Now its Global Cooling

[Junior]

 

 

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

 

 

Yep, that's a tough one. As is the fact that he remains unnamed, uncredentialed, and generally unverified as existing.

 

I guess I understand your skepticism as it relates to this...

And my answer is he is unnamed because I've tangentally brought him into this discussion without contacting him first. I don't think it's my province to name him (even though, if YOU, as you claim, can recite 5 others in the department) would certainly recognize him because of past achievements and public testimony on various factors in the last 20+ odd years. So, I understand your reticence and if you choose not to believe me, it's fine.

But be assured he is credentialed and fairly well known.

As to Carl trying to reconcile listening to a climatologist while disagreeing with other climatologists...........that is exactly my point. Not everyone agrees. Certainly not everyone is going to publicly disagree when there are grants to chase.

 

 

As a general rule, I do tend to disbelieve people who refuse to substantiate their claims with proper documentation. But then, I'm not a Fox News contributor. It's just the scientist in me, I guess.

[Comish]

 

 

 

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

 

 

Yep, that's a tough one. As is the fact that he remains unnamed, uncredentialed, and generally unverified as existing.

 

I guess I understand your skepticism as it relates to this...

And my answer is he is unnamed because I've tangentally brought him into this discussion without contacting him first. I don't think it's my province to name him (even though, if YOU, as you claim, can recite 5 others in the department) would certainly recognize him because of past achievements and public testimony on various factors in the last 20+ odd years. So, I understand your reticence and if you choose not to believe me, it's fine.

But be assured he is credentialed and fairly well known.

As to Carl trying to reconcile listening to a climatologist while disagreeing with other climatologists...........that is exactly my point. Not everyone agrees. Certainly not everyone is going to publicly disagree when there are grants to chase.

 

 

As a general rule, I do tend to disbelieve people who refuse to substantiate their claims with proper documentation. But then, I'm not a Fox News contributor. It's just the scientist in me, I guess.

 

Well, I tried to be respectful of your opinion in my response and explained that the lack of documentation was to protect him (when he is not willfully part of this discussion), and you chose to go snark with the ever present Fox News reference. Sadly, so typical of liberal elitism.

By the way, does your self proclaimed substantiation threshold extend to any serious questioning of our President's undocumented college transcripts, published papers, and somewhat murky past?

Or does that threshold only rear it's ivy head when a conflicting viewpoint is offered about anything daring to be sacrosanct about leftist imagery?

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

 

 

Yep, that's a tough one. As is the fact that he remains unnamed, uncredentialed, and generally unverified as existing.

 

I guess I understand your skepticism as it relates to this...

And my answer is he is unnamed because I've tangentally brought him into this discussion without contacting him first. I don't think it's my province to name him (even though, if YOU, as you claim, can recite 5 others in the department) would certainly recognize him because of past achievements and public testimony on various factors in the last 20+ odd years. So, I understand your reticence and if you choose not to believe me, it's fine.

But be assured he is credentialed and fairly well known.

As to Carl trying to reconcile listening to a climatologist while disagreeing with other climatologists...........that is exactly my point. Not everyone agrees. Certainly not everyone is going to publicly disagree when there are grants to chase.

 

 

As a general rule, I do tend to disbelieve people who refuse to substantiate their claims with proper documentation. But then, I'm not a Fox News contributor. It's just the scientist in me, I guess.

 

Well, I tried to be respectful of your opinion in my response and explained that the lack of documentation was to protect him (when he is not willfully part of this discussion), and you chose to go snark with the ever present Fox News reference. Sadly, so typical of liberal elitism.

By the way, does your self proclaimed substantiation threshold extend to any serious questioning of our President's undocumented college transcripts, published papers, and somewhat murky past?

Or does that threshold only rear it's ivy head when a conflicting viewpoint is offered about anything daring to be sacrosanct about leftist imagery?

 

 

HAHAHA This is fantastic. Honestly. Best. Post. Ever.

[Comish]

I guess we can assume then that your righteous "requiring substantiation" threshold is selectively enforced based solely on convenience and political correctness. Good to know.

[Junior]

I guess we can assume then that your righteous "requiring substantiation" threshold is selectively enforced based solely on convenience and political correctness. Good to know.

 

I've never asked for college transcripts from any political candidate. Do you require them from everyone or just Obama? Did you carefully read Romney's? No, you didn't because he didn't release his either. D'oh!

[Comish]

 

I guess we can assume then that your righteous "requiring substantiation" threshold is selectively enforced based solely on convenience and political correctness. Good to know.

 

I've never asked for college transcripts from any political candidate. Do you require them from everyone or just Obama? Did you carefully read Romney's? No, you didn't because he didn't release his either. D'oh!

 

Read carefully. I asked for your threshold. Not whether you personally asked....D'oh.

Does your threshold require any skepticism about one who claims unprecedented transparency and then moves on with the most opaque administration in history?

[Junior]

 

 

I guess we can assume then that your righteous "requiring substantiation" threshold is selectively enforced based solely on convenience and political correctness. Good to know.

 

I've never asked for college transcripts from any political candidate. Do you require them from everyone or just Obama? Did you carefully read Romney's? No, you didn't because he didn't release his either. D'oh!

 

Read carefully. I asked for your threshold. Not whether you personally asked....D'oh.

Does your threshold require any skepticism about one who claims unprecedented transparency and then moves on with the most opaque administration in history?

