Slashdot: Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate

[Skadden]

I find it rather odd that he has been a member since 2007, has over 1,000 posts, and seems completely unaware of Peter's background as a scientist. Are we sure he isn't just trolling?

Oh, I 'm not trolling. And if Peter really does have a Ph. D in Biochem, he ought to be in full agreement with my statements on science. (I'd love to know where he got that degree.) I find it amusing that some people say "pwned" or what not for absolutely no reason. But hey, if that rocks your boat in your basement, more power to you. Anytime you think I'm ducking out, please be sure to PM to let me know.

But NO ONE here has done anything to adduce any evidence, Peter included, to show that there's anything but a supposed scientific consensus on this. This therefore becomes Trident gum logic, where some amorphous, unknown group of scientists agree upon AGW. If this were anything else, it would be more appropriate fare for Jesse Ventura's comically laughable series "Conspiracy Theory."

P.S. For those who were asking, and I'm putting it here to avoiding repeating myself on PMs, I have a double major in Biochem / Poli Sci and a law degree three years after I got that. I work at a major law firm and turned down an opportunity to put my Biochem degree to use in my law practice when declining a shot at patent law. Sorry, this might seem awfully forward, but I didn't want to keep blocking and copying responding to PMs.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 10:34 AM ----------

I understand that there are people that MIGHT make money from global warming regulations, but I'm curious, about do you have any evidence of anybody actually making much money (much less incredibile profits)?

And when did this start? Alexey has already pointed out, correctly, that global warming was already an issue among scientists in the 1970s, and the basic underlying research goes back 100 years.

Are you kidding? GE and its incestuous relationship with the Obama administration putting up all those wind farms and such. How about Goldman Sachs and the swarm of carbon credits they've herded? This hysteria has now become steeped in big money, and those now stuck in it aren't giving up this lie without a HUGE fight.

[Wrong Direction]

Are you kidding? GE and its incestuous relationship with the Obama administration putting up all those wind farms and such. How about Goldman Sachs and the swarm of carbon credits they've herded? This hysteria has now become steeped in big money, and those now stuck in it aren't giving up this lie without a HUGE fight.

Yeah, I think the pro-AGW folks are a lot more credible when they don't try to act like only one side has a financial incentive. I'm not denying the incentive from folks like oil companies, but there's incentives on both sides here. Everything from grants, to jobs for individuals, to corporate profits and CEO bonuses. The financial incentives are big, and growing.

[Skadden]

That was my point. Besides, if GW is really a problem, just get some of those fancy robots to change into a group of super-powerful planet air-conditioners or something.

How about those guys like Ed Begley practicing what he preaches. He's stated that he's seen people in Fiji living the consummate green life by residing in a hut with no electricity, cutting a hole in the hut over a river for use as a "toilet", and eschewing the modern fandangos to revel in some simple, idyllic existence. According to Ed, they're "really happy" and if they can do it, so can everyone else. Fine, Ed, and all you guys who claim such an affinity for all this, why not lead by example? We can always set you up in one of those huts and allow you to live out a favored life by living off the grid.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 10:59 AM ----------

Yeah, I think the pro-AGW folks are a lot more credible when they don't try to act like only one side has a financial incentive. I'm not denying the incentive from folks like oil companies, but there's incentives on both sides here. Everything from grants, to jobs for individuals, to corporate profits and CEO bonuses. The financial incentives are big, and growing.

And where did you EVER get that idea that about the pro-AGW folks, and this supposed superior credibility they have. This, like all other AGW stuff, is made up.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 11:02 AM ----------

Let's re-cap here . . . the 'consensus' argument, the only such argument the AGW folks have, can be summed up as follows:

And all those scientific groups? Well, we've got something right up the Trident gum alley too:

If you're willing to buy a 'consensus of experts argument' coupled with endorsements from organizations that have ( or impart some facade of) credibility, you're really ready to believe ANYTHING -- including why Trident should be your next gum purchase, unless of course, they don't offer you the flavor you like. Of course, "four out of five" [insert group, like teenagers] said they prefer Trident gum, and the ADA gave it seal of approval, so maybe you should buy Trident anyways, irrespective of flavor preference.

[PeterMP]

I have a genuine question about use of the word consensus in this regard.

Is the consensus that humans have an effect on AGW, or is the consensus that humans will cause the earth to warm to x degree (fill in the blank on what x degree means).

