Another one bites the dust!

[IanC]

hahaha, I had forgotten about that boondoggle (Hotel of Doom). communism at work. oh well the north koreans got their nuclear bomb to work well enough to spray some radioactivity around even if it didnt actually blow anything up.

 

[IanC]

No, my title reveals me as a sceptic. The only dupes are those who still bow to the alter of AGW as it is currently preached. Come up with some legit empirical data and I will pay attention once again. But, until that time comes I will simply stay with the scientific method.

But that's not what you're doing. If you were, you'd get your information from peer-reviewed sources, and you would understand that there are still mysteries about global warming to be solved (like whether or not a warmer climate will result in more malaria cases) and that this in no way casts doubt on the main idea.

It's not science to bring up things like that as an argument against the AGW model. It's the kind of thing that's done by the well-funded disinformation campaign put out by the fossil-fuel industry to create the impression of doubt where there is, in fact, no doubt. Which is why I try to stick with peer-reviewed material. (There's some propaganda put out on the other side, too, although it pales by comparison both in volume and in shameless distortion of the truth.)

peer reviewed? on the face of it that sounds good. unfortunately even when the actual data that is collected is reasonable, the conclusions added to it are often propaganda. like the malaria studies, and a host of other bullshit claims from acne to war to menstruation. do you know what a non sequitor is? using one statement to support another even though they are unrelated causually. every time a fake claim with supposed high confidence levels is made the trust in science is eroded. climatology and its 'little white lies' made in the name of 'the greater good' has done a lot of damage to regular science. it is time to clean it up, including exposing and excising junk like Mann's Hockey Stick Graphand all the downstream studies that used his flawed data and conclusions.

 

[westwall]

Two million deaths? Source? Your ass?

From the story you linked to we get this...

Malaria is one of the world's most deadly diseases, each year killing about 880,000 people, mostly children in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Health Organization.


So that's the toll for sub Saharan Africa, add to that India and Malaysia and the rest of the world where malaria is endemic and viola, you're over the 2 million mark. What's the matter, didn't bother to read your own link? AGAIN!

 

[westwall]

No, my title reveals me as a sceptic. The only dupes are those who still bow to the alter of AGW as it is currently preached. Come up with some legit empirical data and I will pay attention once again. But, until that time comes I will simply stay with the scientific method.

But that's not what you're doing. If you were, you'd get your information from peer-reviewed sources, and you would understand that there are still mysteries about global warming to be solved (like whether or not a warmer climate will result in more malaria cases) and that this in no way casts doubt on the main idea.

It's not science to bring up things like that as an argument against the AGW model. It's the kind of thing that's done by the well-funded disinformation campaign put out by the fossil-fuel industry to create the impression of doubt where there is, in fact, no doubt. Which is why I try to stick with peer-reviewed material. (There's some propaganda put out on the other side, too, although it pales by comparison both in volume and in shameless distortion of the truth.)

Oh, but I do old boy, I do! I use peer reviewed studies from sources OTHER then the "pal reviewed" nonsense being spewed out by the AGW supporters. When one of the leading lights of the AGW hypothesis feels safe admitting in a paper that he is altering the ACTUAL temperature record because it doesn't conform to the computer models he uses for his "scientific research" you have a problem Houston.

The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.

Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, the scientific community is presenting even more evidence concerning the consequences that we are now seeing. Of course, just presented in the most recent AGU Conferance. And obese junkies and you are so much smarter than the men and women there, right?

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.

Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.

Every time he posts, Dragon reveals that he's nothing but a leftwing hack who will support any idiocy so long as it advances the cause of world socialism.

Dragon has stated that the fundamental laws of economics are bullshit and that his invented-on-the-fly laws of leftwing abracadabra are the real laws of economics.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, but I do old boy, I do! I use peer reviewed studies from sources OTHER then the "pal reviewed" nonsense being spewed out by the AGW supporters. When one of the leading lights of the AGW hypothesis feels safe admitting in a paper that he is altering the ACTUAL temperature record because it doesn't conform to the computer models he uses for his "scientific research" you have a problem Houston.

The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.

Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.

BTW. I love the term "pal reviewed." I'm going to steal that from you, if you don't mind.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes, the scientific community is presenting even more evidence concerning the consequences that we are now seeing. Of course, just presented in the most recent AGU Conferance. And obese junkies and you are so much smarter than the men and women there, right?

No, the AGW cultists are presenting a bunch of crap trying like hell to maintain their gravy train. They have lost, this is their last desperate attempt to remain relevant in a world that is more and more choosing to ignore their hysterical predictions that never seem to happen. They have cried "wolf" too many times. The only people who pay them any attention at all is fellow travellers, intellectual midgets and fools and frauds like you.

 

[westwall]

Oh, but I do old boy, I do! I use peer reviewed studies from sources OTHER then the "pal reviewed" nonsense being spewed out by the AGW supporters. When one of the leading lights of the AGW hypothesis feels safe admitting in a paper that he is altering the ACTUAL temperature record because it doesn't conform to the computer models he uses for his "scientific research" you have a problem Houston.

The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.

Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.

BTW. I love the term "pal reviewed." I'm going to steal that from you, if you don't mind.

Feel free, I stole it from someone else!