that is not trusted, it is the conclusions.
3. If a study is found to be flawed it does not show that the theory is wrong. A flawed study is neither evidence for or against a theory.
Yeah. i discover my solutions thumbed down almost as though they are waiting interior the trees to pounce on them. I had to take the prospect of this thread and thumbs down many of the alarmists which i do no longer many times do. Revenge is a dish superb served chilly.
1 Yep, and the studies promoted by Philip Morris that claimed there was no definitive link between smoking and lung cancer are all valid too, right?
2 I wouldn't study biology using the New Testament. No point trying to "learn" climate science on a blog like WUWT. The bottom line is, get your science from scientists, not random people on the internet.
"it all has to do with the data, not the source"
Many people who don't understand climate science basics, such as yourself, can't comprehend said data. I'll readily admit I can't comprehend applied quantum physics. How in the world can I audit contradictory theories? There isn't any way. Because I don't understand theoretical physics, I have to rely on experts. You don't understand climate science (judging by your previous posts), so you should get your science from scientists.
3 Any examples? No one believes the hockey stick graph is flawed. Though I suppose you believe you know more about climate science than climate scientists and the NAS.