I mean, it's obviously easier to get people to agree to a broader definition like...humans have some effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, true or false? But that doesn't mean there's a consensus on the degree of the problem.

Maybe there is, so I'm asking.

Getting people to put a number on things is more difficult, but one of the things is that even people that have significant differences about the real effect agree the problem is serious and worthy of action.

Here's an example of a guy that thinks (or at least thought) the IPCC estimates for CO2 affects were off by a third, but he still thought the problem was pretty serious.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?317015-G-amp-M-The-Great-Global-Warming-Collapse&p=7285684&viewfull=1#post7285684

This is one of the things that actually came out of the climategate e-mails. There is an "extreme" group that generally think there are going to be massive changes pretty quickly. Then there are more moderates that don't things will be as bad (like Schwartz), but generally think there is enough risk that actions are prudent. And in the e-mails between the members of the extreme group, they make it clear they don't like the non-extreme group (the e-mails all came from the extreme group so we don't have any e-mails from no-extreme to non-extreme members).

[Baculus]

And where did you EVER get that idea that about the pro-AGW folks, and this supposed superior credibility they have. This, like all other AGW stuff, is made up.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

]Let's re-cap here . . . the 'consensus' argument, the such argument the AGW folks have, can be summed up as follows:

This sort of post is why people think right wingers are anti-science. Your response to decades of research and thousands of man and computer hours of climate modeling is that it's "made up," and you post a Trident gum advertising image as your rebuke.

It's too bad, though, that folks such as yourself actually vote with this sort of "Fox and Friends" mind-numbing attitude. "Hyuck, hyuck! All dem dumb scien-tists! Vote Palin, 2012!"

[PeterMP]

But NO ONE here has done anything to adduce any evidence, Peter included, to show that there's anything but a supposed scientific consensus on this. This therefore becomes Trident gum logic, where some amorphous, unknown group of scientists agree upon AGW. If this were anything else, it would be more appropriate fare for Jesse Ventura's comically laughable series "Conspiracy Theory."

I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Are you kidding? GE and its incestuous relationship with the Obama administration putting up all those wind farms and such. How about Goldman Sachs and the swarm of carbon credits they've herded? This hysteria has now become steeped in big money, and those now stuck in it aren't giving up this lie without a HUGE fight.

How much money has Goldman Sachs made off of their carbon credits?

How much money is GE making off of wind farms (isn't that similar to the oil industry, they are making energy)?

[Baculus]

Yeah, I think the pro-AGW folks are a lot more credible when they don't try to act like only one side has a financial incentive. I'm not denying the incentive from folks like oil companies, but there's incentives on both sides here. Everything from grants, to jobs for individuals, to corporate profits and CEO bonuses. The financial incentives are big, and growing.

Actually, the "pro-AGW" people, if that is the correct term to use, will willingly say that green technology has big profits. That is the entire point -- trying to spur investment into it. The difference, though, is that one side of the argument, the "anti-AGW" argument, again, if that is the correct term to use, is mostly driven by ideology and profit, NOT research, and NOT a concern for the well being of this planet.

The debate comes down to this: most scientists and the well-being of people vs. polluters and corporations.

[Skadden]

Getting people to put a number on things is more difficult, but one of the things is that even people that have significant differences about the real effect agree the problem is serious and worthy of action.

Here's an example of a guy that thinks (or at least thought) the IPCC estimates for CO2 affects were off by a third, but he still thought the problem was pretty serious.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?317015-G-amp-M-The-Great-Global-Warming-Collapse&p=7285684&viewfull=1#post7285684

This is one of the things that actually came out of the climategate e-mails. There is an "extreme" group that generally think there are going to be massive changes pretty quickly. Then there are more moderates that don't things will be as bad (like Schwartz), but generally think there is enough risk that actions are prudent. And in the e-mails between the members of the extreme group, they make it clear they don't like the non-extreme group (the e-mails all came from the extreme group so we don't have any e-mails from no-extreme to non-extreme members).

With all due respect to the IPCC, they're a joke. Not surprising when you consider that they're part of the UN. A lot of their conclusions are based on projections which fell flat on their face. If you want to know what's behind the UN's crackpot scheme in all of this, it's simply an old one: re-distribution of wealth.

