Grendel wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 10:44pm:

Another masterful contribution from beopuppy, our resident intellectual titan.

Which you would probably find comforting, but for the fact that you don't seem capable of either.

Would you care to explain what you found disingenous about my response Grendel?

I thought I was stating a pretty easily understood concept, that unless we are actual climate scientists, we all are investing our trust into the judgement of others, as to what is, and what is not credible.

I chose the oregon institute of science and medicine as an example of a source I do not trust, as it was a source that every single denialist who posts here has cited as their source of information on at least one occasion.
I then gave a link for a site which offers assessments on the value of information provided by sites, which was to show that I am not alone in questioning the validity of their right to be considered as serious contributors to the sum of human knowledge on climate change.

So can you please explain how that is disingenuous?

So are you saying that the these people from the oregon institute of science and medicine no longer have your full and unwavering support Grendel?

Are their humble tractor shed origins the cause of your abandonment of them, or the fact that they are inveterate shysters who are crazier than a hat full of puckered monkey rings?

You seem to treat them like the embarrasing family member that we all wish would have just stayed home, but it was not long ago that you, and other denialists were championing their noble work in saving mankind from those money grubbing scientists secretly meeting to plot the next dastardly step on their way to total world domination, (maniacal laughter optional).

I don't know, are there?
Perhaps you could name them, if you think there are relevant people I am neglecting.
You could also name a relevant contribution they have made in the field relating to climate science in say the last twenty years or so, which makes them eligible to be considered as having any expertise in the area they wish to comment.

So list these denialists experts for me please, and I will see what they have to say for themselves.

LOl

yeah right.

get back to us when you've done a complete census hey.

BTW...  link provided...  complete rubbish at any level.  GIGO.

Oh and Mozz thanks for proving me right about how disingenuous and biased you are. 

Grendel wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:


So the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (all seven of them) represents respectable and credible scientific authority, but Scientific American publishes "complete rubbish"? OK then.

I trust that you will hold the AGW counter opinions published in Scientific American in the same low regard? I doubt it.