no fd...  there is no debate because one side is in total denial.... and all they are capable of is reciting mantras and ad hom.

The argument also goes like this...  If I say something on my own...  it has to be backed up by scientific opinion...  if I back it up...  then it is denied because it is a dissenting opinion...  then I'm criticised for citing someone elses opinion and not my own...  which leads us back to... where we started.

hence there is no debate...  there is no point in trying to have one.

I'll respond to your cut and pasted argument in the course of time. It contains a sleight of hand technique  which tries to show that CO2 is only a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere etc...

Grendel - what it comes down to is that none of these comments are backed up by technical papers. You see scientists are quite jealous of their own discipline in science. To publish a paper, you need to be able to demonstrate quite rigorously that you know what you're talking about. Few of the public commentators, if any, could withstand that kind of critical attack.

If you want to publish in any branch of science, you need to go through a process of peer review. If you think I can be cutting at times, just think bigger - much bigger.

Think of the papal inquisition complete with thumbscrews, and maybe a few whips and a rack or two. In the peer review process, everything written in the paper is first assumed to be total BS.  The author is then called on to defend to questions raised during peer review. The point is, that if the author has something new, he can expect a journey to hell and back, but if he actually succeeds in backing up each of his points rigorously and all the numbers stack up, he will very quickly go from being an object of scorn to everybody's hero. It has nothing to do with personality, but everything to do with making a valid case that is bulletproof.

I coauthored a few research papers in my early years. I decided early on that research was too emotionally draining for me.  

These guys couldn't publish in reputable journals. They'd be knocked down after the first paragraph.

In fact the vast majority of your 'evidence' against AGW theory is nothing more than slightly more convoluted, but no less childish versions of "frost this morning, therefor no global warming".

yawn...  more personal rubbish?
haven't contradicted myself at all.
lies ain't gonna help you.

That's crap PJ. Grendel had been making similar absurd claims for ages. When he finally produced the actual evidence, it turned out it was based on only two data points separated by 12 months. He couldn't back up the 'cooling since 1998' claim or any of the other absurd claims.

Post the temperature plot then. Then you'll recognise the significant difference in the claims you made in your last two posts.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 2:19pm:


Grendel has already done so.