Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis

[GaryC 7]

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Natural cycle with the additional contribution of artificial sources. As the papers so state, not me. Get over it. And claiming correct or wrong based on your limited interpretation is not exactly what I would call kosher scientific judgment. I think I've already stated that models as well as other scientific aspects of research are revised as new, more encompassing evidence is collected.

My conclusion is that you still can't grasp some of the more simple aspects of the entire phenomenon of climate vs weather cycles/etc. Otherwise you wouldn't be continually confusing yourself over what you believe and what is actually written.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

Only if you happen to agree with it. Anything else is psuedoscience to you.

Please define pseudoscience as it pertains to your definition of science.

I don't think you understand that all that much...

It doesn't sound like you do either.

[Heracles 417]

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

What about bandwagon science?

[HAL 9000 96]

Hmm...

I didn't bring this up. Many publications have falsified data. As in the case of Dr. Woo Suk Hwang, a stem cell researcher, who is the famous korea scientist making claims that is impossible to replicate in experiments.

There are a number of scientists who produce false information to get grants, fame, etc...We just have to be careful when reading journals. Some are legit, and some are not. We just need to be careful when reading from papers submitted by popular researchers. It's a very competitive world out there.

Very good points. Fortunately, that's where the peer-review process can be quite beneficial.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Natural cycle with the additional contribution of artificial sources. As the papers so state, not me. Get over it. And claiming correct or wrong based on your limited interpretation is not exactly what I would call kosher scientific judgment. I think I've already stated that models as well as other scientific aspects of research are revised as new, more encompassing evidence is collected.

My conclusion is that you still can't grasp some of the more simple aspects of the entire phenomenon of climate vs weather cycles/etc. Otherwise you wouldn't be continually confusing yourself over what you believe and what is actually written.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

Only if you happen to agree with it. Anything else is psuedoscience to you.

Please define pseudoscience as it pertains to your definition of science.

I don't think you understand that all that much...

It doesn't sound like you do either.

OK...

[Heracles 417]

Ah I see - that old chestnut.

Must have taken you a while to come up with that multi-point characterisation of me. Answers my question about bitterness with a resounding yes.

If you did not live up to it I would never bring it up. You guys call me tangent and I am fine being called that when I do it.

PS You wouldn't happen to be some sort of writer now. I remember hearing you say a while back that you were working on a book.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

What about bandwagon science?

Bandwagon or no - its still science.

Pseudo-science isn't science. It just pretends to be.

[GaryC 7]

Hmm...

I didn't bring this up. Many publications have falsified data. As in the case of Dr. Woo Suk Hwang, a stem cell researcher, who is the famous korea scientist making claims that is impossible to replicate in experiments.

There are a number of scientists who produce false information to get grants, fame, etc...We just have to be careful when reading journals. Some are legit, and some are not. We just need to be careful when reading from papers submitted by popular researchers. It's a very competitive world out there.

Very good points. Fortunately, that's where the peer-review process can be quite beneficial.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Natural cycle with the additional contribution of artificial sources. As the papers so state, not me. Get over it. And claiming correct or wrong based on your limited interpretation is not exactly what I would call kosher scientific judgment. I think I've already stated that models as well as other scientific aspects of research are revised as new, more encompassing evidence is collected.

My conclusion is that you still can't grasp some of the more simple aspects of the entire phenomenon of climate vs weather cycles/etc. Otherwise you wouldn't be continually confusing yourself over what you believe and what is actually written.

10 years of ocean heat sinking? Is that what you want to bring now?

We've discussed it before... is that causative or is that an effect? Again, I remind you that the evidence you brought forward to support your argument actually gave plenty of causative power to the very existence of GW. And as for the 10 year effect you so put your stock into... again... its the difference between weather and climate. And yet still you have next to no understanding of the matter... Get with the program brother.

What you have given us here in multitudes is nothing but op eds and others' opinions. Just trying to help you improve the posting skills.

No, 10 years of natural global cooling after the last 20 years of natural global warming. The 10 years I speak of was put forth by your side and a hedge because they saw their models were all wrong. It was just an attempt to gain time while natural forces cooled things off. I don't know what the world will do, neither do you. But your the one that thinks he has all the answers. All the evidence says otherwise. So far every model on GW has been wrong.

Wow... fad science meaning publication of real evidence in real peer-reviewed journals.

Only if you happen to agree with it. Anything else is psuedoscience to you.

Please define pseudoscience as it pertains to your definition of science.

I don't think you understand that all that much...

It doesn't sound like you do either.

OK...

Yeah, OK.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah I see - that old chestnut.

Must have taken you a while to come up with that multi-point characterisation of me. Answers my question about bitterness with a resounding yes.

If you did not live up to it I would never bring it up. You guys call me tangent and I am fine being called that when I do it.

PS You wouldn't happen to be some sort of writer now. I remember hearing you say a while back that you were working on a book.

Some sort of writer would be a hobby.

I have a f/t job.

[Heracles 417]

Some sort of writer would be a hobby.

I have a f/t job.

I was mistaken. I thought you where some left wing dole bludging #######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some sort of writer would be a hobby.

I have a f/t job.

I was mistaken. I thought you where some left wing dole bludging #######.

Clearly.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yes 6, that is a simple, yet elegant definition for pseudoscience.