 

 

Sure... but I reserve that skepticism for things that warrant it. Not college transcripts, which you brought up. I ask people making specific claims to support those. If you say, "my buddy is a climatologist who has shown global warming is a farce", I fully expect you to provide evidence for that. If you say Obama didn't release his transcripts, I don't really give a sh#t. And I don't give a sh#t about Romney's transcripts either. Why the hell would a potential president's grade in general chemistry during his freshman year in college matter on his election 30 years later?

 

I do applaud you for waving your hands furiously enough to distract attention away from the global warming debate in which you were getting thoroughly destroyed in, though. Kudos on that one.

[Comish]

 

 

 

I guess we can assume then that your righteous "requiring substantiation" threshold is selectively enforced based solely on convenience and political correctness. Good to know.

 

I've never asked for college transcripts from any political candidate. Do you require them from everyone or just Obama? Did you carefully read Romney's? No, you didn't because he didn't release his either. D'oh!

 

Read carefully. I asked for your threshold. Not whether you personally asked....D'oh.

Does your threshold require any skepticism about one who claims unprecedented transparency and then moves on with the most opaque administration in history?

 

 

Sure... but I reserve that skepticism for things that warrant it. Not college transcripts, which you brought up. I ask people making specific claims to support those. If you say, "my buddy is a climatologist who has shown global warming is a farce", I fully expect you to provide evidence for that. If you say Obama didn't release his transcripts, I don't really give a sh#t. And I don't give a sh#t about Romney's transcripts either. Why the hell would a potential president's grade in general chemistry during his freshman year in college matter on his election 30 years later?

 

I do applaud you for waving your hands furiously enough to distract attention away from the global warming debate in which you were getting thoroughly destroyed in, though. Kudos on that one.

 

"I don't really give a sh#t. And I don't give a sh#t about Romney's transcripts either. Why the hell would a potential president's grade in general chemistry during his freshman year in college matter on his election 30 years later?"

Really? Nice deflection ! You know it's not about the grades, it's about his lack of transparency and about your selective need for substantiation. You require it for things that run counter to your beliefs and dismiss it as indifferent when it doesn't.

As for being destroyed. Nice claim. Nothing has happened in the last several hours of posts that could be labeled a victory; unless you confuse a handful of "me too's" as being proof of superiority.

Larger numbers have relevance in Greek wars and dodgeball but don't automatically portend a conclusive argument.

Never-the-less, it's been fun jousting with you and I'll bet we dialog again in the not-too- distant future.

[EbylHusker]

If the person you know has published, peer reviewed works refuting AGW, then please post which those are and in what journal. If they're published, they're out there anyway and there's no reason to hold that back. What a person says in interviews or on a personal basis is pretty much irrelevant when compared to their published works on a topic. So let's have the paper titles and journals they were published in.

[carlfense]

One of these I suppose: http://www.eas.unl.edu/people/faculty.php

[Comish]

If the person you know has published, peer reviewed works refuting AGW, then please post which those are and in what journal. If they're published, they're out there anyway and there's no reason to hold that back. What a person says in interviews or on a personal basis is pretty much irrelevant when compared to their published works on a topic. So let's have the paper titles and journals they were published in.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I was simultaneously responding to multiple posters for a while there), but I don't recall saying he is published on this topic. I believe I said he is a respected tenured member of the faculty and his degree and expertise is in the climatology area. And he has become the object of being a "denier" because of his beliefs.

If I gave the wrong inference, it was unintended.

And, again, I don't feel I should name him in this forum publicly since he is an unknowing subject.

Hopefully, that clears this up once and for all.

[carlfense]

"I don't really give a sh#t. And I don't give a sh#t about Romney's transcripts either. Why the hell would a potential president's grade in general chemistry during his freshman year in college matter on his election 30 years later?"

Really? Nice deflection !

Reference President Obama's college transcripts in a topic about climate change? Check!

Accuse another of deflection for not caring about President Obama's college transcripts in a topic about climate change? Check!

 

 

[knapplc]

Does he live in Canada?

[Junior]

"I don't really give a sh#t. And I don't give a sh#t about Romney's transcripts either. Why the hell would a potential president's grade in general chemistry during his freshman year in college matter on his election 30 years later?"

 

Really? Nice deflection ! You know it's not about the grades, it's about his lack of transparency and about your selective need for substantiation. You require it for things that run counter to your beliefs and dismiss it as indifferent when it doesn't.

As for being destroyed. Nice claim. Nothing has happened in the last several hours of posts that could be labeled a victory; unless you confuse a handful of "me too's" as being proof of superiority.

Larger numbers have relevance in Greek wars and dodgeball but don't automatically portend a conclusive argument.

Never-the-less, it's been fun jousting with you and I'll bet we dialog again in the not-too- distant future.

 

 

My lack of interest in the Obama's transcripts is a selective need substantiation? Selective how? I'm not particularly interested in any of the candidates undergraduate sociology grades. Republican or Democrat. So how is that selective at all?

 

If you want Obama to be more transparent about things, I'm with you. He hasn't met the transparency standard he set for himself when he was elected in 2008. His college transcripts are completely irrelevant to that discussion, and your fixation on them makes me think you are nothing more than a Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann level right-wing nutjob.

[carlfense]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I was simultaneously responding to multiple posters for a while there), but I don't recall saying he is published on this topic. I believe I said he is a respected tenured member of the faculty and his degree and expertise is in the climatology area.

 

. . . more valid than a PH.D in climatology.

This is getting interesting.