they're bloggers
they've linked actual peer reviewed articles by actual scientists containing arguments that dispute climate alarmism

why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

again, this is a case of shooting the messenger because you dont want to admit to anyone including yourself that you've been duped, that you are an idiot, that you've been taken for a ride

Nothing is by chance.

this poptech is probably a multi, probably draupkick's or someone from his M80 cult trying to deflect the argument and facts presented here

dont expect the corrupt mods like pala to out this accurately

Edited by ricecrackers: 1/7/2015 02:34:26 PM

-PB

because posting memes is a scientific rebuttal

go back to kindergarten. you cannot argue science on any level.

your juvenile behavior is just proving you've got nothing
dumb kids, I feel sorry for you all

No one hires me let alone notifies me, I work for free. Censorship is the only way your side can win an argument.


Incorrect, it was created as a resource for skeptics.

Criticism: All climate related papers not on the list endorse AGW.

Rebuttal: While there are thousands of climate related papers, only a small percentage of these even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming".


Sorry but you do not decide what is a relevant journal.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 28 times
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thomson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement


Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UAH.


Talk about hypocrisy, either the IPCC is irrelevant or E&E is relevant since it is cited 28 times in those reports, so which is it?

Edited by poptech: 1/7/2015 02:55:47 PM

:lol: ricey is on a roll. Fuck me this has made my day

:lol: Remember words like pretentious and arrogant? You're a hypocrite of the highest order

So are journalists or a curator of a resource not allowed to compile or discuss the things they compiled?

According to your boy ricecrackers; no.

-PB

you're a liar
this is your multi isnt it?

I have no idea what any of this is but I can assure you it does not involve me.

someone must have some serious butthurt to go to such trouble to frame me like this

do you have a twitter account?
can you send a tweet proving who you are?

better yet, can you update the blog with some reference to this forum?

Edited by ricecrackers: 1/7/2015 02:55:17 PM

[youtube]wRpAANsoG8I[/youtube]

why you keep posting videos that nobody watches mcdunce? do you have some kind of OCD?

Sure, here

[youtube]4GxY559Qfbc[/youtube]

I could see how people who do not understand either of those papers could come to that conclusion.

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

:shock:

Don't deflect, I asked you.

I made no such claim either

I believe you but I would not worry about it much as this sort of dishonest behavior is typical in these debates.

Welp. There is the proof. Rice Crackers seems like a reasonable person....

There is no way he could control the twitter account of a blogging site he may run (unconfirmed).

It is now #TWITTER_OFFICIAL

why would I post links to my own blogging site on this forum? (I dont have one)
I'm not going to out my personal details here with all the unstable mental cases that have an axe to grind

by the way, I raised this 97% topic here nearly a year ago. look at the responses
err link doesnt work

go to page 41 of this thread

Edited by ricecrackers: 1/7/2015 03:22:10 PM