The UN and other organizations have always contended that the US and five other 'polluter' nations pick up the bill for alleged global warming damage they've done to poorer countries. The US and five other countries would contribute $600 billion each (a total of about $1 trillion) so other countries can use the money to remedy AGW effects on its countries. I don't need to tell you how crackpot of a scheme this is, but suffice it to say that unless you're not keeping up with current events, we don't have $600 billion to throw around. And I'd love to see how some of these countries will actually spend that amount, some of whom are allied with good friends of ours like Hugo Chavez. In all, apart from the fraud that AGW supporters want to thrust upon us, their specific proposals for reform are, to put in a word, a joke.

[PeterMP]

With all due respect to the IPCC, they're a joke. Not surprising when you consider that they're part of the UN. A lot of their conclusions are based on projections which fell flat on their face.

How many is a lot?

What do you think of Arrehnius?

[Skadden]

I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

How much money has Goldman Sachs made off of their carbon credits?

How much money is GE making off of wind farms (isn't that similar to the oil industry, they are making energy)?

I've responded to that in prior posts, especially the IPCC angle. If you want to resort to reliance on the IPCC, go rely on a genetic engineer that's willing to use Lamarck as a resource. And GE and GS have made some money, though not the pot of gold they envision. They've primed themselves for this opportunity, and are awaiting payback. This is a concept known as "corporate statism" where big companies ally themselves with big government -- such as the meat packing big wigs did during the Depression -- to promulgate regulations that essentially provide a business environment where they'll thrive and the little guys disappear (the little guys being Jews under that Democratic icon FDR's rule). What then happens is the creation of the "discrete and insular minorities" noted by the Court's New Deal era Carolene Products case where you've got big corporations helping out the big government with campaign cash in exchange for more favorable regulations to make millions more so that they can again start the process of giving that to the government again.

[Baculus]

With all due respect to the IPCC, they're a joke. Not surprising when you consider that they're part of the UN. A lot of their conclusions are based on projections which fell flat on their face. If you want to know what's behind the UN's crackpot scheme in all of this, it's simply an old one: re-distribution of wealth.

Oh lord. Here come the cliches. "Socialism!"

That didn't take long, did it?

The UN and other organizations have always contended that the US and five other 'polluter' nations pick up the bill for alleged global warming damage they've done to poorer countries. The US and five other countries would contribute $600 billion each (a total of about $1 trillion) so other countries can use the money to remedy AGW effects on its countries. I don't need to tell you how crackpot of a scheme this is, but suffice it to say that unless you're not keeping up with current events, we don't have $600 billion to throw around. And I'd love to see how some of these countries will actually spend that amount, some of whom are allied with good friends of ours like Hugo Chavez. In all, apart from the fraud that AGW supporters want to thrust upon us, their specific proposals for reform are, to put in a word, a joke.

Uh, $600 billion x 5 is more than $1 trillion. BTW, did it ever occur to you to source your claims? Of course not, because that would be too "scientific." And the irony that you use the term "crackpot" . . .

We don't have $600 billion to throw around? Well, gee, maybe you should have shown such concern before the 2008 election, eh?

Sorry, but your pro-corporate, right-wing compatriots don't have the credibility to proclaim AGW as a "fraud." Proclaiming something doesn't make it so.

[Skadden]

How many is a lot?

What do you think of Arrehnius?

I don't have the exact figures since IPCC models get proven wrong every day and the so-called consensus witnesses more and more defectors daily. As for Arrhenius, I'll say he's got a okay general theory, but certainly not one that can be tested to determine that's it's an accepted fact like impact parameter in physics.

[Predicto]

Oh, I 'm not trolling. And if Peter really does have a Ph. D in Biochem, he ought to be in full agreement with my statements on science. (I'd love to know where he got that degree.)

You can't help yourself, can you?

I find it amusing that some people say "pwned" or what not for absolutely no reason. But hey, if that rocks your boat in your basement, more power to you. Anytime you think I'm ducking out, please be sure to PM to let me know.

In my basement, huh? Ok.

But NO ONE here has done anything to adduce any evidence, Peter included, to show that there's anything but a supposed scientific consensus on this. This therefore becomes Trident gum logic, where some amorphous, unknown group of scientists agree upon AGW. If this were anything else, it would be more appropriate fare for Jesse Ventura's comically laughable series "Conspiracy Theory."

