it's not happening, we need another 5-year study

[j_b]

the fact that individuals have perspectives on life that may color their science to some degree is undeniable. But all funded, published science is ultimately reviewed. So no, modern climate science is not biased to suit the purpose of environmentalists.

 

however individuals that are associated with conservative think tanks and the oil industry, have clearly gone beyond what the scientific establishements think to be an objective sciencific point of view. Now if you have peer reviewed papers that put serious doubts on the main conclusion of the IPCC process, let us know. The rest is only politicking and obfuscation.

[j_b]

Since physical science is objective in the final analysis, or as close to it as we'll ever get, while politics is innately subjective, pointing out they are the not the same may not suit *your* purposes, but since mine is pointing out they are different I'll accept it.

 

great, we are glad to know you'd take us to war based on your subjective opinion of what Iraq may do. That comforting for everyone I am sure.

[j_b]

It seems folks have taken to demanding evidence of me on complex issues, then griping when evidence is presented

 

why don't you give us the peer reviewed references?

[Dru]

jb and mtn goat take it to PMs????????????????????????????

[glen]

Here's a bunch of up to date abstracts from a recent conference in san francisco (last week).

 

Search for "Global Warming" to find appropriate abstracts

 

Knock yourself out.

[iain]

kindof seems like a recursive email loop...ya know, when two "I'm on vacation" auto-replies start chatting with each other.

[allthumbs]

jb and mtn goat drop dead

[MtnGoat]

"So no, modern climate science is not biased to suit the purpose of environmentalists."

 

I wouldn't claim it all is, as evidenced by the existence of opposing camps, such as we see here *and* in the mainstream. What I am claiming here is the IPCC admistrative conclusion does not match it's science conclusion, and in fact distorts both certainty and error while presenting this conclusion to the public as a done deal.

 

And it is this conclusion that is siezed upon by enviro "mouthpieces" and "fronts"(as you like to say) who are associated with environmental "think tanks", and advocates to push their specific biases as well.

 

"Now if you have peer reviewed papers that put serious doubts on the main conclusion of the IPCC process, let us know. "

 

The science conclusion or the policy conclusion? And I need to ask, what do you consider acceptable "peer review"? Only peer review whose outcome jives with your view of what is acceptable? I want specifics so I can search.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

I am done with this unless MtnGoat comes up with peer reviewed references that contradicts the IPCC findings in its main conclusions.

 

In the mean time, based on posting history, I am not sure what is your basis for wanting this discussion to stop.

[MtnGoat]

"great, we are glad to know you'd take us to war based on your subjective opinion of what Iraq may do. That comforting for everyone I am sure."

 

Since you'd keep us out of war based on your subjective opinion as well, we're in the same boat now aren't we? I for one have no problem admitting my subjective view of politics is precisely that.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

tell me your standard for peer review, and which section of the IPCC conclusion you are discussing, and I shall do so.

[allthumbs]

I'll tell you why. At least my posts make sense. The common redneck can relate. I don't go on, and on, and on, and on with some boring fucking diatribe that no human in their right mind (other than a geek) could possibly give a flying fuck about. You and goat take good subject matter and fucking annihilate it with your nonsensical, boring data...that's why. Go take a shit and come back when you've lightened your load.

 

Other than that, I think you're both swell. Merry Christmas

[MtnGoat]

if anyone expects to make sense of the basics surrounding what some are using as jusitification to compel forcing us to drastically alter our lives *and* pay for what they intend to do...they'd be well served to wade through some of the boring shit, here or on their own, free of the annoyances of either myself or j_b!

[johnny_destiny]

Thank you Dru. I h ad to log off and came back to see what the heck was happening. I thought I was on a private chat for those two "guys".

[johnny_destiny]

jesus christ goat give it a fucking rest for god sake

[j_b]

Trask, boring you is the least of my concern ... anyway I don't sport the kind of appendages that apparently could keep your interest up more than a few minutes.

 

and Glen:

 

Here's a bunch of up to date abstracts from a recent conference in san francisco (last week).

