Ian Shlasko, can you provide proof that GW sceptics have lied?
-
I think you have gone form making friends to definitely not making friends: I agree with much of what you say (though not the way you say it) as do, I'm sure many others. However and, as you are well aware, there are just as many who don't and you won't convert them by, essentially, shouting at them and calling them names. Perhaps you'd be better taking a slightly softer approach cos this one ain't working!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
In a previous thread you made the following claim. GW is the NEW theory on the block. It is trying to replace hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions. I asked you to back up that claim. You responded "Herschel, 1812". I looked this up and found two references to publications by a Herschel in 1812 (both on mathematics). I then asked for more precise reference. You responded with a link to an article about how Herschel tried to find a correlation between sunspot activity and the price of wheat. You have not responded to my follow up asking how this supports your claim. Conclusion: you lied about "hundreds of years of understanding and temperature reconstructions".
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
You have not responded to my follow up asking how this supports your claim
What, you dont think that Herschel studying a correlation between sunspot activity and agricultural growing conditions constitutes climate study? OK, fair enough. You win.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You really do have a one-track mind, don't you? Would you like me to go search YouTube to find some anti-GW guys saying stupid things? That seems to be the debate strategy on this issue. Find some "researcher" who really hates the AGW theory, and catch him in a moment of stupidity? I'm blocked from it at work, but I think you can agree that something like that wouldn't be too hard to find. Or we could go through and find instances where the so-called "skeptics" look at a huge set of data, pick two numbers that support their point of view, and claim that it's PROOF that they're right. "Hey, my country was colder than average this year! It must be an ice age!" That's just as stupid as saying "It's really hot this year! It must be global warming!" Both sides are guilty of this one. Or what about the lie YOU keep on spouting... That global warming can't be happening unless every single point on the globe is getting warmer (I don't see how the concept of an AVERAGE is so difficult to grasp). "Everything's fine! Antarctica is getting colder... No, don't look at the rest of the world... Just look over there!" Seriously, if you're going to call me out, you should bring more ammo.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
anti-GW guys
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"Hey, my country was colder than average this year! It must be an ice age!"
Thats what Schnieder said by the way... However, I am pretty sure Lindzen or Christy or Palmer or any of the other thousands of sceptical scientists havent said that. Unless of course you can find a quote to back up your allegation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That global warming can't be happening unless every single point on the globe is getting warmer
Have you heard about the medieval warm period, and the traditional defence used by AGW alarmists that it doesnt make current warming unimportant because 'the MWP was a northern hemisphere only event'? Please do look it up. Well, guess what current warming looks like? (Here's a tip, the southern hemisphere isnt warming in any kind of stastically significant fashion). So come on, if thats the best you got, and quite frankly I have countered it without even drawing breath, then you lost.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:02 AM
-
digital man wrote:
Perhaps you'd be better taking a slightly softer approach cos this one ain't working!
Actually, I really dont give a damn! :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Yes you do or you wouldn't keep posting.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Yes you do or you wouldn't keep posting.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I mean I dont give a damn how popular I am. Oh, and by the way I like arguing. ;)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I mean I dont give a damn how popular I am
I say you do.
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way I like arguing.
No you don't.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
fat_boy wrote:
I mean I dont give a damn how popular I am
I say you do.
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way I like arguing.
No you don't.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
No I didn't.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
anti-GW guys
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"Hey, my country was colder than average this year! It must be an ice age!"
Thats what Schnieder said by the way... However, I am pretty sure Lindzen or Christy or Palmer or any of the other thousands of sceptical scientists havent said that. Unless of course you can find a quote to back up your allegation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That global warming can't be happening unless every single point on the globe is getting warmer
Have you heard about the medieval warm period, and the traditional defence used by AGW alarmists that it doesnt make current warming unimportant because 'the MWP was a northern hemisphere only event'? Please do look it up. Well, guess what current warming looks like? (Here's a tip, the southern hemisphere isnt warming in any kind of stastically significant fashion). So come on, if thats the best you got, and quite frankly I have countered it without even drawing breath, then you lost.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:02 AM
fat_boy wrote:
Thats what Schnieder said by the way... However, I am pretty sure Lindzen or Christy or Palmer or any of the other thousands of sceptical scientists have said that. Unless of course you can find a quote to back up your allegation.