[Sister Fracas 5]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

Yes Marilyn, it's true. We are still messing up the planet. I think that is what really gripes me the most. We are spending so much time on this hoax of GW that we could be spending on real problems. But GW is the latest "fad" science and it will take a lot to turn people away from it and to the real problems the planet faces.

Then get out there and do something about it...make changes, join a grassroots organization, volunteer to clean up the mess, cut back, reduce consumption, WHATEVER, but geez, all your moaning about it isn't going to change the opinoins of others, just like your opinion won't be changed. You say Mav is completely closed minded, but I think that's a little kettle/pot to me. Writing post after post after post about it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference except gathering your like-minded buddies to come around and have another reason for all of you to have a go at the "other side". In other words....give it a rest. If Mav, or anyone else wants to believe it exists, so be it. Shouldn't you just be happy enough that you have the "right" opinion in your own mind? A hell of a lot of energy gets wasted with the back-and-forth. Both sides are not ever going to concede.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Sister Fracas

[Marilyn. 340]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

Yes Marilyn, it's true. We are still messing up the planet. I think that is what really gripes me the most. We are spending so much time on this hoax of GW that we could be spending on real problems. But GW is the latest "fad" science and it will take a lot to turn people away from it and to the real problems the planet faces.

Then get out there and do something about it...make changes, join a grassroots organization, volunteer to clean up the mess, cut back, reduce consumption, WHATEVER, but geez, all your moaning about it isn't going to change the opinoins of others, just like your opinion won't be changed. You say Mav is completely closed minded, but I think that's a little kettle/pot to me. Writing post after post after post about it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference except gathering your like-minded buddies to come around and have another reason for all of you to have a go at the "other side". In other words....give it a rest. If Mav, or anyone else wants to believe it exists, so be it. Shouldn't you just be happy enough that you have the "right" opinion in your own mind? A hell of a lot of energy gets wasted with the back-and-forth. Both sides are not ever going to concede.

:thumbs:

[HAL 9000 96]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

Yes Marilyn, it's true. We are still messing up the planet. I think that is what really gripes me the most. We are spending so much time on this hoax of GW that we could be spending on real problems. But GW is the latest "fad" science and it will take a lot to turn people away from it and to the real problems the planet faces.

Then get out there and do something about it...make changes, join a grassroots organization, volunteer to clean up the mess, cut back, reduce consumption, WHATEVER, but geez, all your moaning about it isn't going to change the opinoins of others, just like your opinion won't be changed. You say Mav is completely closed minded, but I think that's a little kettle/pot to me. Writing post after post after post about it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference except gathering your like-minded buddies to come around and have another reason for all of you to have a go at the "other side". In other words....give it a rest. If Mav, or anyone else wants to believe it exists, so be it. Shouldn't you just be happy enough that you have the "right" opinion in your own mind? A hell of a lot of energy gets wasted with the back-and-forth. Both sides are not ever going to concede.

Might be right. Its just that one of the sides actually understands what its talking about, for the most part- that is. Some parts of it do understand the science behind the research, but tend to utilize it towards the goal of diluting it in with a political agenda while the side that represents reason and evidence just has the unfortunate end of asserting its claim after actual evidence is observed, as has been the case in the absolute majority of scientists to this date, and none too wacky to state their points with statistical relevance.

[HAL 9000 96]

the name calling isn't limited to one side though...

who cares if GW is true or not.. we are still messing up the planet by what we are spewing into the air and the trees that are getting knocked down and the landfills that are getting filled with #######...

Yes Marilyn, it's true. We are still messing up the planet. I think that is what really gripes me the most. We are spending so much time on this hoax of GW that we could be spending on real problems. But GW is the latest "fad" science and it will take a lot to turn people away from it and to the real problems the planet faces.

Then get out there and do something about it...make changes, join a grassroots organization, volunteer to clean up the mess, cut back, reduce consumption, WHATEVER, but geez, all your moaning about it isn't going to change the opinoins of others, just like your opinion won't be changed. You say Mav is completely closed minded, but I think that's a little kettle/pot to me. Writing post after post after post about it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference except gathering your like-minded buddies to come around and have another reason for all of you to have a go at the "other side". In other words....give it a rest. If Mav, or anyone else wants to believe it exists, so be it. Shouldn't you just be happy enough that you have the "right" opinion in your own mind? A hell of a lot of energy gets wasted with the back-and-forth. Both sides are not ever going to concede.

Might be right. Its just that one of the sides actually understands what its talking about, for the most part- that is. Some parts of it do understand the science behind the research, but tend to utilize it towards the goal of diluting it in with a political agenda while the side that represents reason and evidence just has the unfortunate end of asserting its claim after actual evidence is observed, as has been the case in the absolute majority of scientists to this date, and none too wacky to state their points with statistical relevance.

And I was referring to both sides in the same explanation.

It tends to run along the lines of those that understand science and stick to the evidence and those that use fake science to explain their preconceived notions of what the evidence should be. Hence some groups' inability to publish with convincing evidence other than a ripoff of an actual journal's format with data that is statistically manipulated and irrelevant to the actual argument being claimed. Sometimes I find it difficult to expect others to catch on to these shenanigans, but one would also expect that the more exposure to pseudoscience an individual has, the more likely it is they'll catch it. Or not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd say its more apparent in things like Intelligent Design where the political dimension is obvious and it isn't based on any independent work as much as a critique on the work of actual researchers.

When you're dealing with contrary interpretations of statistical data - the waters get a bit murky.