Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, the 831 wrote & endorsed. Check. "Disputed by none?" Again misleading. Scientists who disagreed but believed they weren't being heard LEFT the IPCC rather than being ignored. You know this but left it out.

I'm not pretending to be objective. I'm making an effort at a modicum of objectivity. Do you understand the difference?

Name one scientific body ( not an individual scientist ) that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. There are individual scientists, like Spencer, who dispute evolution; but that the overwhelming community of biologists, zoologists, etc. affirm natural selection.

I did NOT ignore scientists who have left the IPCC or other scientific bodies. I have read the Wiki list on numerous occasions and I provided a link to a video that includes Ivar Giaever's explanation why he left the APS.

You "modicum of objectivity" still includes a paucity of evidence.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I haven't ignored anything, most particularly your manipulations & misrepresentations, the rationale for which escape me since the weight of the evidence favors your position. I fully understand that the Cook "methodology" doesn't result in the "consensus" of scientific opinion that you and your biased sources of information -- upon which you exclusively rely -- have been propagating for years. Your failure to explain what I missed in the "data" or the "methodology" speaks for itself.

Your attempts to transfer responsibility onto me for your own lack of due diligence are transparent and asinine. You are simply motivated by partisanship and ego, and not the science you profess such loyalty to.

Wow, nice personal attack.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't have a "position," other than the ones I've stated from the get-go, and in my view they cannot involve taking a position on one of the several scientific theories because I'm not a scientist.

You do so have a position - chin-stroking inaction. Just not enough scientific support for it. The point of subject matter experts is to investigate and advise. We have the responsibility to receive and consider their input, and then to act where warranted. If you want inaction, just own it. Stop attacking the messengers and the system.

And I don't generally question the credibility of the scientists themselves, so you should stop suggesting this.

Yes, generally your attacks are on the institutions, the frameworks, the processes. But you were all over that one and her research on olfactory impairment in fish, weren't you?

You should also stop inviting ridicule by suggesting Spencer is the only skeptic when his is one of a myriad of different views that question various aspects of the dominant theory. In my view he simply articulates them well and is outspoken, and so is frequently cited. That this bothers you is not my problem.

Your admonition to listen to other voices and viewpoints rings hollow if you won't do it yourself.

I fail to see how this is going to achieve the public consensus needed for responsible & conscientious policies.

Good thing that I'm not trying to do that, then.

It's even harder in the face of a concerted partisan campaign and all the willing acolytes who disseminate it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Name one scientific body ( not an individual scientist ) that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. There are individual scientists, like Spencer, who dispute evolution; but that the overwhelming community of biologists, zoologists, etc. affirm natural selection.

I did NOT ignore scientists who have left the IPCC or other scientific bodies. I have read the Wiki list on numerous occasions and I provided a link to a video that includes Ivar Giaever's explanation why he left the APS.

You "modicum of objectivity" still includes a paucity of evidence.

I will get slammed for this by the obvious bias against people that don't bend knee to the IPCC.
https://climatechangeconferences.com/
https://www.heartland.org/


Show us one that doesn't have connections to the IPCC's web of lies .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Name one scientific body ( not an individual scientist ) that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. There are individual scientists, like Spencer, who dispute evolution; but that the overwhelming community of biologists, zoologists, etc. affirm natural selection.

I did NOT ignore scientists who have left the IPCC or other scientific bodies. I have read the Wiki list on numerous occasions and I provided a link to a video that includes Ivar Giaever's explanation why he left the APS.

You "modicum of objectivity" still includes a paucity of evidence.

Evidence of what?? Scientific bodies don't determine the opinions of scientists -- scientists do. Or are you trying to say that all of the 81 skeptics you head counted aren't employed by scientific institutions? What exactly are you (and L-E) trying to show by citing all these scientific bodies who are supposedly in lockstep with the IPCC? We already know where the weight of the evidence lies and I don't deny it supports that proposition, but does it also necessarily render all the skeptics wrong?

When you claim that no scientists dispute the IPCC conclusion, are you referring to the 831 who endorse it? I hope not! Which scientists are you referring to then? By leaving it open it implies that NO scientists dispute it, which of course is not true. "Evidence" exists to support forthright discussion, not to supplant it. You seem to think that the mere citation of evidence alone gives your arguments credibility. Unless your arguments are themselves persuasive, it doesn't.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wow, nice personal attack.

Ignorant, intellectually lazy, STFU. Pass the ice cream?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

When you claim that no scientists dispute the IPCC conclusion,

I made no such claim.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You do so have a position - chin-stroking inaction. Just not enough scientific support for it. The point of subject matter experts is to investigate and advise. We have the responsibility to receive and consider their input, and then to act where warranted. If you want inaction, just own it. Stop attacking the messengers and the system.



Yes, generally your attacks are on the institutions, the frameworks, the processes. But you were all over that one and her research on olfactory impairment in fish, weren't you?



Your admonition to listen to other voices and viewpoints rings hollow if you won't do it yourself.



Good thing that I'm not trying to do that, then.

It's even harder in the face of a concerted partisan campaign and all the willing acolytes who disseminate it.

My anchor holds better than yours, my keel is superior, water-cooled marine refrigeration is more efficient than air-cooled. Get used to it and get over yourself.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There are individual scientists, like Spencer, who dispute evolution; but that the overwhelming community of biologists, zoologists, etc. affirm natural selection. .

love how you put that dig in against Spencer solely based on his religious beliefs .
But earlier in the thread you invoked that same religious stuff to malign me specifically without violating the rules of the forum .

What areyou you trying to imply about Dr Roy Spencer ?

Personal attacks??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I made no such claim.

actually technically correct you instead claimed no scientific body did .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

My anchor holds better than yours, my keel is superior, water-cooled marine refrigeration is more efficient than air-cooled. Get used to it and get over yourself.

properly sized air cooled refrigeration is better than water cooled :-):-):-):-)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The 831 WROTE AR5. The IPCC findings are specifically ENDORSED by nearly 200 scientific bodies, and DISPUTED by none.

Originally Posted by Exile

When you claim that no scientists dispute the IPCC conclusion,

Originally Posted by jackdale

I made no such claim.

Ah yes, you merely implied it by suggesting that all scientific bodies represent the opinions of all scientists. Probably just my intellectual laziness again. This sort of misleading rhetoric is right out of the pages of Skeptical Science.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

My anchor holds better than yours, my keel is superior, water-cooled marine refrigeration is more efficient than air-cooled. Get used to it and get over yourself.

my keel is superior to yours :-):-) I'm fully encapsulated no keel bolts

[newhaul]

Hey at least the last couple are actually sailing related

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

love how you put that dig in against Spencer solely based on his religious beliefs .
But earlier in the thread you invoked that same religious stuff to malign me specifically without violating the rules of the forum .

What areyou you trying to imply about Dr Roy Spencer ?

Personal attacks??

Only because he can't responsibly attack Spencer's opinions. A page out of the "play the man not the ball" playbook. We read it recently from L-E too.