tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5145730256050773137..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Three hottest evers in succession for lower troposphereSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69511274388328397652016-01-17T20:15:20.115+11:002016-01-17T20:15:20.115+11:00Sou, "scientific reports" is not a preda...Sou, "scientific reports" is not a predatory publisher. It's from the Nature Group:<br />http://www.nature.com/srep/<br /><br />It's the Nature version of PLoS One: we publish anything, as long as it is scientifically correct and you pay.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58566772489673797652016-01-17T13:52:11.958+11:002016-01-17T13:52:11.958+11:00"Dr. Pielke, Sr. has published over 300 paper..."<i>Dr. Pielke, Sr. has published over 300 papers and is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher</i>"<br /><br />One has to be very careful in interpreting the nature of citation counts. A familiarity with the nature of an author's work can be a great help in this, and if one does not understand why there are issues with unquestioning reliance on cite numbers, a perusal of papers by MacRoberts and MacRoberts may enlighten.<br /><br />Or for the punchy visual explanation:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1108" rel="nofollow">http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1108</a><br /><br />In particular, <i>nota bene</i> the second term in the numerator. The others are worthy too, though...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16474479911325407312016-01-17T10:04:53.607+11:002016-01-17T10:04:53.607+11:00Here's Mr Scholar's very final comment in ...Here's Mr Scholar's very final comment in italics, FWIW, with my notes:<br /><br /><i>Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Shaviv are "highly represented" in the peer-reviewed literature, and Dr. Shaviv is on the editorial board of Scientific Reports.</i><br /><br />Scientific Reports is <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/?s=scientific+reports" rel="nofollow">a predatory journal</a>, not a reputable publication.<br /><br /><i>I simply told you something that was unfair and I do not reject the entirety of the IPCC reports.</i><br /><br />Your "opinion". It was the dumbest example ever. As I said, you might as well have said that WUWT wasn't cited.<br /><br /><i>Listen, I just gave you papers, ok? I didn't say they were representative of my views.</i><br /><br />Then why did you provide that ragtag collection of mostly science denial? No don't answer that. Your comment will be deleted unread.<br /><br /><i>You continually distort what I mean and what my views are,</i>\<br /> <br />Any distortion of views is yours alone.<br /><br /><i>I addressed your points, and I do know TSI and the temp diverged a few years ago, but as Dr. Shaviv pointed out, THE EFFECT OF THE SUN IS MORE THAN JUST TSI. </i><br /><br />Oh, are you a fan of <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/denier-weirdness-magical-mysterious.html" rel="nofollow">Force X and the notch</a>?<br /><br /><i>The CERN CLOUD experiments have actually produced some evidence for nucleation.</i><br /><br />Yes, but no evidence so far that in the real world, they nucleate clouds AFAIK.<br /><br /><i>Again, farewell and goodbye. </i><br /><br />For the umpteenth time. This time for good.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74553649169447216512016-01-17T09:50:07.102+11:002016-01-17T09:50:07.102+11:00Mr Scholar, you've already said goodbye a few ...Mr Scholar, you've already said goodbye a few times. You didn't answer all the questions I put, and are merely continuing your denial. <br /><br />Enough is enough. HotWhopper isn't a notice board for you to write whatever silly thoughts happen to pop into your head. Try WUWT since you don't want to read or discuss real science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35513213400757961082016-01-17T09:45:20.359+11:002016-01-17T09:45:20.359+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31396445010600654162016-01-17T09:22:17.873+11:002016-01-17T09:22:17.873+11:00Mr Scholar doesn't know if he's coming or ...Mr Scholar doesn't know if he's coming or going. As he indicates, he rejects mainstream science. (He also denies that he gets his denial from denier blogs, which makes him a denier liar.) He's an "anything but CO2" person. He's a big fan of Nicola Scafetta and Nir J. Shaviv, but he can't decide if "<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">it's the sun</a>" or "<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm" rel="nofollow">it's cosmic rays</a>" or both.<br /><br />I expect he doesn't know that the temperature and TSI diverged a few decades ago. That is, the sun is less active now than it was earlier last century. Even if galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) made a big difference in cloud cover (which is unlikely, based on the CERN CLOUD experiments so far), there should be more of them now, which would suggest cooling. Less solar activity means a weaker solar magnetic field, which means more GCRs reaching Earth, which hypothetically means more clouds and less warming, not more warming. Yet the world keeps on getting hotter and hotter.