Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

[Sam Wormley]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens
with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence
that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument,
op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets
skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any
scientific basis? *What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say*?

About the author

Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After
graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year.
He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on
Skeptical Science is not his own but *taken directly from the peer
reviewed scientific literature*. To those seeking to refute the science
presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the
science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever
possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal
donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations
with any organizations or political groups. Skeptical Science is
strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web
designer wife.

[bjacoby]

On 6/19/2012 11:54 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Which obviously is proselytization and not skepticism. Sam your pretense
that this site is any sort of science skepticism or discussion is
basically a fraud.

> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
> themselves to improve their understanding.

But the site doesn't do this so it's irrelevant.

> Yet this isn't what happens
> with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence
> that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument,
> op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming.

As the prime "denier" her who acts as if any evidence contrary to your
religious belief in CO2 as the "Main" cause of warming does not exist
even when from your favorite questionable sources, we can only point to
the pot calling the kettle "black".

> This website gets
> skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any
> scientific basis? *What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say*?

Pure propaganda posted by a professional propagandist. This is admitted
right on the site. Sam, you have to answer these charges except to
repeat your warmist cult dogma over and over. But then that's what bots
do best. How do you feel about your promotion of dogma sites?

> About the author
>
> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
> Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

"Communications Fellow" for "global change institute". Say no more.

> He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After
> graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year.
> He is not a climate scientist.

Admits he is no "climate scientist". So how can he judge any
peer-reviewed climate evidence? He can't. But then, that's not his job,
is it? His job is to "communicate" warming "true beliefs. Say no more.

[Desertphile]

It is one of the best sites on the internet for refuting and
debunking denialsm. Even Dr. Neil Tyson recommended the site!


--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself." -- Desertphile

[Peter Webb]

"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message
news:intku79f4r8oafsu5...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:54:56 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>>
>> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming
>> misinformation
>>
>> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
>> themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens
>> with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence
>> that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument,
>> op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets
>> skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any
>> scientific basis? *What does the peer reviewed scientific literature
>> say*?
>>
>> About the author
>>
>> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
>> Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
>> He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After
>> graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year.
>> He is not a climate scientist.

Ohh. So he's just some person, with no particular expertise.

>> Consequently, the science presented on
>> Skeptical Science is not his own but *taken directly from the peer
>> reviewed scientific literature*. To those seeking to refute the science
>> presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the
>> science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever
>> possible).
>>
>> There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal
>> donations - it's run at personal expense.

And he runs a charity website asking for donations.

>> John Cook has no affiliations
>> with any organizations or political groups. Skeptical Science is
>> strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web
>> designer wife.

So its like his personal blog?

>
> It is one of the best sites on the internet for refuting and
> debunking denialsm. Even Dr. Neil Tyson recommended the site!
>

If this is one of the best sites for arguments against climate skeptics,
then the climate skeptics have won. There is no attempt to address the real
issues of climate skeptics. Where, for example, is the main argument often
advanced by skeptics addressed - that climate science fails the test of the
scientific method as it does not make correct predictions? Where is the
scientific method even discuused at all in this person's personal webpage,
designed by his talented wife?

[bjacoby]

On 6/26/2012 11:28 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> "Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message

>>> About the author
>>>
>>> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
>>> Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
>>> He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After
>>> graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year.
>>> He is not a climate scientist.
>
> Ohh. So he's just some person, with no particular expertise.

This isn't true, Peter. Didn't you see his job? "Climate communications
fellow" at the "Global Change Institute".

Which If I may translate (should be obvious to you too) means he's a
professional propagandist employed to promote the "climate change"
positions for a "climate change" institute.

I call that some considerable expertise! The only problem is the
expertise is in "spinning" science to promote a particular agenda rather
than being a scientist who studies nature to better understand reality.

[Dawlish]

On Jun 19, 4:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>
> Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
>
> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge
> themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens
> with climate change denial.

Exactly my feelings. Denial is a different kettle of foul, rotting,
agenda-ridden fish completely.