So you're allowed to just pick and choose which "skeptic" scientists are required to tell the truth? Way to tilt the playing field. Now I don't have a huge amount of time to mess around on CP today, so I'll just throw a few google results at you (Haven't read these in detail - Just skimmed them briefly), and you can play with them to your heart's content. http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/02/why_the_denial_camp_is_winning_1.php[^] http://www.desmogblog.com/lies-concocted-climate-deniers-likely-stick-around-despite-corrections[^] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies[^] Amazing what you can come up with by just plugging "climate skeptic quotes lies" into google. I love the Internet. You could find just as much garbage for the other side by plugging in a similar search.
fat_boy wrote:
Have you heard about the medieval warm period, and the traditional defence used by AGW alarmists that it doesnt make current warming unimportant because 'the MWP was a northern hemisphere only event'? Please do look it up. Well, guess what current warming looks like? (Here's a tip, the southern hemisphere isnt warming in any kind of stastically significant fashion).
I never claimed that ONLY the skeptics were lying. I said that BOTH sides were lying. Proving that one side has spouted crap does not prove that the other side ISN'T.
fat_boy wrote:
So come on
-
You really do have a one-track mind, don't you? Would you like me to go search YouTube to find some anti-GW guys saying stupid things? That seems to be the debate strategy on this issue. Find some "researcher" who really hates the AGW theory, and catch him in a moment of stupidity? I'm blocked from it at work, but I think you can agree that something like that wouldn't be too hard to find. Or we could go through and find instances where the so-called "skeptics" look at a huge set of data, pick two numbers that support their point of view, and claim that it's PROOF that they're right. "Hey, my country was colder than average this year! It must be an ice age!" That's just as stupid as saying "It's really hot this year! It must be global warming!" Both sides are guilty of this one. Or what about the lie YOU keep on spouting... That global warming can't be happening unless every single point on the globe is getting warmer (I don't see how the concept of an AVERAGE is so difficult to grasp). "Everything's fine! Antarctica is getting colder... No, don't look at the rest of the world... Just look over there!" Seriously, if you're going to call me out, you should bring more ammo.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would you like me to go search YouTube
Youtube doesn't count moron. Youtube is not a source of facts!
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would you like me to go search YouTube
Youtube doesn't count moron. Youtube is not a source of facts!
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I'm going to quote you on that, next time you post a video link.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Do you really think countries or humanity for that matter will change enough in time if it does really exist? I'm not necessarily convinced. We can't even live in peace together let alone agree on a scientific theory. The US alone has more people convinced that the theory of evolution isn't true. Why... religion and superstition. A scientific approach to all things real in life, for even people who are in scientific based careers don't necessarily apply it to their beliefs. Look at CSS for example, he admits to altering his state of mind with drugs, fails to apply the logic of programming computers to his conspiracy theories he find on places like infowars. I've seen more people want instant results than are willing to put in the necessary work to make their dreams a reality. We as the human race could have heaven on earth, but why do that when all you have to do is die to get it and that will eventually come anyway so no effort is needed. On some level people, at least in the west, know that to be bull and thus don't. The middle east isn't there yet. They still deep down believe in magic.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Do you really think countries or humanity for that matter will change enough in time if it does really exist?
You mean humanity surrender their free will to a small group of people who will tell them what to do and decide what they can think, say, eat, have, how they can live, where they will live, where they will work, how they will work, how much they will work, how many children they can have. Your scientific dictatorship would be hell on earth ruled by murderous psychopathic sadistic control-freaks.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
Thats what Schnieder said by the way... However, I am pretty sure Lindzen or Christy or Palmer or any of the other thousands of sceptical scientists have said that. Unless of course you can find a quote to back up your allegation.