<br /><br />The above is based on Svenmark's hypothesis that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Depends on <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm" rel="nofollow">where the clouds are</a>. Low level clouds have a net cooling effect, while high level clouds have a net warming effect.<br /><br />His reason for rejecting the entirety of the IPCC report is because, although the IPCC referred to <a href="http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?journalCode=coas" rel="nofollow">Houston and Dean 2011</a>, it didn't refer to <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1" rel="nofollow">their reply</a> to a <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1" rel="nofollow">comment on their paper</a>. The comment had nothing to add to their original paper, so it seems a paltry reason to reject the most comprehensive report of climate science ever. I guess he just wanted an excuse. He could just as well have argued that it didn't cite WUWT.<br /><br />He didn't answer <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/01/three-hottest-evers-in-succession-for.html?showComment=1452916084297#c7965303024832232814" rel="nofollow">my questions</a> about why he rejects mainstream science, preferring to defend the potty peer and promote his lies about science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39576689796772703932016-01-17T09:14:45.818+11:002016-01-17T09:14:45.818+11:00I looked at a paper on the pop tech list (a while ...I looked at a paper on the pop tech list (a while ago) and it was simply a letter from a doctor to a scientific journal complaining that continued talk of imminent climate change was upsetting his patients.<br /><br />The asymmetry of "evidence" used by climate deniers versus actual scientists is astounding Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64770477833736232722016-01-17T09:08:58.803+11:002016-01-17T09:08:58.803+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33213099744741670992016-01-17T09:03:53.798+11:002016-01-17T09:03:53.798+11:00To save curious people the trouble, here is what M...To save curious people the trouble, here is what Mr Scholar thinks. He's an "anything but CO2" denier:<br /><br />It's cosmic rays,<br />It's the moon and stars, and it's about to cool (from 2010 - what went wrong there?)<br />It's a magical little ice age bounce,<br />It's UHI,<br />It's lunar atmospheric tides<br />(An irrelevant 1999 paper about the moon affecting diurnal temperature)<br />It's the sun<br />It's not CO2, only CFC's (and it's about to cool - from 2012 - what went wrong there?)<br />It's the sun<br />No, he's changed his mind again - it's cosmic rays<br />And more cosmic rays<br />It's the sun and cosmic rays<br />A largely irrelevant paper on the CERN CLOUD experiment<br />It was the sun early on and now it's greenhouse gases<br />It's anthropogenic sources and it's the sun<br />There's a magical unidentified additional warming from the sun over and above what comes from the sun as total solar irradiance<br />An irrelevant paper trying to reconcile TSI from different recordings<br />Something about cosmic rays and stratospheric ozone<br />It's the sun, or was in the past, a little bit<br />It's not CO2 (because tooth enamel of a Viking in Greenland) - an engineer's perspective<br />It might be cosmic rays, but we're yet to find evidence (from the CERN CLOUD person)<br />It's clouds - which he wrongly describes as a "forcing" (clouds don't change all by themselves) (John McLean in another <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/" rel="nofollow">predatory journal</a>)<br />ENSO events affect global mean surface temperature - duh! (another vanity paper by John McLean, this time with Chris de Freitas)<br /><br />You might recall how John McLean wrote that appalling paper where he <a href="http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/2009JD012960.pdf" rel="nofollow">removed the temperature trend</a> to announce there is no trend. And how he predicted that 2011 "<a href="https://archive.is/SdAJg#selection-305.23-305.58" rel="nofollow">will be the coolest year since 1956</a>"! He's a denier from way back.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50665452182803030972016-01-17T07:59:34.587+11:002016-01-17T07:59:34.587+11:00Enter the Gish Gallop
http://rationalwiki.org/wik...Enter the Gish Gallop<br /><br />http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_GallopTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29798473518322356862016-01-17T07:38:18.420+11:002016-01-17T07:38:18.420+11:00About a year ago I decided that those presenting a...About a year ago I decided that those presenting a poor argument using the usual denier talking points merited a single neutral response, just to see whether they were open-minded and arguing in good faith, but simply badly informed.<br /><br />If after that the nonsense continued, it was DNFTT.<br /><br />Of course, people are entirely free to use whatever approach they wish. But remember it takes more work to refute gibberish than it does to generate it.