[hanson]

"Dawlish" aka Dawgshit <pjg n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-- Sam Warmley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.septic-science.com/>
... Global Warming Misinformation

>
Dawgshit wrote:
Exactly my feelings. Denial is a different kettle
of foul, rotting, agenda-ridden fish completely.
>

hanson wrote:
Precisely!.. and here is the agenda as given
by the Authors of the Green Bible, who said:
>
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
= we will be doing the right thing".
= -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion
. UN-gift.
>
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change
= provides equality in the world."
= -- Christine Stewart, Canada Enviro Minister.
>
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then
= make it up on the spot... for the mass-media today...
= the truth is irrelevant."
-- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to
. Strategy.
>
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ...
= it only matters what people believe is true".
= -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8c3524e-5fcd-466e...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________________
That strikes me as a surprising opinion for you to have. You seem to accuse
all climate skeptics of being "deniers", so it is hard to see how you could
think it is a "different kettle of fish completely". Could you, for example,
nominate some people who post here as being in the "skeptic kettle of fish"
but not in the "denier kettle of fish" ?

[Dawlish]

I certainly don't accuse climate skeptics of being deniers. The
difference between a climate skeptic and being a denier is the
difference between understanding and accepting science and denying it.
That is a distinction that is completely lost on the deniers in this
group, as none are skeptics.............including you webby.

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:b56b956e-cb30-458f...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

______________________________________________
I don't "deny science". To the extent that I know what those words are
supposed to mean. I'm certainly very committed to (say) the Scientific
Method as means of determining the likely truth of scientific theories,
which is the core technique of science, so I can't see how I could in any
sense "deny science". Which would make you wrong, again. Or do you have some
definition of your whacko term "deny science" (sounds a lot like "deny
Jesus" to me BTW) which allows people such as myself who passionately
believe in the scientific method to be classified as those who "deny
science"? Lets face it, if you had a reasonable scientific argument, you
would bother indulging in this pathetic name calling, particularly when you
are so rock dumb as to not even be able to define the names you are calling
people. What a tosser you turned out to be. Come back when you learn what
the scientific method is.

[Dawlish]

> the scientific method is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The good old "sceintific method" which webby understands and no PhD
scientists working in the field of climate science does; so webby
denies their science with every post.

Don't you just love these deluded nutters like webby?

[Sam Wormley]

On 6/27/12 10:39 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
> I don't "deny science".

If you don't deny science, then this resource ought to be of
great value to you as so sort through claims against climate
science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science
has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of
global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to
focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader
picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full
weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating
on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating
glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realize the planet
as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader
picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be
political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to
spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the
cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely
the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what
is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical
Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on
the science.

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After

graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honors year. He

is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on

Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer
reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science

presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the
science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever
possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than PayPal

donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations
with any organizations or political groups. Skeptical Science is

strictly a labor of love. The design was created by John's talented web
designer wife.

Ref: http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>

>The good old "sceintific method" which webby understands and no PhD
>scientists working in the field of climate science does; so webby
>denies their science with every post.

Yeah, it's really sad how no actual scientist understands anything
at all about science. Obviously they need to get on Usenet and
get educated by Webbie and Marvie and the other inmates.

>Don't you just love these deluded nutters like webby?

Well, actually, no.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[bjacoby]

On 6/27/2012 3:23 AM, Dawlish wrote:

> I certainly don't accuse climate skeptics of being deniers. The
> difference between a climate skeptic and being a denier is the
> difference between understanding and accepting science and denying it.
> That is a distinction that is completely lost on the deniers in this
> group, as none are skeptics.............including you webby.

Listen to this "pussyfooting"! <snort>

What Dawlish means is that in his opinion Dr. Hansen of NASA could be
classified as a "skeptic"! A distinction completely lost on anyone here
with a brain.

[bjacoby]

> The good old "sceintific method" which webby understands and no PhD
> scientists working in the field of climate science does; so webby
> denies their science with every post.
>
> Don't you just love these deluded nutters like webby?

Ah, so your "understanding" of the "scientific method" is that if you
say something is true, then it IS true, and if anyone says it's not
true, then they are insane. And obviously nobody needs to take seriously
any opinions of the insane, right?

Do I have your "scientific method" down? And apparently some PhD
scientists working in "climate science", pretty much use your method
too. Glad we got that cleared up.

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:17:58 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

And another padded cell is heard from.

[bjacoby]

On 6/27/2012 12:45 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 6/27/12 10:39 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> I don't "deny science".
>
> If you don't deny science, then this resource ought to be of
> great value to you as so sort through claims against climate
> science.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument

<snip professional propaganda crap>

"Sam" the bot as usual replies only with cut and past links to
professional Warmist propaganda sites.

Nothing more to see here. Move along.


Replying to Sam-bot with usual link to actual Climate Science site.
In fact THE "world's most viewed global warming and climate change site"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Sam, I think this resource ought to be of great value to you to learn to
understand the scientific method.