So you're allowed to just pick and choose which "skeptic" scientists are required to tell the truth? Way to tilt the playing field. Now I don't have a huge amount of time to mess around on CP today, so I'll just throw a few google results at you (Haven't read these in detail - Just skimmed them briefly), and you can play with them to your heart's content. http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/02/why_the_denial_camp_is_winning_1.php[^] http://www.desmogblog.com/lies-concocted-climate-deniers-likely-stick-around-despite-corrections[^] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies[^] Amazing what you can come up with by just plugging "climate skeptic quotes lies" into google. I love the Internet. You could find just as much garbage for the other side by plugging in a similar search.
fat_boy wrote:
Have you heard about the medieval warm period, and the traditional defence used by AGW alarmists that it doesnt make current warming unimportant because 'the MWP was a northern hemisphere only event'? Please do look it up. Well, guess what current warming looks like? (Here's a tip, the southern hemisphere isnt warming in any kind of stastically significant fashion).
I never claimed that ONLY the skeptics were lying. I said that BOTH sides were lying. Proving that one side has spouted crap does not prove that the other side ISN'T.
fat_boy wrote:
So come on
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Amazing what you can come up with by just plugging "climate skeptic quotes lies" into google. I love the Internet. You could find just as much garbage for the other side by plugging in a similar search.
And not one of them quotes a sceptical scientist and in so doing exposes a lie with the exceptiong of this: "Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, also cited the 1994 edition of Sir John's book as the source of the quote, which he used last Sunday in an article denouncing the alarmism of climate scientists. Dr Peiser admitted to The Independent that he had not read the book recently and had only used the quote "from memory" because it is so widely cited in other books on climate scepticism." Which is an example of a sceptical scientists quoting something supposedly said by Houghton, which Houghton denies ever saying. This is hearsay. Somone reported overhearing Houghtonn sayig that years ago. He states he never did. So what have you got for factual lies? You know, lies about the state of the planet, temperature, endangered species and so on? Polar bears being in decline, huricanes being more frequent, that kind of thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I never claimed that ONLY the skeptics were lying. I said that BOTH sides were lying. Proving that one side has spouted crap does not prove that the other side ISN'T.
Clearly understood and utterly unrelated to my response to your criticism of me for saying that partial warming is not global warming. (Which as I clearly demonstrated is someting stated by GW alarmists regarding the MWP). So, do you acknowledge that if you criticise me for stating that, then you must also criticise GW alrmists for doing the same? If not how do you explain your double standards?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You "proved" that the AGW side has lied
No I havent. At least not in this thread. I have mereley asked you for proof of lies by sceptical scientists to back up your statement. (And yes, I am aware of your almost totally innefective google search so dont repost it.)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Do you really think countries or humanity for that matter will change enough in time if it does really exist?
You mean humanity surrender their free will to a small group of people who will tell them what to do and decide what they can think, say, eat, have, how they can live, where they will live, where they will work, how they will work, how much they will work, how many children they can have. Your scientific dictatorship would be hell on earth ruled by murderous psychopathic sadistic control-freaks.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
did we change subjects here? thought we were on about climate control?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
did we change subjects here? thought we were on about climate control?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Simon_Whale wrote:
thought we were on about climate control?
We are, "climate control" means controlling all human behavior. Its MAN MADE global warming remember? MAN MADE, that means when governments crackdown with their flowery named CLEAN ENGERY and CLIMATE BILLS they will be cracking-down on the free will individual and the individual's reproductive organs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
riced wrote:
You have not responded to my follow up asking how this supports your claim
What, you dont think that Herschel studying a correlation between sunspot activity and agricultural growing conditions constitutes climate study? OK, fair enough. You win.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What, you dont think that Herschel studying a correlation between sunspot activity and agricultural growing conditions constitutes climate study?
