Conservatives and climate change

[Furcifer]

Actually, I'm on to Furcifer.

I've known him just long enough to know he's more interested in spreading chaos than anything.

Most of the time he's easy to ignore.

When he actually comes up with a sincere thought, I might pay more attention.

Baloney. I cite actual climate science from real science journals and the alarmists go running for RealcrapClimate.com for and form of denial they can find. It's amusing.

Most recently I cited a peer reviewed published scientific article on the merits of geoengineering vs. carbon credits scam and there hasn't been a single response. It's very telling.

 

[Furcifer]

What journals are you subscribed to? Must be an expensive hobby

The EGU, the DOE portal and Google scholar. More free climate science than one person could read in a lifetime.

Or I could book mark a pseudoscience site like RealCrapClimate.com

 

[L.Y.S.]

The last 8 messages between bit_pattern and Furcifer have exchanged 's.

 

[DC]

The EGU, the DOE portal and Google scholar. More free climate science than one person could read in a lifetime.

Or I could book mark a pseudoscience site like RealCrapClimate.com

how do you subscribe to google schoolar? most papers you find there needs you to subscribe to the journal it was published in.

this EGU?

http://www.egu.eu/statements/positi...spheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html

 

[DC]

Because pseudoscience is "crap" or "junk" or "hokum". It's appropriate.



And as I said many times, it really wouldn't be pseudoscience if it was coming from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It's a Cargo Cult.


Nonsense. All I read is peer reviewed literature.

If you want to use these pseudoscience sites as a "jumping off point", by all means go right ahead. I think in the process you will actually digest some real climate science.

can you backup your claims of pseudoscience?

 

[lomiller]

Because pseudoscience is "crap" or "junk" or "hokum". It's appropriate.

Again you demonstrate why you are a denier. You are a denier because you think it's "appropriate" to label peer reviewed scientists citing current, high profile peer reviewed papers "crap" "hokum" and "psudoscience"

 

[lomiller]

The peer review process isn't "denial".

The post you wrote this in response to showed a favorite of yours rejecting peer reviewed results because that he had previously promised to accept after he found out they didn't say why he wanted.

You answer is therefor Non sequitur at best, but if anything once again demonstrates your rejection of the process of peer reviewed science.

 

[lomiller]

I cite actual climate science from real science journals

The one time I've seen you try to cite a science journal it turned out the paper expressly rejected the claim you were trying to support.

 

[mhaze]

More boring rhetoric. I've "denied" nothing, you're lying because that's what alarmism dictates. .....

Look if you keep up this denial, including the denial of the denial, the Faithful know, billions will die. This is very serious matter.

But Faithful are so boring. Their small minded chatter could bore billions to death.

Hmm....

 

[BenBurch]

Look if you keep up this denial, including the denial of the denial, the Faithful know, billions will die. This is very serious matter.

But Faithful are so boring. Their small minded chatter could bore billions to death.

Hmm....

*yawn*

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know.

What are you denying?

Irrational faith based alarmism.


eta: and a Broncos win

 

[Furcifer]

how do you subscribe to google schoolar? most papers you find there needs you to subscribe to the journal it was published in.

this EGU?

http://www.egu.eu/statements/positi...spheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html

You don't subscribe to Google scholar, it's a search engine.

 

[DC]

You don't subscribe to Google scholar, it's a search engine.

i know that, that is why i was kinda confused as you listed it under the journals you are subscribed to.

 

[bit_pattern]

Baloney. I cite actual climate science from real science journals and the alarmists go running for RealcrapClimate.com for and form of denial they can find. It's amusing.

Most recently I cited a peer reviewed published scientific article on the merits of geoengineering vs. carbon credits scam and there hasn't been a single response. It's very telling.

So what does any of this have to do with Anthony Twatts beiong a denier?

Don't tell me you're just trying to bluster your way out of admitting that you've been proved wrong?

 

[Furcifer]

can you backup your claims of pseudoscience?

What specifically are you looking for? I mean really, what is it going to take to shatter your faith here?

 

[bit_pattern]

What specifically are you looking for? I mean really, what is it going to take to shatter your faith here?

Evidence? An alternative hypothesis? Those things would be a good start.

 

[lomiller]

What specifically are you looking for? I mean really, what is it going to take to shatter your faith here?

Evidence for your claim would be a start...

 

[DC]

What specifically are you looking for? I mean really, what is it going to take to shatter your faith here?

i have no faith in that regard, i do not really read those blogs at all.
but something that would support your claim of pseudoscience would be a good start i think.

 

[citizenzen]

eta: and a Broncos win

Niners won! Woo-hoo!

And I have Brady on my fantasy team. Su-weet.

Oops. Off topic.

 

[Furcifer]

i know that, that is why i was kinda confused as you listed it under the journals you are subscribed to.

Is this an excuse for sucking on the RealCrapClimate.com teat? I've never had problems accessing information since I got the internet in 1992. (or porn)