 

Search for "Global Warming" to find appropriate abstracts

 

Knock yourself out.

 

1) goat has to do the work since he claims there is established science that contradicts the ipcc findings

 

2) abstracts are not peer-reviewed

[MtnGoat]

are you going to provide me with what you consider peer review of acceptable quality? I do not wish to work finding data only to have you do additional dodging that it's not the peers you like, or the source is a "front", or whatever.

 

And I ask again, for the third time, which IPCC conclusion are you speaking of? The science section or the policy section?

[Fairweather]

Actually,

 

I have enjoyed reading the J B v. Goat debate. I've read every word!....good reads. Keep it on the surface.

Edited December 19, 2002 by Fairweather

[AlpineK]

I liked one of your last posts on the subject Fairweather. Keeping a critical eye towards scientific studies is a good thing.

 

Anyway I'm totally down with what Trask says. Arguing is fine, bullshit can be funny, but freaks like Mtn Goat and J B (to a lesser extent) make arguing fucking boring.

 

I mean the issue may be complex, but if you can't keep your replies short and to the point then nobody will read your posts, but everyone will think you're a tool.

 

Mtn Goat I challenge you to make some fun posts on some fun threads. Try this for 1 month and then try and make some better posts on political threads. I mean it's just the fucking internet.

[MtnGoat]

ya notice how he won't answer and provide the tools I need for an effective response using what he claims he will accept as evidence?

 

everybody wants specifics and then doesn't want them, or denies them by ad hominim instead of data. Funny people!

[AlpineK]

What we want is for you to STFU. Bitch

[j_b]

stop crying, I am not glued to my machine.

 

I have said it several times before but if you find references in the peer-reviewed litterature refuting that 1) there has been a 30% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution and 2) increased CO2 and other human emitted greenhouse gas concentration is causing accelerated global warming, then we can start having a debate. There are many peer-reviewed journals; I don't have a list so you'll have to be judicious in your choice or peruse said journal for publishing requirements.

 

I have not dodged anything, and your effort so far in providing legitimacy to your point of view (besides writing profusedly) has been a cut and paste job from a conservative think tank website .... so give me break.

[allthumbs]

OMFG!!! Greg, pleasssssse bust a cap in my ass. I can't take this shit anymore.

[MtnGoat]

"stop crying, I am not glued to my machine."

 

Doesn't explain why you posted some responses, but didn't answer my request the first two times I asked, does it now?

 

"I have said it several times before but if you find references in the peer-reviewed litterature refuting that"

 

I know you keep repeating that, what I am asking you for is what *you* consider "acceptable" peer reviewed material. Is peer review material from one of those horrible think tanks acceptable, or does your version of peer review presuppose agreement with your point of view?

 

"1) there has been a 30% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution"

 

There may well be, I have never contended this is a point I disagree with, nor have I presented evidence anyone disputes this.

 

"2) increased CO2 and other human emitted greenhouse gas concentration is causing accelerated global warming, then we can start having a debate."

 

Ok good enough.

 

"I have not dodged anything,"

 

You have dodged the discrepancy between the science conclusion and the policy conclusion. You have not commented on the exclusion of and misrepresentation of error in the policy conclusions. You especially dodge my repeated, direct question on what you consider acceptable peer review, no not specific periodicals, but what standards of expertise you expect on the peers.

 

"has been a cut and paste job from a conservative think tank website .... so give me break"

 

You don't deserve one. Constantly falling back on ad hominim arguments, instead of dealing with points raised, doesn't earn any breaks. Repeat "conservative think tank", or "front", or "mouthpiece" a few more times, it may make a difference to some, but it doesn't cut it with me. You admit all sources have bias, then attack one side for bias repeatedly as if this answers the questions. It doesn't.

Edited December 19, 2002 by MtnGoat

[AlpineK]

What kind of a life do you have Goat? Your up at 2AM making political posts.

 

I don't have a problem with you arguing against global warming. I do have a problem with you being a boring fucking tool