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65837735939487968182016-01-17T04:34:21.473+11:002016-01-17T04:34:21.473+11:00OMG. Mr Scholar tells us the 97% consensus papers ...OMG. Mr Scholar tells us the 97% consensus papers have been refuted, using an argument from assertion. They have not been refuted, Mr Scholar, *especially* if you in the follow-up comment manage to suggest RV11 was rebutted by the reply of HD11.<br /><br />You then provide a long list of links to papers, which include papers in known predatory publishers like SCIRP and academic journals, papers that have had strong rebuttals (Akasofu's "recovery from little ice age", for example, albeit the rebuttal was to a follow up to the paper you cite), and a *lot* of the rest in bottom-feeding journals or journals where climate is not the area of expertise.<br /><br />Mr. Scholar even manages to cite the first CLOUD paper (and Kirkby's self-published original argumentation to set up CLOUD), which in essence concluded that no conclusions could be drawn from their first experiments regarding potential cloud seeding by GCR (and besides that, the link between GCR and climate change has already been refuted, even by Svensmark himself - although he will not tell you this. Svensmark looks at anomalies around a trend, a trend he removes and does not explain. In one of his many papers I read some years ago, that trend was a whopping >2 degrees per century!).Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32341005947683349842016-01-17T03:06:11.257+11:002016-01-17T03:06:11.257+11:00That remark about the fever is not true, and what ...That remark about the fever is not true, and what I meant was that the IPCC concluded that it was extremely likely that more than half of the post-1950 warming was from human activities. <br />Listen, those journals are all peer-reviewed and I don't care what you think about Monckton, read his papers and attack them, not him, ok?<br />1. The 97% "consensus" has been refuted in the peer-reviewed literature every time it has been claimed, at least with the well-known ones.<br />2. This: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf. The IPCC cites Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, but fail to note reply to Rahmstorf and Vermeer's comment: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1.<br />3. I addressed this argument already.<br />4. Actually, the paper I cited was a rebuttal and I think anytime you cite SkS or your blog it should raise a red flag.<br />(1): (here are those papers I mentioned earlier, some of which explicitly make the case against mostly human-caused warming and others which support arguments leading to that effect)<br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/abstract, http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf, http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217, http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/spp.2010.1.1/spp.2010.1.1.1004/spp.2010.1.1.1004.xml, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13143-014-0011-z, http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.497, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900303/abstract, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-013-1775-9, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349, http://www.ann-geophys.net/31/1833/2013/angeo-31-1833-2013.html, http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/9/2012/angeo-30-9-2012.pdf, http://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/64659D617030, http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.pdf, http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/2004JA010866.pdf, http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf, http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf, http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867, http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf, http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Avery.pdf, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf, dx.doi.org/10.4236/acs.2014.44066, http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27382.<br />My attempts at constructive engagement with you and others have failed. You have consistently attacked me, the people I cite, you have not answered the question I posed twice, and you have not retracted your statement about Dr. Curry. Therefore, I must bid you adieu and we must agree to disagree. I am sorry this conversation turned out this way.Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79653030248322328142016-01-16T14:48:04.297+11:002016-01-16T14:48:04.297+11:00Christopher Monckton aka the potty peer is a semi-...Christopher Monckton aka the potty peer is a semi-professional entertainer and science denier. It's what he does. He's also a birther and claims to have found a cure for AIDS. He's partnered with others to get "papers" published in obscure "journals" of no repute as far as climate science goes. You might as well cite the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/twisting-patterns-of-peer-review.html" rel="nofollow">Pattern Recognition journa</a>l or <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/" rel="nofollow">Energy and Environment</a> or the <a href="http://www.scientificexploration.org/" rel="nofollow">Dog Astrology journal</a>.