Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

[GaryC 7]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

I fail to see how you are qualified to make that judgment. Before you jump on me, I'm not either.

[HAL 9000 96]

HAL, why do you suppose this EPA analyst believes it is appropriate for him to make his own non-peer reviewed report on Global Warming and that the EPA should include his report into their comments? He's aware of the scientific process...so why is he trying to circumvent that process?

Because scientists are bullies Steve. SRSLY.

All those scientist parties back in the day... man those were better than the frat parties.

Peer review to some is unfortunately a code word for Evil Cabal of Liberal Scientists bent on Destroying the American Way.

Or other "scientists" skimming studies for 3 minutes and dismissing them if they don't agree with the outcome.

Oh Gary... get over it.

BTW... the last time you brought up those sour grapes it was addressed quite fully for the umpteenth time.

No I won't "get over it". You did nothing to "address quite fully for the umpteenth time". All you did was dismiss anything I offered out of hand because you didn't agree with it. You are a dishonest "scientist" and I have a feeling that there are a lot of others like you out there. Your bias outweighs your scientific honesty.

Well thank goodness you're not on my dissertation committee.

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

A Dr. Evil kind of thing.

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

Yeah Gary... you win.

[GaryC 7]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

I fail to see how you are qualified to make that judgment. Before you jump on me, I'm not either.

You may remember the attempt to have a rational discussion with our resident "scientist" about GW. He invited me to provide links to peer reviewed studies that contradicted various aspects of the man made GW theory. I gave him study after study and without reading them dismissed them. I am no scientist myself but it seems to me that it takes longer than 5 minutes to read a long and complicated study and understand it. He gave me a BS story that due to his "training" he is able to sift out the wrong ones from the valid ones just by skimming it. Total BS.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You are a dishonest "scientist" and I have a feeling that there are a lot of others like you out there. Your bias outweighs your scientific honesty.

Well thank goodness you're not on my dissertation committee.

In the interests of full disclosure, you should print out this post and send it to the committee. They deserve to know the truth, the full truth, about HAL.

[HAL 9000 96]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

I fail to see how you are qualified to make that judgment. Before you jump on me, I'm not either.

Because scientists are not qualified to read, understand, or make adequate scientific conclusions based on technical reading skills, apparently. And somehow, Gary is.

[GaryC 7]

Yeah Gary... you win.

Right, your normal MO. Dismiss whatever you don't like.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He gave me a BS story that due to his "training" he is able to sift out the wrong ones from the valid ones just by skimming it.

How do you know he can't? If I recall, most of his critiques were related to methodology and underlying assumptions and those tend to be quite easy to spot in most studies.

[HAL 9000 96]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

I fail to see how you are qualified to make that judgment. Before you jump on me, I'm not either.

You may remember the attempt to have a rational discussion with our resident "scientist" about GW. He invited me to provide links to peer reviewed studies that contradicted various aspects of the man made GW theory. I gave him study after study and without reading them dismissed them. I am no scientist myself but it seems to me that it takes longer than 5 minutes to read a long and complicated study and understand it. He gave me a BS story that due to his "training" he is able to sift out the wrong ones from the valid ones just by skimming it. Total BS.

I thought it was 3 minutes?

I also stated that I would gladly review those trained skills, thereby training you in the process... and got nothing back from you... so if you care to restate your points I'd be happy (again) to teach you all about science (again) and how your 'proof' doesn't support your 'claim.'

[GaryC 7]

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

I fail to see how you are qualified to make that judgment. Before you jump on me, I'm not either.

You may remember the attempt to have a rational discussion with our resident "scientist" about GW. He invited me to provide links to peer reviewed studies that contradicted various aspects of the man made GW theory. I gave him study after study and without reading them dismissed them. I am no scientist myself but it seems to me that it takes longer than 5 minutes to read a long and complicated study and understand it. He gave me a BS story that due to his "training" he is able to sift out the wrong ones from the valid ones just by skimming it. Total BS.

I thought it was 3 minutes?

I also stated that I would gladly review those trained skills, thereby training you in the process... and got nothing back from you... so if you care to restate your points I'd be happy (again) to teach you all about science (again) and how your 'proof' doesn't support your 'claim.'

If this is how the peer review process works then it is now wonder we have the consensus. If you like it then it passes, if you don't it gets dismissed. Some scientist you are.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I say we all get together and stone HAL for being a bad scientist.

[GaryC 7]

Here is a new list of "peer reviewed" studies that contradict the theory. The links are not there and I am not going to waste my time finding them again because you will just dismiss them out of hand again. What is the point? But it does show the rest of those here that there is plenty of real scientists that disagree and have provided evidence. As far as HAL is concerned I have zero respect for your scientific opinion.

http://www.heartland.org/publications/envi...g_Alarmism.html

[HAL 9000 96]

You are a dishonest "scientist" and I have a feeling that there are a lot of others like you out there. Your bias outweighs your scientific honesty.

Well thank goodness you're not on my dissertation committee.

In the interests of full disclosure, you should print out this post and send it to the committee. They deserve to know the truth, the full truth, about HAL.

Of course. Because their scientific integrity and skills are by default, at risk with me.

You are a dishonest "scientist" ...

Any reason you insist on putting the word scientist in quotes?

Because any real scientist would look at opposing views with an open mind. His is closed to anything that doesn't agree with his bias. He may have the degree but that doesn't make him a scientist.

I fail to see how you are qualified to make that judgment. Before you jump on me, I'm not either.

You may remember the attempt to have a rational discussion with our resident "scientist" about GW. He invited me to provide links to peer reviewed studies that contradicted various aspects of the man made GW theory. I gave him study after study and without reading them dismissed them. I am no scientist myself but it seems to me that it takes longer than 5 minutes to read a long and complicated study and understand it. He gave me a BS story that due to his "training" he is able to sift out the wrong ones from the valid ones just by skimming it. Total BS.

I thought it was 3 minutes?

I also stated that I would gladly review those trained skills, thereby training you in the process... and got nothing back from you... so if you care to restate your points I'd be happy (again) to teach you all about science (again) and how your 'proof' doesn't support your 'claim.'

If this is how the peer review process works then it is now wonder we have the consensus. If you like it then it passes, if you don't it gets dismissed. Some scientist you are.

No Gary, that is not how it works.

[GaryC 7]

No Gary, that is not how it works.

Then why did you do it? Afraid that your bias is wrong?