Several messages ago FrankS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent
I stand by my previous comments.
That is all.
And now it is you again? I am shocked, can't you keep your word? How disappointing. Should we trust anything you say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
franksargent 
I don't think anyone here in these forums can take one thing you say at face value, sorry....You have been nothing except an 100% ad hominum attack dog from the get go in this thread, and that's a fact!...That is why they cannot be trusted.
Surely in the span of several days you NOT have not forgotten the copious explanations, evidence, and links I provided? You seemed like such an attentive student for a brief moment...oh well - go to the start and read it all again. Then I will be more than happy to accept your apology for a spurious claim of 100% ad hom.
Quote:
All you GW Nihilists really need to put up or shut up, really. That means debate the science in the appropriate peer reviewed scientific literature. And please no bellyaching about subpar scientists. Because if they were really subpar scientsts, then you GW Nihilists should have an easy time beating up the 'tard scientsts in their own peer reviewed scientific literature. Heck all you GW Nihilists seem able to do is post blogs and cry about your view, criticize the scientists/science ad infinitum, and don't add anything substantive to the GW scientific debate. Just criticisms, like this was some kind of MSM movie review!
Poppycock. Have we not been over this before? The global warming hysterics community wishes to prove that something un-natural and man made is occurring and that it is alarming. But the critics have pointed out the weaknesses in those claims - meaning there is no way to know if such warming is natural or unnatural or alarming or not. The key objection is NOT that we know it to be NATURAL warming - such a peer study would also be equally spurious. The key is that NO theory with our current data and methods is robust enough to make any long-term claim about climate change.
If a critic has an alternate climate theory, then he/she can publish it. However, most critics merely note the unwarranted methods of current claims - something that can only be exhaustively studied when those making these claims publish their methods and data - which they refuse to do... curious, eh?
In short: the rejection of one paradigm as a robust model IS NOT dependent on having it replaced by an alternative paradigm. ..an equally valid claim is that we just don't know.
Quote:
And there you have it, the truth about the GW Nihilists is that they want to move the objective scientific debate into the subjective political arena.
Horsepoo, unless you think scientific candor is "poltics"?
There is conclusive answer to all of these GW claims - prove it by giving us
FULL DISCLOSURE of your product. A lack of disclosure is the enemy of science and the hide-y hole of frauds, con men, grifters, hoaxers, scammers, mountebanks, and late night Ron Poppeil rotisserie sales. Wait, maybe I am unfair, investment in the development of a Ron Popeil tomato slicer requires full disclosure by the SEC - perhaps climate science could meet these standards for honesty, what da ya think?...LOL.
Quote:
And no bellyaching about closed groups of scientists, or closed peer reviewed scientific journals, or limited access to data and methods, sorry but the GW Nihilists need to do their own science to back up their claims, no more back seat drivers allowed!
Let me see, so this is your benighted view of science:
'Yep, I don't want to hear of any criticisms of a small group of insular hockey team "scientists", a crippled peer review process, or about their hiding data and methods...even though it s true. Rather I want you to TRUST them, BELIEVE in them, AND NOT REQUEST examination of their data and methods - I then want you to prove their methods are flawed without knowing what they exactly did or what data they used'`
Really FS, that you can shamelessly advocate this as science says more about your values than this particular controversy. It's amusing but also sad.
Quote:
It is quite evident that you lack a basic understanding of the GW science (and perhaps the basis of the scientific method), specifically GCM's,
It its the method that hides data then you are right, that scientific method is unknown to me, as well as most honest scientists
Quote:
BTW, AG wrote an op-ed piece, less than three pages (typed, single spaced), His Royal Hindass wrote a thesis totaling 27 pages (and WOW, look at all of the "science" HRH did, a one node steady-state GCM, go figure)! Was this published anywhere other than the web?
Your lost again? - obviously you did not read Al Gore's article. The the articles and where they were published is self-evident AND pointed out in my prior post on the subject.
Sorry, wrong accusation...throw mud all you want, but at least get it right. I happen to believe that there is some warming caused by human's, just not that it is catastrophic or alarming. You hysterics have to learn the phonetical and dictionary difference between skepticism and nihilism...although once in the church of warming and speaking tonuges I am sure it becomes a bit difficult to come down from the rapture, no?
[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
