|
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Nancidrew - As one who has participated in the peer review process as both reviewer and reviewee, I can attest to your point. Peer review doesn't guarantee perfection, but filters out most of the worthless material - for illustration, one need only compare peer-reviewed papers with the spurious claims abundant in climate blogs. The conclusion we're warming the planet to a potentially dangerous extent doesn't rely on the validity of any single paper but on convergence of evidence from thousands.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hi AngryAussie (opps, I mean nancidrew4, er, i mean, valcat9, um no, i mean belmont162, no wait, i mean edeagleman, er um...)
Hi AngryAussie,
Why look at you! Look how many comments you covered up today! And you did it all by yourself! Wow, look how smart you are! You made soooo many YouTube accounts all on your own! You must be so smart to be able to do this sort of thing. Why, I've been underestimating you all along. I just thought you were a pathetic, lonely, loser.
nancidrew4 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
An interesting story about the importance of peer review ...
realclimate. org/index.php/archives/2008/10/greenspan- einstein-and-reich
"It's not a perfect process, but it does provide an efficient means to separate ideas that have traction from ideas that are going nowhere. Greenspan's pronouncements about the economy, on the other hand, were not subject to any such process."
nancidrew4 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Despite the continual harassment from right-wing ideologues, the IPCC underestimates the risk to humanity from global warming. Our predicament is actually WORSE than what they describe in their reports.
watch?v=YPxunJwCjP4
"The denial of climate change has been the most devastating deception ever perpetrated in human history. And it has been driven by massive economic vested interests."
-- David Wasdell, IPCC Reviewer
Stwryrch (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Now, now, the Cat Lullaby song is a little corny, but I certainly wouldn't call somebody a loser because of their musical choice.
However, I would call someone a loser that spends their time making new accounts on Youtube, just to spam comments and have the account deleted 3 hours later.
What a colossal waste of time that was, huh?
grastogisaloser (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
grastog i just wanted to let you know you really are a loser.
TheRealArchAngel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
** I wonder if Exxon pays this cretin with dollars or Euros**
Why would Exxon pay people to conteract their Global Warming scare scam?
You do know when you pull into a recharge station in your carbon fiber and foam electric car 100 years from now that the carbon fiber is made from oil,the foam is made from oil,the electric battery is made by companies like Exxon,Tires are made from oil,and the sign above the recharge station will still say Exxon,Chevron,Shell,BP...yes?
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It hardly seems worth arguing when viewers can visit all the climate sites themselves - HadCRUT3, NCDC, GISS, UAH, RSS. I judge them to show recent warming, as well as a long term CO2-driven warming trend punctuated by typical short term ups and downs, all consistent with the basic CO2 forcing as the long term factor. However, anyone visiting these sites should draw his or her own conclusions.
icecreamdose (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Let me first repeat the invitation for viewers to visit the climate monitoring sites to confirm both very recent and long term warming"
in telling people to do this you continually show that you don't know how to read graphs. In these graphs you are so anxious to believe show warming you are only paying attention to upward spikes. You do want to see the more numerous downward spikes. On average these graph show a downward trend.
The earth is cooling. It is not warming.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Let me first repeat the invitation for viewers to visit the climate monitoring sites to confirm both very recent and long term warming. Regarding the listed papers, anyone who reads and understands them will see they don't contradict basic anthropogenic warming principles Gore enunciated. Each is outdated to some extent, and those interested in the first should read the more recent papers not only by Douglass/Christy, but also Haimberger, Allen/Sherwood, and Santer for current perspectives. |