You keep saying this, but it is just an empty talking point. There is no level of concensus that would satisfy you, since you already think you know "the truth." If you ignore all the evidence it is easy to claim anything you want.

P.S. For those who were asking, and I'm putting it here to avoiding repeating myself on PMs, I have a double major in Biochem / Poli Sci and a law degree three years after I got that. I work at a major law firm and turned down an opportunity to put my Biochem degree to use in my law practice when declining a shot at patent law. Sorry, this might seem awfully forward, but I didn't want to keep blocking and copying responding to PMs.

Big deal. Law degrees are a dime a dozen, and a good percentage of lawyers are as ignorant and politically biased as the rest of the population, yes, even at big law firms. You gain no special authority around here on matters of science by being a lawyer.

Are you kidding? GE and its incestuous relationship with the Obama administration putting up all those wind farms and such. How about Goldman Sachs and the swarm of carbon credits they've herded? This hysteria has now become steeped in big money, and those now stuck in it aren't giving up this lie without a HUGE fight.

The big money influx into the scientific research came when Exxon and company began funding researchers with the specific mandate of disproving global warming. When they couldn't do that, the mandate changed to casting doubt on the science and politicizing the issue so that people would oppose the science based on their political leanings alone. That has worked remarkably well, sad to say.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 09:34 AM ----------

I don't have the exact figures since IPCC models get proven wrong every day and the so-called consensus witnesses more and more defectors daily.

I guess this becomes true if you say it enough.

[PeterMP]

I've responded to that in prior posts, especially the IPCC angle. If you want to resort to reliance on the IPCC, go rely on a genetic engineer that's willing to use Lamarck as a resource. And GE and GS have made some money, though not the pot of gold they envision. They've primed themselves for this opportunity, and are awaiting payback.

You responded with some comment about nuclear winter, and I asked how is that at all relevant to what Arrehnius said. Do you want to explain how your comment makes any sense?

Or maybe they are just invesment hedges against investments made in the fossil fuel industry (but can we agree, they haven't made huge profits)?

I also still want to know, how much is a lot w/ respect to the IPCC predictions.

(Oh and just some info on Lemarck, depending on what your genetic enigneer is doing, you might be in really good shape:

http://www.laboratory-journal.com/science/life-sciences-biotech/how-mutational-and-epigenetic-changes-enable-adaptive-evolution)

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 12:43 PM ----------

I don't have the exact figures since IPCC models get proven wrong every day and the so-called consensus witnesses more and more defectors daily. As for Arrhenius, I'll say he's got a okay general theory, but certainly not one that can be tested to determine that's it's an accepted fact like impact parameter in physics.

Then you don't mind giving me an example of one that was proven wrong in the last two months. If they go down every day, then that shouldn't be to hard, right?

Okay, but it is some evidence, right? Before you said no evidence, and it comes from somebody working over 100 years ago. Well before the current politicization.

What sort of test would you consider "proof" that CO2 was causing warming in the real world?

[Skadden]

Oh lord. Here come the cliches. "Socialism!"

That didn't take long, did it?

Uh, $600 billion x 5 is more than $1 trillion. BTW, did it ever occur to you to source your claims? Of course not, because that would be too "scientific." And the irony that you use the term "crackpot" . . .

We don't have $600 billion to throw around? Well, gee, maybe you should have shown such concern before the 2008 election, eh?

Sorry, but your pro-corporate, right-wing compatriots don't have the credibility to proclaim AGW as a "fraud." Proclaiming something doesn't make it so.

Tsk tsk. The basic math thing is the only thing you got right, sir. It was $160 billion for six countries. My bad. If you want a source, this is one of them: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/climate_change/what_must_be_agreed/ (If you really did need a source, I'd question the depth of your knowledge on this issue.) And keep in mind that's it not $160 billion as a one-time payment, this is a YEARLY payment to support some idiotic concept of "North - South" sharing. But hey we've got $160 billion -- A YEAR -- to spare, right? And because six countries are involved in this, it's a trillion dollar YEARLY commitment taken from the global economy where that amount of money goes from the rich and to the poor.

And last time I checked, RICH --> POOR was socialism. Please right the ship for me on this if I'm wrong.

Also, you're a proponent of AGW, so prove it like any scientist would. You can't. Thus, it's a fraud.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 11:47 AM ----------

You can't help yourself, can you?

