or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Disagree. The data interpretation is made by the climatologists, and precedes the political response. You cannot hold science responsible for political decisions arising from its findings. Scientists are not minions either - now you are just being insulting.
I didn't think that was a straw man. How else is one to take your previous comment about the truth? Peer-reviewed publications are how science communicates its results - hence my request for peer-reviewed studies as evidence. If it's not peer-reviewed then it has not passed the test. If it is generated by those with no qualifications and is not peer-reviewed, then how would you estimate its value? The topic of discussion was climate change, so obviously it cannot be just...
Now you are conflating the science with the political and economic response. If you are saying that you don't disagree with the science but you think that the political response to it is inappropriate then that is a different argument altogether. But you weren't saying that - you were claiming that GW isn't happening. And the consensus of climate scientists is easy to judge - just like in any other scientific field - read the literature which, in this case, is virtually...
I wasn't questioning the data - I was pointing out that it was being completely misused to imply "global" cooling. Same with that link. US climate, not global climate.
That's fine - if you want to give equal weight to non-scientific assertions as to peer-reviewed studies by qualified scientists then you are quite entitled to do that. I'll bet you don't choose your medical practitioners on the same basis though. So let me get this straight - you accuse me of thinking that the earth was created in 1978 for providing data from 1978 to present, when your graphic was just for 2014. What are you saying? You think the earth was created last year?
No - you linked to data that shows slight seasonal cooling in a limited geographical area (the USA) that represents approximately 2% of the earth's total surface area. How is that global cooling?
 Just to clarify whatever you think that shows: 
I've not seen any. I've seen links to blogs and journalists who don't appear to be capable of understanding the science. If you can find even a single peer-reviewed study that supports the counter-argument then please post it. This debate is ludicrously one-sided in terms of evidence.
Incredible. Another link to an idiot blog site as evidence. All the data indicate that globally, the past decade was the hottest, not the coldest, decade on record, and an extension of a consistent 100 year trend. Which part of "globally" are you incapable of understanding? And you don't have any scientists supporting your view. 
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
New Posts  All Forums: