02 Jan 19
@kazetnagorra saidSkeptics get far less funding than alarmists. Less funding means less articles. Do you dispute that?
Can you find publications in the peer-reviewed literature supporting your claims or not?
Of course it has to be (relatively) recent - science progresses, and we know more about climate science now than we did 30 years ago.
I have posted recent articles by climate scientists like this one.
http://www.cfact.org/2018/11/10/canadians-un-climate-change-report-based-on-faulty-premises/
If you cannot use facts to prove your case you resort to the "find a peer reviewed article in a science journal" argument. This is simply an effort by you to avoid confronting the fact there are a bunch of lies in the Forth UN climate change report.
The article I posted exposes those lies. If you have to use "look at this, not that" tactics you have failed miserably. You are avoiding the inevitable admission your side lies to the point of discrediting your side.
It doesn't take a peer reviewed article to show obvious lies. It takes the demand for peer reviewed articles to digress away from pathetic lies. That is what you are doing.
You are terrified of confronting the facts. The reason is simple. You know fully well they are lies and you condone them. You think the lies serve a good cause.
@metal-brain saidYou were claiming you could back up your claims using articles from the peer-reviewed literature. You have not done so. Can you do it?
Skeptics get far less funding than alarmists. Less funding means less articles. Do you dispute that?
I have posted recent articles by climate scientists like this one.
http://www.cfact.org/2018/11/10/canadians-un-climate-change-report-based-on-faulty-premises/
If you cannot use facts to prove your case you resort to the "find a peer reviewed article in a science ...[text shortened]... mple. You know fully well they are lies and you condone them. You think the lies serve a good cause.
02 Jan 19
@kazetnagorra saidHere is an excerpt from the link below:
You were claiming you could back up your claims using articles from the peer-reviewed literature. You have not done so. Can you do it?
"One way they block off inquiry is to ensure that papers by dissenting climate scientists are not included in the peer-review literature—a problem that Lindzen and Bengtsson have encountered. Indeed, that is what happened to Salby. He submitted a paper on his initial findings to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Finding no errors—one reviewer called it “absolutely amazing”—the journal required minor revision. Before Salby could return the revised paper for publication, the editor of a different journal, Remote Sensing, resigned for publishing a paper that departed from the IPCC view, penning an abject confession: “From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate skeptic notions of the authors.” Shortly afterward, Salby received a letter rejecting his revised paper on the basis of a second reviewer’s claim—contradicted by the first reviewer—that his paper offered nothing new and that all of it had already been covered in the IPCC’s reports."
https://www.city-journal.org/html/unsettling-climate-13669.html
Your side suppresses such peer reviewed articles using underhanded tactics. Why does your side lie so much and then condones such lies? Answer my question. Stop avoiding it like a coward.
I probably could find a peer reviewed article supporting my position if I spent a lot of time looking. Are you going to pay me for my efforts since your side is making them hard to publish?
You are still condoning lies. Have you read the peer reviews of alarmist's articles or do you ignore the peer review process when an article supports your conclusion?
@metal-brain saidClearly you cannot come up with peer-reviewed articles that support your claims. Why did you claim otherwise?
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"One way they block off inquiry is to ensure that papers by dissenting climate scientists are not included in the peer-review literature—a problem that Lindzen and Bengtsson have encountered. Indeed, that is what happened to Salby. He submitted a paper on his initial findings to the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Finding no ...[text shortened]... armist's articles or do you ignore the peer review process when an article supports your conclusion?
@kazetnagorra said-to piss us off
Clearly you cannot come up with peer-reviewed articles that support your claims. Why did you claim otherwise?
@kazetnagorra saidOne very good possibility: He has none so can't post any.
Clearly you cannot come up with peer-reviewed articles that support your claims. Why did you claim otherwise?
02 Jan 19
@kazetnagorra saidSure I can and you know it. First you asked for a peer reviewed article, then you changed it to recent and now you changed it back again.
Clearly you cannot come up with peer-reviewed articles that support your claims. Why did you claim otherwise?
Which one is it?
02 Jan 19
@sonhouse saidI already have. Fred Singer has lots of them and I have posted some for you in the past.
One very good possibility: He has none so can't post any.
Thanks for confirming the debate is not over. That proves Meet the Press omitted debates and climate scientists from the so called panel of experts to suppress the truth.
02 Jan 19
@kazetnagorra saidYou are still using the "look at this not that" tactic.
Clearly you cannot come up with peer-reviewed articles that support your claims. Why did you claim otherwise?
Here is an excerpt from the article below:
"The alleged negative impacts on human
security due to climate change depend on tenuous
chains of causality that find little support in the peer-
reviewed literature."
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/10-05-18-DRAFT-CCRII-Fossil-Fuels-Summary-for-Policy-Makers.pdf
I can find plenty of peer reviewed articles to support my position on GW. If you are going to use "move the goalpost" tactics and demand it be recent I would have to ask you to do the same. You have not even made an effort to define what "recent" is. You clearly want to keep moving the goal post.
Your underhanded tactics show you have failed and are desperate to avoid an honest discussion about the lies told in the most recent IPCC report.
I think the 57% of the general public believing man is the main cause of GW is lower than it used to. This would explain the increasingly desperate tactics used by the news media and alarmists in general. The true science is winning. That is why the propaganda is becoming increasingly rhetorical. The word "crisis" alone is an indication of that.
Words are important to propaganda. The word "crisis" was not a random choice. It was a well thought out word they intend to use a lot. The repetition will wear on people and they will start to repeat the word when they talk about it.
CRISIS= Oh my god the sky is falling! Tax me. Take my money. I'm not even going to ask you what you will use it for, just take it!
If a carbon tax is passed I will invest my money in stock shares of military contractors. War is where most of it will go and the rest to pay interest on the debt.
https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/18/global-debt-now-worse-than-before-financial-crisis-says-imf
Is the tax really for what they say it is for? The real world wide crisis seems to be the debt crisis. You all should ask them what they will use the tax for and get in in writing.
Let's see if Al Gore likes the "lock box" idea now? If anyone should like the idea it would be him, right? WRONG!
@metal-brain saidYet you have not come up with any peer-reviewed articles supporting your claim, despite claiming that you would be able to. Are you still going to?
Sure I can and you know it. First you asked for a peer reviewed article, then you changed it to recent and now you changed it back again.
Which one is it?
02 Jan 19
@kazetnagorra saidFred Singer has written over 200 of them. Take your pick.
Yet you have not come up with any peer-reviewed articles supporting your claim, despite claiming that you would be able to. Are you still going to?
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer
02 Jan 19
@metal-brain saidWhich of Fred Singer's peer-reviewed articles do you think supports your claims best?
Fred Singer has written over 200 of them. Take your pick.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer
@kazetnagorra saidYou didn't ask that. How many times are you going to attempt to move the goal post?
Which of Fred Singer's peer-reviewed articles do you think supports your claims best?
I have never attempted to confine you to recent peer reviewed articles, yet you tried to impose it on me. Accepting such an unreasonable criteria would make finding them very time consuming. I must insist you hold yourself to the same standards as you expect from others.
I have never asked you to specify a single article that represents your opinion best. That would also be time consuming. How much do you value your time?
Peer reviewed doesn't mean as much as you seem to think. I have seen peer reviewed articles that were ridiculous. It was hard for me to believe it got past the editor. One made the case for anthropogenic warming before 1900. I almost laughed.
Where is the review part anyway? I often read something that is said to be peer reviewed and can't see any critique of the article. Where do you find that?