In my basement, huh? Ok.

You keep saying this, but it is just an empty talking point. There is no level of concensus that would satisfy you, since you already think you know "the truth." If you ignore all the evidence it is easy to claim anything you want.

Big deal. Law degrees are a dime a dozen, and a good percentage of lawyers are as ignorant and politically biased as the rest of the population, yes, even at big law firms. You gain no special authority around here on matters of science by being a lawyer.

The big money influx into the scientific research came when Exxon and company began funding researchers with the specific mandate of disproving global warming. When they couldn't do that, the mandate changed to casting doubt on the science and politicizing the issue so that people would oppose the science based on their political leanings alone. That has worked remarkably well, sad to say.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 09:34 AM ----------

I guess this becomes true if you say it enough.

Well, Predicto, I'd say that you read the rest of my posts for a rebuttal on these points. If you'd like a specific one, I'm all ears. And, oh yeah, the Trident sales staff wants to talk to you.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 11:56 AM ----------

You have no idea what you're talking about.

This sort of post is why people think right wingers are anti-science. Your response to decades of research and thousands of man and computer hours of climate modeling is that it's "made up," and you post a Trident gum advertising image as your rebuke.

It's too bad, though, that folks such as yourself actually vote with this sort of "Fox and Friends" mind-numbing attitude. "Hyuck, hyuck! All dem dumb scien-tists! Vote Palin, 2012!"

I certainly know more about what I'm talking about than you. My calls for evidence and proof end up with rhetoric. And anti-science? Maybe Peter, who appears to be from SF can tell you, I learned and lived science from some pretty reputable people while at Berkeley like Nobel Prize winners / A-bomb scientists Glenn Seaborg and Owen Chamberlain. I'm all for science, but AGW isn't science in the least. The fact that Baculus says that AGW is science doesn't make it so.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 12:01 PM ----------

You responded with some comment about nuclear winter, and I asked how is that at all relevant to what Arrehnius said. Do you want to explain how your comment makes any sense?

Or maybe they are just invesment hedges against investments made in the fossil fuel industry (but can we agree, they haven't made huge profits)?

I also still want to know, how much is a lot w/ respect to the IPCC predictions.

(Oh and just some info on Lemarck, depending on what your genetic enigneer is doing, you might be in really good shape:

http://www.laboratory-journal.com/science/life-sciences-biotech/how-mutational-and-epigenetic-changes-enable-adaptive-evolution)

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 12:43 PM ----------

Then you don't mind giving me an example of one that was proven wrong in the last two months. If they go down every day, then that shouldn't be to hard, right?

Okay, but it is some evidence, right? Before you said no evidence, and it comes from somebody working over 100 years ago. Well before the current politicization.

What sort of test would you consider "proof" that CO2 was causing warming in the real world?

My point about nuclear winter was that any type of buffer will cause some effect on Earth. Whether it be CO2 or nuclear fallout, some type of consequence will result. That's not the (only) issue. The issue is HOW the CO2 got there. NO ONE has provided science worthy proof of any of this. At most, they rely on a ****ized theory lawyers call "res ipsa loquitur." If the CO2 is up there and causing climate change, well it HAS to be humans doing so.

As for proof, that's kind of asking how I'd prove a certain case. That really depends, but it should be, as you know, for scientific purposes, put in a testable format. If we could determine things like Absolute Zero and confirm the existence of a number of transuranium elements on the Periodic Table, some scientifically provable format for AGW should have been available a LONG time ago. I respect the Ph. D you have, and I submit that you ought to know this very, very well.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 12:15 PM ----------

Oh and Baculus, try reading that piece from Alexander ****burn I cited previously. Is that someone who's some talking head for Fox News?

As for Baculus and others, another great read from Christopher Horner (who I think may have worked at IPCC):http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/B005EP2A18/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2/184-8113199-5541316

[Wrong Direction]

Actually, the "pro-AGW" people, if that is the correct term to use, will willingly say that green technology has big profits. That is the entire point -- trying to spur investment into it. The difference, though, is that one side of the argument, the "anti-AGW" argument, again, if that is the correct term to use, is mostly driven by ideology and profit, NOT research, and NOT a concern for the well being of this planet.

The debate comes down to this: most scientists and the well-being of people vs. polluters and corporations.