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:20:54 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 6/27/2012 12:45 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 6/27/12 10:39 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> I don't "deny science".
>>
>> If you don't deny science, then this resource ought to be of
>> great value to you as so sort through claims against climate
>> science.
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument
>
><snip professional propaganda crap>
>
>"Sam" the bot as usual replies only with cut and past links to
>professional Warmist propaganda sites.
>
>Nothing more to see here. Move along.
>
>
>Replying to Sam-bot with usual link to actual Climate Science site.
>In fact THE "world's most viewed global warming and climate change site"

Now could this possibly be the same all-clown who's constantly
chanting that consensus proves nothing, touting the "most viewed"
site? Nah, even the shit-bot wouldn't be that crooked -- or would
he?

[bjacoby]

Just fighting fire with fire, Bill, you insane fraudulent ignorant loon.

My "consensus" beats your "consensus"! How many views of "SkepicalScience"?

Neener, neener, neener!

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:14:46 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

I bet the Enquirer sells more copies than the New York Times and
the Wall Street Journal, too. So we know what's the best
newspaper. Glad that's settled.

[Fredric L. Rice]

"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message
>news:intku79f4r8oafsu5...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:54:56 -0500, Sam Wormley
>> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/

>>> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
>>> Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
>>> He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After
>>> graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year.
>>> He is not a climate scientist.
>Ohh. So he's just some person, with no particular expertise.

LOL. Or so Christanic rightards would like to pretend. :)

---
Email address: k.chel...@yahoo.com http://www.skeptictank.org/
Vote Romney November 6th, enjoy your pink slip on November 9th.

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:d8f089a8-6c53-4790...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

___________________________________
Do you have any evidence this is true, or are you simply "inventing" facts
again?

so webby
denies their science with every post.

________________________________________________
Ummm ... so who are these climate scientists who you claim don't understand
the scientific method?

Don't you just love these deluded nutters like webby?

______________________________________________
Why do you just invent shit which is obvious nonsense?

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jZ-dnXDMJucmpXbS...@mchsi.com...

> On 6/27/12 10:39 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> I don't "deny science".
>
> If you don't deny science, then this resource ought to be of
> great value to you as so sort through claims against climate
> science.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>

No, unfortunately its useless. It is largely a collection of "straw man"
arguments, and does not address the concerns I have with the validity of
"climate science".

> About Skeptical Science
>
> The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has
> to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global
> warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on
> narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For
> example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of
> scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few
> growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier
> shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realize the planet as a whole
> is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by
> explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
>
> Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be
> political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread
> socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders
> for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the
> cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is
> causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science
> removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the
> science.
>
> About the author
> Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication
> Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He
> studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After
> graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honors year.

Interesting. He has less qualifications in physics than I do.

> He is not a climate scientist.

Funny he is so keen to point out that he has no qualifications whatsoever in
"climate science".

> Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own
> but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those
> seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer
> reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are
> provided whenever possible).
>
> There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than PayPal
> donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations
> with any organizations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly
> a labor of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer
> wife.
>
> Ref: http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

Useless.

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:c7emu79h1mjn1hint...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
> <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 27, 4:39 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>The good old "sceintific method" which webby understands and no PhD
>>scientists working in the field of climate science does; so webby
>>denies their science with every post.
>
> Yeah, it's really sad how no actual scientist understands anything
> at all about science.

That is nonsense.

> Obviously they need to get on Usenet and
> get educated by Webbie and Marvie and the other inmates.
>
>>Don't you just love these deluded nutters like webby?
>
> Well, actually, no.
>
>
> --
> Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

So, talking crap again Snyder. This time you claim that no actual scientists

understands anything at all about science.

Got any evidence this is true, or is this just another one of those
incredibly stupid things you say so often?

[Dawlish]

> Why do you just invent shit which is obvious nonsense?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh dear. I suppose we nhave to conclude that no-one else but webby
understands the scientific method. Scrub 400,000 papers on the
subject, no-one was taught the scientific method in years at
university. Damn. Oh well. deniers must be right about AGW then and we
can all go home.

Stupid, stupid denier.

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:8e2b7dcf-f479-4c6c...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

_________________________________
Why? That seems a patently stupid thing to say. Of course, you say a lot of
patently stupid things.

Scrub 400,000 papers on the
subject, no-one was taught the scientific method in years at
university.

_______________________________________________
Incorrect. I was taught the scientific metod at Uni, and so have many other
people. Why do you invent patent nonsense?

Damn. Oh well. deniers must be right about AGW then and we
can all go home.