In a 1801 paper, Herschel discusses an inverse correlation between the price of wheat and the number of sunspots visible on the Sun. Herschel speculated that when the sun was highly spotted, it “may lead us to expect copious emission of heat and therefore mild seasons,” while few spots suggested “spare emission of heat” accompanied by “severe seasons”. Herschel, W. (1801). “Observations Tending to Investigate the Nature of the Sun, in Order to Find the Causes and Symptoms of its Variable Emission of Light and Heat ...” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Vol. 91, pp. 261-331. So Herschel observed a correlation between sunspot activity which suggests that periods of high sunspot activity are good for the wheat crop in England. You wish to claim that this is a climate study? Further you have cited one paper to support your claim that such studies have been going on for "hundreds of years". Admittedly an 1801 paper takes it back just over two hundred years. However you fail to recognise that in that period other papers were published which support the notion of global warming. E.G. (adapted from Wikipedia) In 1824, Joseph Fourier found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect. In a 1827 paper Fourier stated, "The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature." Another Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, integrated Avrid Högbom's and Samuel Pierpoint Langley's work. He realized that Högbom's calculation of human influence on carbon would eventually lead to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where moon rays pass through atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more CO2, to estimate an atmospheric warming effect from a future doubling of CO2. He also realized the effect would also reduce snow and ice cover on e
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Amazing what you can come up with by just plugging "climate skeptic quotes lies" into google. I love the Internet. You could find just as much garbage for the other side by plugging in a similar search.
And not one of them quotes a sceptical scientist and in so doing exposes a lie with the exceptiong of this: "Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, also cited the 1994 edition of Sir John's book as the source of the quote, which he used last Sunday in an article denouncing the alarmism of climate scientists. Dr Peiser admitted to The Independent that he had not read the book recently and had only used the quote "from memory" because it is so widely cited in other books on climate scepticism." Which is an example of a sceptical scientists quoting something supposedly said by Houghton, which Houghton denies ever saying. This is hearsay. Somone reported overhearing Houghtonn sayig that years ago. He states he never did. So what have you got for factual lies? You know, lies about the state of the planet, temperature, endangered species and so on? Polar bears being in decline, huricanes being more frequent, that kind of thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I never claimed that ONLY the skeptics were lying. I said that BOTH sides were lying. Proving that one side has spouted crap does not prove that the other side ISN'T.
Clearly understood and utterly unrelated to my response to your criticism of me for saying that partial warming is not global warming. (Which as I clearly demonstrated is someting stated by GW alarmists regarding the MWP). So, do you acknowledge that if you criticise me for stating that, then you must also criticise GW alrmists for doing the same? If not how do you explain your double standards?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You "proved" that the AGW side has lied
No I havent. At least not in this thread. I have mereley asked you for proof of lies by sceptical scientists to back up your statement. (And yes, I am aware of your almost totally innefective google search so dont repost it.)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
This is hearsay. Somone reported overhearing Houghtonn sayig that years ago. He states he never did. So what have you got for factual lies? You know, lies about the state of the planet, temperature, endangered species and so on? Polar bears being in decline, huricanes being more frequent, that kind of thing.
Show me where I specifically stated what KIND of lies they said. The anti-AGW crowd's strategy has been to pick apart every bit of research done by the AGW side, find every typo and glitch, and use those as proof of not only complete incompetence, but malicious intent and fear-mongering. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through raw data with you YET AGAIN, because you'll just start spouting the same crap tomorrow. If you want links, why don't you just check the last hundred pages of this forum for all of the people who have debunked most of your claims.
fat_boy wrote:
So, do you acknowledge that if you criticise me for stating that, then you must also criticise GW alrmists for doing the same? If not how do you explain your double standards?
What double standards? I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again that BOTH sides are full of crap. You keep trying to change my argument to one you can debate. My point of view has ALWAYS been, with the exception of a recent joke post, that we need more research and better numbers.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
I mean I dont give a damn how popular I am
I say you do.
