Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Well done, wiki, you've answered a question. It wasn't the one that was asked, but you've answered one anyway... Don't you people have a computer model telling you how many are likely to support it over the next 20 years as well Are you scared to quote a figure? Do you think that some of us on here could refute an actual figure? Come on humour me. I said 5 billion. Are you going to tell me it is 3 billion or something? If so on what basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Phil Jones has been exonerated. By a whitewash investigation, Climategate Inquiry Chairman Failed to Check the Science (Canada Free Press, July 3, 2010) Climategate Whitewash Complete: Third Inquiry Clears Everyone Involved (Prison Planet, July 7, 2010) Global Warming ‘ClimateGate’ Investigation Yields Whitewash Report (CEI, July 7, 2010) Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults (Canada Free Press, July 8, 2010) Russell Report Whitewashes Climategate Scandal (The New American, July 8, 2010) Climategate probe proves nothing (WorldNetDaily, July 9, 2010) Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP (The Register, UK, July 9, 2010) Climategate whitewash: Third time's no charm (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 12, 2010) The Climategate Whitewash Continues (The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010) Climategate and the Big Green Lie (The Atlantic, July 14, 2010) ClimateGate 'Whitewash' Helps 'Clear' Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim (Business & Media Institute, July 14, 2010) Muir Russell Climategate Findings: Superficial, Uncompelling (Master Resource, July 26, 2010) Also I don't think the criticism at all credible if you read what the article says they are not just typing names in to google scholar. Yes they are. Yes because anyone can get precipitation and temperature mixed up, global and local can't they? and cause half the editorial team at the journal that published it to resign in disgust at the manipulation of the peer review process to get an attack on Michael Mann published. They didn't get it mixed up, they used similar proxies that Mann did. The climategate emails explain why they left, IPCC authors threatening never to publish in their journal. I am well aware of Wikipedia's limitations. I chose the source because it was easy and referenced the articles I was hoping it would reference. Skim reading it I can't see any obvious flaws in what it says. Wikipedia is a worthless source that must be 100% verified via checking every source every time you read it. It is certainly a lot more credible than anything that Soon is involved with after that debacle. Interesting how Dr. Soon is still employed at Harvard and they published a reappraisal, Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 It is clear as day: Are you seriously confused? Where is a quote from him, in his own words? Do you know what a quote is? He has never stated that his paper was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I said 5 billion. Are you going to tell me it is 3 billion or something? If so on what basis? So you're saying that there is a consensus of 5 billion scientists who support AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I said 5 billion. So you are admitting there is 1.6 Billion skeptical scientists? I think people would feel safe with that many backing them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 By a whitewash investigation, Climategate Inquiry Chairman Failed to Check the Science (Canada Free Press, July 3, 2010) Climategate Whitewash Complete: Third Inquiry Clears Everyone Involved (Prison Planet, July 7, 2010) Global Warming ‘ClimateGate’ Investigation Yields Whitewash Report (CEI, July 7, 2010) Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults (Canada Free Press, July 8, 2010) Russell Report Whitewashes Climategate Scandal (The New American, July 8, 2010) Climategate probe proves nothing (WorldNetDaily, July 9, 2010) Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP (The Register, UK, July 9, 2010) Climategate whitewash: Third time's no charm (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 12, 2010) The Climategate Whitewash Continues (The Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010) Climategate and the Big Green Lie (The Atlantic, July 14, 2010) ClimateGate 'Whitewash' Helps 'Clear' Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim (Business & Media Institute, July 14, 2010) Muir Russell Climategate Findings: Superficial, Uncompelling (Master Resource, July 26, 2010) Yes they are. They didn't get it mixed up, they used similar proxies that Mann did. The climategate emails explain why they left, IPCC authors threatening never to publish in their journal. Wikipedia is a worthless source that must be 100% verified via checking every source every time you read it. Interesting how Dr. Soon is still employed at Harvard and they published a reappraisal, Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates Prison planet! .... you are criticising wikipedia and citing Alex Jones's website... It will all be Bilderberg then, or perhaps it will be a CIA plot? Ps yes I do know about the reappraisal they did.... in fact there is a link to it on the wikipedia page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 So you are admitting there is 1.6 Billion skeptical scientists? I think people would feel safe with that many backing them up. Ahh, I see you can do subtraction now... well done. That is what would be concluded from 77%. I am not sure why you should find that reassuring though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Are you seriously confused? Where is a quote from him, in his own words? Do you know what a quote is? He has never stated that his paper was wrong. Why do you need a quote? are you denying the Independent article is accurate? You would prefer it if Alex Jones cited it I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Prison planet! .... you are criticising wikipedia and citing Alex Jones's website... At least prison planet has editorial control and there is no chance the article will change the next time you look at it. It is an excellent read BTW, the so called “independent” investigation was led by Sir Muir Russell – a vehement supporter of the notion of anthropogenic global warming. While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with The Royal Society of Edinburgh. The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards. This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050. For the climategate inquiry, Russell constructed a panel of “experts” that share exactly the same views, clearly contradicting the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”. [...] McIntyre notes: “Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy,” “This is absurd.” McIntyre added, “The trick was not a “neat” way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies – a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Ahh, I see you can do subtraction now... well done. That is what would be concluded from 77%. I am not sure why you should find that reassuring though. Just to get this on record, do you support the notion of 1.6 Billion skeptical scientists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.