Originally posted by shavixmirMISTER HANKEY THE CHRISTMAS POO HE LOVE ME AND I LOVE YOU THEREFORE VICARIOUSLY HE LOVES YOU EVEN IF YOU'RE A JEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well naturally it could be a coincidence... the earth warming, more of us roaming the planet, pollution and CO2 on the increase, more cars than ever before, less forest than ever before, more desert than ever before...
Of course it could be a coincidence... but COMMON SENSE (so...that disallows ANYONE who still believes in gods, fairies and Mr. Hanky th ...[text shortened]... oo and ANYONE who thinks that Iraq was a good idea) sort of does suggest there is a correlation.
Originally posted by mrstabbyWha???????? What the h#@* are you drinking?
[b]Wait a minute, you were the one that said that the paper's finding were more significant than they are
Please "cut and paste" directly from any post I have made where I wrote: "the papers finding(s) were more significant than they are".
I'll be waiting.. I fear for a long time! Are you just jumping in with this stupid statement trying to obfuscate the thrust of the subject.
I am waiting! (MacSwain sits and drums fingers on desk)
Originally posted by MacSwainOk then, what claim are you making alongside the paper?
Wha???????? What the h#@* are you drinking?
Please "cut and paste" directly from any post I have made where I wrote: "the papers finding(s) were more significant than they are".
I'll be waiting.. I fear for a long time! Are you just jumping in with this stupid statement trying to obfuscate the thrust of the subject.
I am waiting! (MacSwain sits and drums fingers on desk)
Originally posted by mrstabbyWha???????? What the h#@* are you drinking?
Ok then, what claim are you making alongside the paper?
Please "cut and paste" directly from any post I have made where I wrote: "the papers finding(s) were more significant than they are".
I'll be waiting.. I fear for a long time! Are you just jumping in with this stupid statement trying to obfuscate the thrust of the subject.
I am waiting! (MacSwain sits and drums fingers on desk)
I AM WAITING STILL!
Originally posted by MacSwainYou didn't - I wrongly assumed that you had said, well, anything about the paper.
Wha???????? What the h#@* are you drinking?
Please "cut and paste" directly from any post I have made where I wrote: "the papers finding(s) were more significant than they are".
I'll be waiting.. I fear for a long time! Are you just jumping in with this stupid statement trying to obfuscate the thrust of the subject.
I am waiting! (MacSwain sits and drums fingers on desk)
I AM WAITING STILL!
Originally posted by mrstabbyI take that as your method of offering an apology?
You didn't - I wrongly assumed that you had said, well, anything about the paper.
Do not EVER make up rubbish out of whole cloth and attribute it to me again. Obviously, in future I will take what you say with a grain of salt.
Originally posted by MacSwainYeah, my bad. I did assume that you had made a claim, though it was over a couple weeks ago, so I guess I should have double checked what you actually said instead of assuming.
I take that as your method of offering an apology?
Do not EVER make up rubbish out of whole cloth and attribute it to me again. Obviously, in future I will take what you say with a grain of salt.
So yes, sorry I put words in your mouth.
On a related note you may find this of interest.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html
Originally posted by MacSwainI never sought to have you view my analysis as a qualified refutation, just as a refutation that was based on logical analysis rather than huffing and puffing and opinions. I'm not stating opinions, I state evidence and analysis. If you can find a flaw in that evidence, which should be easy if I'm so unqualified, fire away. As for you apparently requiring a peer reviewed paper which specifically counters Schwartz's paper before you'll be happy, then it's obvious that you're not interested in the argument but the arguing instead. Peer review doesn't work like that. Journal articles aren't about scientists coming out and saying that that other scientist was wrong. They come out with a case and evidence. If that case is strong and the evidence good, the argument gains weight while those whose case is less strong and evidence less developed lose ground. You probably know this, so why ask for a specific peer reviewed paper? (which even if someone started writing immediately, would take at least a year to get to print if it was specific counter-evidence that was required, as you have stipulated.)
Obviously I need to make it clearer for you.
I posted a peer reviewed paper from a climate scientist. I do not recognize your self described "analysis" as a QUALIFIED refutation. You are not a climate scientist, therefore un-qualified.
Please post a peer reveiwed rebuttal, from either a climate scientist or recognized climate study group, directed ...[text shortened]... nd be available in an issue of new scientist shortly. I shall be waiting with bated breath.
To reiterate, I never said the paper you posted was groundless, I said it was using a model that was as of yet underdeveloped and would need more work before it could be offered as a real alternative. Which is what the author himself inferred as I said in my analysis. Also, it doesn't take a climate scientist to quote the paper wherem in the last paragraph he says that his figure is a man-made increase of 1.1 while a significantly damaging increase would be between 1 and 2. That's stuff he said himself, go read the paper you quoted.
Finally, one imposrtant thing. No one has ever asked you or spasti or anyone else to make your arguments using papers, merely to back up your arguments using them. i.e. I say man causes warming, I post papers to that effect to back up what I have said. You say man isn't then come up with a paper to that effect. After that we compare and demonstrate errors in the logic, that's a debate. If it was required that we had a peer reviewed articles to make every argument, what's the point of posting in the forums at all.