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.

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?

Show us points. What is it specifically about the proof you have that convinces you. That is where conclusions are derived from, so lets at it. Otherwise, as you say... you're wasting your own time.

[mawilson 2,133]

You're into numbers right?

Yes

[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.

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.

No, you have to possess reading skills to be able to make conclusions that make sense and are in line with the claims you make. That's what scientists *do*...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

[HAL 9000 96]

You're into numbers right?

Yes

Sweet man.

Its like people that try to use linear regression on data that isn't linear. They forget some parts of how things are done, sometimes conveniently.

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

Or that scientists from all kinds of fields can theoretically observe the implications thereof. Chemists and biologists notwithstanding.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

[HAL 9000 96]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaang

[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?

Show us points. What is it specifically about the proof you have that convinces you. That is where conclusions are derived from, so lets at it. Otherwise, as you say... you're wasting your own time.

Your the scientist. As you so aptly pointed out I am not. I can only read the conclusions from others that reference those articles that do understand them. I asked you to read them also and give your opinion. All I got was your opinion without your reading them.

[mawilson 2,133]

You're into numbers right?

Yes

Sweet man.

Its like people that try to use linear regression on data that isn't linear. They forget some parts of how things are done, sometimes conveniently.

Well exactly. If your model assumes that the relationship between the regressand and the regressors

is linear and it isn't, the results wouldn't be worth much, would they?

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

[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.

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

Show us points. What is it specifically about the proof you have that convinces you. That is where conclusions are derived from, so lets at it. Otherwise, as you say... you're wasting your own time.

Your the scientist. As you so aptly pointed out I am not. I can only read the conclusions from others that reference those articles that do understand them. I asked you to read them also and give your opinion. All I got was your opinion without your reading them.

Which is why I'd just really like it if you'd get to the points about the proof you have. I've covered specifics in the past about the physical chemistry of CO2, how it behaves in solution (atmosphere) at the molecular level. If you want to go on others' conclusions, citing particular reports that have a difficult time convincing actual scientists in their fields, how can you assume that you, as a layman, are getting the entire picture from those sources?

I don't know where it is I was supposed to not have read something and made a conclusion based on not having done so... but if you were to again, list specific details I'd be more than happy to go over those points. After all, that is why we're here isn't it?

Otherwise, we can go around in circles as always, ignoring the science behind these things. Well... at least I know I don't do so. And no, you don't need a degree to catch on.

[GaryC 7]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

[HAL 9000 96]

You're into numbers right?

Yes

Sweet man.

Its like people that try to use linear regression on data that isn't linear. They forget some parts of how things are done, sometimes conveniently.

Well exactly. If your model assumes that the relationship between the regressand and the regressors

is linear and it isn't, the results wouldn't be worth much, would they?

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Love that analogy.

Similarly, I suppose we could say that one should avoid using a hack saw to do a scalpel's job.

[Heracles 417]

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

That is a good line and quite true regarding many issues.

[HAL 9000 96]

I thought we had all come to an agreement that:

Global Warming is a scientific theory, and thereby meaning it is accepted (consensus) among the scientific community.

STFU.

Notice how it goes unchallenged.

Because it was already challenged and shot down. Science isn't done by consensus. Theories are only models that fit the data. You do know that the earth centered universe was once a theory? You do know that a scientific law about gravity by a fellow named Newton has been disproved by another guy named Einstein? Just because a bunch of scientists agree with something doesn't make it right.

Actually, geocentrism was a dogma, and not one expoused by the scientific consensus, unless you want to count the Church's interpretation of scientific reason as one subservient to non-scientific doctrine.

If you are privy to information those of us in science are not about how science works please share.