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way I like arguing.
No you don't.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
fat_boy wrote:
What, you dont think that Herschel studying a correlation between sunspot activity and agricultural growing conditions constitutes climate study?
In a 1801 paper, Herschel discusses an inverse correlation between the price of wheat and the number of sunspots visible on the Sun. Herschel speculated that when the sun was highly spotted, it “may lead us to expect copious emission of heat and therefore mild seasons,” while few spots suggested “spare emission of heat” accompanied by “severe seasons”. Herschel, W. (1801). “Observations Tending to Investigate the Nature of the Sun, in Order to Find the Causes and Symptoms of its Variable Emission of Light and Heat ...” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Vol. 91, pp. 261-331. So Herschel observed a correlation between sunspot activity which suggests that periods of high sunspot activity are good for the wheat crop in England. You wish to claim that this is a climate study? Further you have cited one paper to support your claim that such studies have been going on for "hundreds of years". Admittedly an 1801 paper takes it back just over two hundred years. However you fail to recognise that in that period other papers were published which support the notion of global warming. E.G. (adapted from Wikipedia) In 1824, Joseph Fourier found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect. In a 1827 paper Fourier stated, "The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature." Another Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, integrated Avrid Högbom's and Samuel Pierpoint Langley's work. He realized that Högbom's calculation of human influence on carbon would eventually lead to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where moon rays pass through atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more CO2, to estimate an atmospheric warming effect from a future doubling of CO2. He also realized the effect would also reduce snow and ice cover on e
riced wrote:
You wish to claim that this is a climate study?
You think weather affecting crop growing conditions ISNT climate study?
riced wrote:
In 1824, Joseph Fourier found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect.
Where did I suggest that the knowledge that gasses store heat is a recent developement?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is hearsay. Somone reported overhearing Houghtonn sayig that years ago. He states he never did. So what have you got for factual lies? You know, lies about the state of the planet, temperature, endangered species and so on? Polar bears being in decline, huricanes being more frequent, that kind of thing.
Show me where I specifically stated what KIND of lies they said. The anti-AGW crowd's strategy has been to pick apart every bit of research done by the AGW side, find every typo and glitch, and use those as proof of not only complete incompetence, but malicious intent and fear-mongering. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through raw data with you YET AGAIN, because you'll just start spouting the same crap tomorrow. If you want links, why don't you just check the last hundred pages of this forum for all of the people who have debunked most of your claims.
fat_boy wrote:
So, do you acknowledge that if you criticise me for stating that, then you must also criticise GW alrmists for doing the same? If not how do you explain your double standards?
What double standards? I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again that BOTH sides are full of crap. You keep trying to change my argument to one you can debate. My point of view has ALWAYS been, with the exception of a recent joke post, that we need more research and better numbers.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Show me where I specifically stated what KIND of lies they said.
OK, good point. But even if you allow yourself hersay you stil have only one lie.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The anti-AGW crowd's strategy has been to pick apart every bit of research done by the AGW side, find every typo and glitch, and use those as proof of not only complete incompetence, but malicious intent and fear-mongering.
Well, in fact sceptical scientists such as Christy and LIndzen merely state the facts which are: 1) Troposphere warming is not as great as it should be according to AGW theory. 2) The south pole should be warming alot according to AGW theory. 3) Man made CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature. Let me quote two other sceptical scientists here: "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics This last is particularly relevant in respect of the three points I made above.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
why don't you just check the last hundred pages of this forum for all of the people who have debunked most of your claims
None has been debunked.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What double standards? I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again that BOTH sides are full of crap. You keep trying to change my argument to one you can debate. My point of view has ALWAYS been, with the exception of a recent joke post, that we need more research and better numbers.
You stated that my statement that partial warming does not constitute global warming was stupid. I drew your attention to the fact that the same thing is said about the MWP by alarmists. I asked you to either criticise them the same way or explain your double standards. So, are you going to answer this, its all there you