_____________________________________________
Perhaps if your arguments had scientific merit, you wouldn't rely solely on
name calling. And of course, you still haven't defined what "denier" is
supposed to mean; you are so dumb you can't even define your own insults.


Dawlish, you should learn some basic facts about science if you want to post
in science newsgroups. Contrary to what you say, lots of scientists have
been taught the scientific method at Uni, and understand it very well. Just
because you never studied it at Uni doesn't mean that everyone in the world
is as ignorant as you are.




Stupid, stupid denier.

[Dawlish]

> Stupid, stupid denier.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Some basic facts about science...............good grief. I put the
mainstream scientific view, backed by hundreds of thousands of
published papers and everey scientific organisation on earth. I've
referred to >100 of those papers in a year+ of posting and some denier
who once attended a science class on the scientific method appears to
think he knows more than the combined factual information in them all
- and all their authors were educated to a far higher level than webby
"at uni".......deluded nutcase detected.

[Peter Webb]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:f066738e-7b40-4fd8...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...

________________________________________________
ROFL. You can't help but lie, can you? Do you even read what you write? How
about the "National Human Genome Research Institute" ? That's a scientific
organisation, right? So where do they back your view on climate science? Why
the need to lie, and why the stupidity of making it so obvious?

I've
referred to >100 of those papers in a year+ of posting and some denier
who once attended a science class on the scientific method appears to
think he knows more than the combined factual information in them all

_______________________________________
I have no idea who you are talking about.

- and all their authors were educated to a far higher level than webby
"at uni".......deluded nutcase detected.

_________________________________________
Ohh. So you have no argument other than lots of people think it must be
true, therefore it must be true. That's not part of the scientific method at
all, in fact its almost the opposite of it. You should learn about the
scientific method.

[Dawlish]

> scientific method.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Deluded nutcase, Thinks he knows the answer and it is different to
almost everyone elses in science. denky and webby. Nice pair.

[Bill Snyder]

We're talking about your claims that they know nothing, Webbie.
This is an example of a place where being literate would have
saved you from a silly error. But of course you have plenty more.

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message

news:ranou79nhcsiqclvp...@4ax.com...

Umm, no, only you have claimed this.

You claim it above.

I have never said it.

> This is an example of a place where being literate would have
> saved you from a silly error. But of course you have plenty more.
>

You really are dumb, aren't you.

You say incredibly stupid things and then claim I said them. I didn't. You
did. You are the stupid person. Look above in this thread to see who said
them.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:28:35 +1000, "Peter Webb"

FOAD, retard. I said that, in case you're confused.

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message

news:khvou71g92r8iq2t1...@4ax.com...

You see, its this ability to analyse the nuances of scientific theory that
marks you out as a great thinker in your own right.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:33:43 +1000, "Peter Webb"

Just as it is the ability to lie every time you say anything that
marks you as a master in your chosen field.

[Sam Wormley]

On 6/27/12 9:58 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jZ-dnXDMJucmpXbS...@mchsi.com...
>> On 6/27/12 10:39 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> I don't "deny science".
>>
>> If you don't deny science, then this resource ought to be of
>> great value to you as so sort through claims against climate
>> science.
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>>
>
> No, unfortunately its useless. It is largely a collection of "straw man"
> arguments, and does not address the concerns I have with the validity of
> "climate science".

Such as?

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:pZadnYq-VpNGDnHS...@mchsi.com...

For example, while his site discusses the greenhouse effects of CO2 at
length, it does not consider the effect of increasing vegetation on albedo.

Unless you can tell us where this is discussed?

[last...@primus.ca]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:54:56 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>

> Explaining climate change science &amp; rebutting global warming misinformation.

ø - Explaining climate change is easy since
since everything pretending to prove it
is loaded with misinformation and
absent any facts.

> Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge

> themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn&#39;t what happens
> with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence
> that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument,
> op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming.

ø - So far I have yet to see one iota
supporting/proving global warming.
Ergo you Sam are jerking off
pretending to support a non existent
science.

Sam, I have been following our
global climate for more years than you
have been alive. You only follow the
continental USA weather which limits
you to less than 10% of the climate.

Further, the last Interglacial Period
ended 1,600 years ago (AD 400). The
current trend is the 5th phase (cooling)
toward reglaciation. The phase from
1950 to 1998 was the last warming phase.

Indeed Sam, you need to study some
Paleology – the last 111,600 years — get
your nose out of the fake BS promoted
by IPCC.

Get smart! Global warming is dying. The
alternative power sources are already on
their death beds. The EPA will be the
first to go, and then Trenberth, Schmidt,
etc.

Will your new teaching job be safe? I
doubt it.