There have been any number of lobbies on the side of doing the right thing over the years. In time, they become an industry unto themselves. Generally, I can agree that one side (scientists) is more into saving the environment than the other side (oil). However, to act like all of both sides fits nicely into a stereotype is just silly. People will support a lot of things to support their own livlihood. How many people in Texas are still supporting wind farms despite their failure when needed most (hottest days = less wind, generally)? I'm only arguing that it's not as black and white as you and others want to portray it to be.

[TimmySmith]

Larry, based upon some posts you've made today I suspect you have not taken your pill.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

[Predicto]

Peter is a Republican, and has never voted for a Democrat for national office. Throwing around the "you must be from SF" nonsense isn't getting you anywhere either.

You are just ladeling out the talking point soup, spiced with insults and Trident gum. It's not very compelling.

[Wrong Direction]

Peter is a Republican, and has never voted for a Democrat for national office.

Let's be honest, that is changing.

[Skadden]

Peter is a Republican, and has never voted for a Democrat for national office. Throwing around the "you must be from SF" nonsense isn't getting you anywhere either.

You are just ladeling out the talking point soup, spiced with insults and Trident gum. It's not very compelling.

Read my post again about the San Francisco thing. And if I'm ladling out things from a talking point soup, I'd shudder to think what you're doing. By the way, as noted in a new thread on this issue, http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?352680-Financial-Post-Science-Getting-Settled-%28Convincing-Evidence-That-Global-Warming-Caused-By-Sun-Not-Humans%29&p=8492579#post8492579, an article published last Friday.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...e-now-settled/

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

I hope the basement printer still works.

[Predicto]

Let's be honest, that is changing.

And threads like this are the exact reason why.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 10:38 AM ----------

I hope the basement printer still works.

Guess what. I am an attorney too. One who went to a top law school and blah blah blah just like you.

Unlike you, I was smart enough to get out of the big law firm racket before it ate my soul.

[Wrong Direction]

And threads like this are the exact reason why.

IDK. I'm not a Republican because of things like AGW. I'm one because of issues like Social Security and Medicare, and Peter argues (particularly on the latter) for Dem positions regularly. He's entitled of course, but trying to pass him off as a Republican is disengenious, IMO.

[Skadden]

And threads like this are the exact reason why.

---------- Post added August-31st-2011 at 10:38 AM ----------

Guess what. I am an attorney too. One who went to a top law school and blah blah blah just like you.

Unlike you, I was smart enough to get out of the big law firm racket before it ate my soul.

Well Predicto, then act like one who can reason and understand things like burdens of proof.

[Predicto]

IDK. I'm not a Republican because of things like AGW. I'm one because of issues like Social Security and Medicare, and Peter argues (particularly on the latter) for Dem positions regularly. He's entitled of course, but trying to pass him off as a Republican is disengenious, IMO.

No, it isn't. Look, I didn't make that assertion out of the blue. It was in response to Skadden's ridiculous assertions about Peter, first that Peter knew nothing about science, later that Peter must have gotten his PhD from some diploma mill, and then finally that Peter was some sort of a wild eyed San Francisco leftist. All of that is total crap, and a trolling way to discuss any issue. It deserved to be refuted.

(besides, I'm the only wild eyed San Francisco leftist on this board, and I'm not giving up my title to anyone....)

[Skadden]

No, it isn't. Look, I didn't make that assertion out of the blue. It was in response to Skadden's ridiculous assertions about Peter, first that Peter knew nothing about science, later that Peter must have gotten his PhD from some diploma mill, and then finally that Peter was some sort of a wild eyed San Francisco leftist. All of that is total crap, and a trolling way to discuss any issue. It deserved to be refuted.

(besides, I'm the only wild eyed San Francisco leftist on this board, and I'm not giving up my title to anyone....)

On that SF thing, I thought that was Peter! My bad on that, but I thought that because he was from SF, he'd know something about Berkeley. And the other stuff is tongue-in-cheek. LOL. Too much time in the basement will do that to you.

And, Predicto, other than factually incorrect assertions and namecalling, do you have any legit responses to the FP article and it's Inconvenient Truth:

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

As to self-proclaimed climate experts that you previously mentioned, it's a good thing that your High Priest of AGW Knowledge, Al Gore, is not someone like that.