<br /><br />Tell me, Mr Scholar, before you write any more nonsense. To be clear, I'll accept no more comments from you until you answer these four questions:<br /><br />1. Why do you only like papers by the tiny number of science deniers and reject the 97%? <br /><br />2. Which particular section or topic in the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/" rel="nofollow">IPCC WG1 report</a> have you read that you believe does <b>not </b>fairly represent the science?<br /><br />3. What makes you think that the less than 3% are "right" and the 97% are wrong?<br /><br />4. Which of your less than 3% are "right"? Pick one or more and cite the scientific paper or papers that you base your "opinion" upon and explain why you chose that paper over all the other tens of thousands of papers showing otherwise:<br /><br />"it's the sun"<br /><br />"it's underwater volcanoes"<br /><br />"it's not warming"<br /><br />"it's only warming a little bit"<br /><br />"It's not CO2"<br /><br />"it is CO2 but only a little bit"<br /><br />"it's not us, it can't be us, I won't have it, it's anything but CO2, it's not my fault, it can't be, I love my coal, I couldn't live without my petrol-guzzling car."<br /><br />Any or all of <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php" rel="nofollow">these dumb arguments</a>.<br /><br />If a paper has Christopher Monckton's name attached it should raise a big red flag. Look out for the rebuttals - and take note. Same goes for Willie Soon, David Legates and WIlliam M Briggs. Look also at the impact factor of the journal. Look to see if the same journal has published any reputable papers on the subject as well as the disreputable ones. <br /><br />Deniers like Monckton <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/anthony-watts-thinks-its-april-first-at.html" rel="nofollow">try to argue</a> that 3,896 is not 97.1% of 4014. They are wrong. It is.<br /><br />I don't blame you for not being able to assess the work itself, since from your comments you've made it very clear that you have no expertise in science or mathematics or arithmetic or any related discipline. However, one thing you can do is ask yourself why you have a preference for the tiny minority of papers. I do blame you for ignoring the experts and favouring known science deniers and contrarians. That signifies wilful ignorance and denial. It's wrong and you must know it.<br /><br />The bottom line is, since it's very obvious from your stream of comments that you know less than nothing about climate science, arithmetic or statistics, it would pay you to leave it up to the people who have devoted their adult life to studying these things. If you want to learn about climate then your time would be better spent learning about it, and not spent on denier blogs looking for reasons to reject 200 years of physics, chemistry and biology. Go get another hobby, like young earth creationism. Or join the flat earth society or the moon-landing truthers society, where you can find people who won't disagree with you.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10774227496420538902016-01-16T14:45:16.169+11:002016-01-16T14:45:16.169+11:00Mr Scholar wrote: >>have come to different c...Mr Scholar wrote: >>have come to different conclusions than the IPCC...<br /><br />That makes no sense. You'd have made more sense if you said authors of one paper found something different to authors of another paper on a particular topic. The IPCC would have presented both findings.<br /><br />I don't think you've read any of the IPCC reports, just as I don't think you've read much if any climate science. The IPCC reports present alternative findings where they exist, and present the science fairly as more conclusive or less conclusive.<br /><br />It's the most comprehensive collation of any science anywhere. Read one chapter of one the IPCC reports to get an eye-opener. Read the references and read the author list. You're piddly list of denier "publications" will then seem to you, well, piddly by comparison.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55012398291702974532016-01-16T14:37:07.525+11:002016-01-16T14:37:07.525+11:00I'll bet the last time Mr. Scholar's docto...I'll bet the last time Mr. Scholar's doctor told him he had a fever, he snapped back that he found a paper somewhere that told him he couldn't possibly have a fever. That he couldn't trust thermometers - just before he trotted into the fortune tellers tent to get an opinion he liked.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18903911486439165072016-01-16T14:33:58.238+11:002016-01-16T14:33:58.238+11:00Ok, I apologize for not using the correct terminol...Ok, I apologize for not using the correct terminology. I have come across those terms, and Dr. Pielke, Sr. has published over 300 papers and is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84068896084789449402016-01-16T12:49:05.327+11:002016-01-16T12:49:05.327+11:00Mr. Scholar...if you were a scholar you would know...Mr. Scholar...if you were a scholar you would know the proper term is "highly published" and/or "highly cited", not "highly credentialed" in any research field. <br /><br />There really are very few "credentials" in research fields.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29164693713918780412016-01-16T10:12:32.966+11:002016-01-16T10:12:32.966+11:00*them?
