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

[HAL 9000 96]

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

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

[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

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

Those studies have the proof in them, you just don't want to look at them. Are you afraid?

[mawilson 2,133]

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?

How can his report be peer-reviewed if its publication was suppressed?

[HAL 9000 96]

No Gary, that is not how it works.

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

What you define as bias is a result of having scientific reading skills. I happen to side with the consensus agreement that there are artificial causes to global warming because I understand that when a scientific result states that a certain something does something, with convincing evidence that isn't confusing, and is scientifically reproducible, then the consensus is something quite independent of preconceived notions of what it is I think I am reading.

[mawilson 2,133]

No Gary, that is not how it works.

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

What you define as bias is a result of having scientific reading skills.

Dude, you're sooo full of it. You're not the only "scientist" and not the only person who has

"scientific reading skills" (whatever that is.)

[HAL 9000 96]

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

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

Those studies have the proof in them, you just don't want to look at them. Are you afraid?

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

All I've ever tried teaching you is that the proof you think backs your claim isn't proof that backs your claim. Easy as that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

HAL is peeing his pants. He has been surrounded by superior intellect and revealed for the fake-scientists that he is!

[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?

How can his report be peer-reviewed if its publication was suppressed?

Good question.

Usually... peer-review involves having convincing scientific evidence. No matter how much the tree is shaken. Even GW causality has diverging evidence and it is available for review in journals.

No Gary, that is not how it works.

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

What you define as bias is a result of having scientific reading skills.

Dude, you're sooo full of it. You're not the only "scientist" and not the only person who has

"scientific reading skills" (whatever that is.)

"Scientist"

HAL is peeing his pants. He has been surrounded by superior intellect and revealed for the fake-scientists that he is!

Absolutely. I am beyond pee now.

[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

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

Those studies have the proof in them, you just don't want to look at them. Are you afraid?

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

All I've ever tried teaching you is that the proof you think backs your claim isn't proof that backs your claim. Easy as that.

So until I am a scientist and develop these magical reading skills then you can't discuss them with me. And you wonder why I don't trust you. Mawilson is right, you are so full of yourself.

[mawilson 2,133]

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, then according to the OP's article, you're not qualified either.

Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist.

Carlin is an economics PhD, but he described himself as "somewhat unique, in that I have a background in both economics and also in physical sciences," citing an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology. "I've always sort of been on the boundary between science and economics," he said.

Obviously, a BSc in Physics from CalTech isn't good enough. He doesn't have those magical reading skills that only real scientists have.

Edited July 1, 2009 by mawilson

[HAL 9000 96]

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

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

Those studies have the proof in them, you just don't want to look at them. Are you afraid?

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

All I've ever tried teaching you is that the proof you think backs your claim isn't proof that backs your claim. Easy as that.

So until I am a scientist and develop these magical reading skills then you can't discuss them with me. And you wonder why I don't trust you. Mawilson is right, you are so full of yourself.

No, but you can learn how to read science material without letting the preconcluding happen before the material. There's not much magic involved other than taking some time to understand what is written.

You don't trust me. Boo hoo.

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, then according to the OP's article, you're not qualified either.

Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist.

Carlin is an economics PhD, but he described himself as "somewhat unique, in that I have a background in both economics and also in physical sciences," citing an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology. "I've always sort of been on the boundary between science and economics," he said.

Obviously, a BSc in Physics from CalTech isn't good enough. He doesn't have those magical reading skills that only real scientists have.

That's right. I'll have the entire humble pie now.

You're into numbers right?

[GaryC 7]

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, then according to the OP's article, you're not qualified either.

Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist.

Carlin is an economics PhD, but he described himself as "somewhat unique, in that I have a background in both economics and also in physical sciences," citing an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology. "I've always sort of been on the boundary between science and economics," he said.

Obviously, a BSc in Physics from CalTech isn't good enough. He doesn't have those magical reading skills that only real scientists have.

That is how they get their consensus Mawilson. They have genetic scientists with their own political bias peer reviewing articles on GW. They don't know any more about climate than you or I do but because they have a degree in something else that makes them qualified to pass judgment.

[HAL 9000 96]

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, then according to the OP's article, you're not qualified either.

Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist.

Carlin is an economics PhD, but he described himself as "somewhat unique, in that I have a background in both economics and also in physical sciences," citing an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology. "I've always sort of been on the boundary between science and economics," he said.

Obviously, a BSc in Physics from CalTech isn't good enough. He doesn't have those magical reading skills that only real scientists have.

That is how they get their consensus Mawilson. They have genetic scientists with their own political bias peer reviewing articles on GW. They don't know any more about climate than you or I do but because they have a degree in something else that makes them qualified to pass judgment.

Or qualified as in reading skills. Which is all 'we' have been saying today.

[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

No Gary, show us the proof and we can discuss it point by point. If you don't want to "waste your time," then don't waste your time.

Those studies have the proof in them, you just don't want to look at them. Are you afraid?

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

All I've ever tried teaching you is that the proof you think backs your claim isn't proof that backs your claim. Easy as that.

So until I am a scientist and develop these magical reading skills then you can't discuss them with me. And you wonder why I don't trust you. Mawilson is right, you are so full of yourself.

No, but you can learn how to read science material without letting the preconcluding happen before the material. There's not much magic involved other than taking some time to understand what is written.

You don't trust me. Boo hoo.

You mean like what you did when I asked you to read an article?

[GaryC 7]

Apparently so, according to you. Show us how you are qualified to make assessments, that make convincing sense, point by point. This is a road we've visited before with you.

Are you a climate scientist? If not, then according to the OP's article, you're not qualified either.

Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist.

Carlin is an economics PhD, but he described himself as "somewhat unique, in that I have a background in both economics and also in physical sciences," citing an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology. "I've always sort of been on the boundary between science and economics," he said.

Obviously, a BSc in Physics from CalTech isn't good enough. He doesn't have those magical reading skills that only real scientists have.

That is how they get their consensus Mawilson. They have genetic scientists with their own political bias peer reviewing articles on GW. They don't know any more about climate than you or I do but because they have a degree in something else that makes them qualified to pass judgment.

Or qualified as in reading skills. Which is all 'we' have been saying today.

Oh, I get it. All you have to possess is those magical reading skills and you are qualified to pass judgment on a field you have no training in.