Also, peer-reviewed papers (some of which w...*them?<br />Also, peer-reviewed papers (some of which were in the comments you deleted) have come to different conclusions than the IPCC and have been ignored, in fact, the IPCC AR5 WG1 report (according to their search, which is very helpful) never once cites any paper authored by Dr. Sherwood Idso, and he has authored plenty of them.Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7425419107928428592016-01-16T10:09:08.964+11:002016-01-16T10:09:08.964+11:00Now Sou, that rebuttal to the joint academies repo...Now Sou, that rebuttal to the joint academies report was written by 13 credentialed scientists, 6 of whom I would say are well-qualified to speak about such a topic and the rest of whom have studied this issue extensively, if not always in the peer-reviewed literature. It was peer-reviewed, and you simply attack the people behind it! Why not address the report itself? How about that?<br /><br />I have checked the literature (though obviously not in total, that would be quite difficulte) and in fact I was looking through the recent PNAS articles and saw quite a few supporting alarmist arguments, though perhaps one or two supporting skeptic arguments. <br />Dr. Pielke, Sr. is highly credentialed and respected and I have every right to cite him. Why else would he be on the 2013 panel to update the AGU statement on climate change?<br />As for Monckton, though he has made some claims which are unsubstantiated, I can still cite his peer-reviewed papers. You have constantly attacked the people, not the arguments, which I cite. I do not simply dismiss the IPCC out of hand, but I told you that it has been criticized in the peer-reviewed literature 22 times. I gave you four papers-not one, not two, not three-but four papers, not just the paper with Monckton as an author. <br />I have never commented on Prison Planet, on WUWT I have complimented people like Nick Stokes and countered someone who you would consider a denier since I thought they were going too far in their characterizations of the likes of you. <br />If Monckton was that bad, why has he passed peer-review four times in two different journals? <br />Listen, I only cited the PAPERS from PopTech's list, ok? How about you read the papers and then criticize them, instead of attacking the person who compiled them.<br />I wish you wouldn't delete my comments, because those took a while to compile and now no one can even see them! <br />Anyway, will you answer my question I posed before in one of the deleted comments, about the Eos article?Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91884799516803764272016-01-16T01:04:52.610+11:002016-01-16T01:04:52.610+11:00ok, that's a shame
and Monkton!!! - you may ...ok, that's a shame <br /><br />and Monkton!!! - you may as well debate science with Kent Hovind<br /><br />and poptechnology, lol that guy gave me an amusing evening looking at his posts, he has been spouting crap over the internet since 2005 - it used to be about browsers!!<br /><br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16571838130536488202016-01-15T14:55:17.044+11:002016-01-15T14:55:17.044+11:00Comments were removed because Mr Scholar just dug ...Comments were removed because Mr Scholar just dug deeper into a tedious, wrong and long denier defense of his denial (citing such luminary science deniers and anti-science lobbyists as the GWPF and PopTechnology and then has the cheek to try to claim that he doesn't get his opinions from deniers! Huh?). <br /><br />He refuses to check the literature in total, and actively seeks out the <1% of papers by deniers and contrarians (eg citing Roger Pielke Sr and Christopher Monckton of all people!) He avoids science like the plague and doesn't trust the experts, dismissing the IPCC out of hand for heavens sake. He is either not capable of assessing work himself or lazy, dismissing Cook13 because Monckton - OMG. (Shades of <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/10/more-of-david-siegels-climate-lies-and.html" rel="nofollow">David Siegel</a>.)<br /><br />Mr Scholar - you are clearly on the wrong forum. Go back to WUWT or Prison Planet or Judith's place or whatever your favourite denier hangout it. This blog is to demolish disinformation not promote it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13984476088937282022016-01-15T14:18:13.333+11:002016-01-15T14:18:13.333+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68679181101863366472016-01-15T13:34:01.466+11:002016-01-15T13:34:01.466+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Alex Zeilstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162745398887819444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18068100359940175292016-01-15T05:50:17.998+11:002016-01-15T05:50:17.998+11:00LOl, yes I have seen that - and it has a large amo...LOl, yes I have seen that - and it has a large amount of truth in it <br /><br />in the same vein (more relevant to another thread on here though)<br /><br /><a href="https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physicists.png" rel="nofollow">The Problem with physicists, especially aging ones</a>Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.com