record low maximum arctic sea ice

OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
freddfish said:
Well, that was politely asked, and rates an honest and civil reply. Good deal.

The short answer is, quite simply, that I am unsure if I can provide you with that sort of data, as I have not done any searches for (your words) "peer reviewed research" in this area. And it must be pointed out... a previous attempt at this in an earlier post by another poster didn't meet your standards, so I am not sure what will satisfy you as a credible source.

With all due respect, I never doubted that the climate is changing... I believe it is.

What I have issues with are the notions that it is all man-made, or that mankind can somehow fix it, or that there can be no debate about it. (That's not objective research... It is mere zealotry)

I hope, if we are to go on with this discussion, we can do it in a civil and respectful fashion. I'm up for it.

Cheers!
Click to expand...


Hey fried fish, keep reading, he`s stuck to a door now...
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

Your blogger could basically say that a study says what ever he wants you to believe it says. Your link has zero value.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.
Click to expand...


No clown, that blogger isn`t stating anything. All of the studies mentioned have links to the study. You will clearly be able to read the peer reviewed studies mentioned.


Let`s see if it works....


Yup, they work.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

Your blogger could basically say that a study says what ever he wants you to believe it says. Your link has zero value.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.

Just one.
Click to expand...


Do you want me to take you off the door ?
 
freddfish

freddfish

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

I omit excess crap that is uninteresting, has no value to the discussion or if I just don't feel like it.

I'm not going to go through some blogger's list or trust a third party explication of the science.
Click to expand...
You omitted lines in my post,in order to change the meaning of what I posted. That hardly constitutes "excess crap". It is closer to lying. Closer, indeed, than I would care to be.

If you are not prepared to address points a poster makes in toto, then it is hardly us that have problems with free and open inquiry.

Is it " uninteresting " when someone posts content you don't like or agree with?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

Your blogger could basically say that a study says what ever he wants you to believe it says. Your link has zero value.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.

Just one.
Click to expand...
You were owned, in fact it has been a regular thing these past few months. You just think that if you ignore it, it will it away, but the half wiki page butthurt never goes away does it?
 
freddfish

freddfish

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

I omit excess crap that is uninteresting, has no value to the discussion or if I just don't feel like it.

I'm not going to go through some blogger's list or trust a third party explication of the science.
Click to expand...
So basically, despite your demands for "peer reviewed" data (around 3pages worth of demands...), any data that you don't like or that doesn't say what you agree with will be regarded as "excess crap" or "uninteresting" or "has no value to the discussion"

Interesting....
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No.

Your blogger could basically say that a study says what ever he wants you to believe it says. Your link has zero value.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer-reviewed research study which contradicts the vast majority of climate scientists.

Just one.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
The artic will have melted and the gulf stream cooled, and the same BS denial will be argued. Too much corporate profit to accommodate the truth.
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
The artic will have melted and the gulf stream cooled, and the same BS denial will be argued. Too much corporate profit to accommodate the truth.
Click to expand...

So this whole argument is simply about who is right or wrong?

What a waste of time.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Then that makes two of us.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were dueling with voices in your head.
Could you ask your other "self" if he could please present a piece of "peer reviewed literature" other than the IPCC report or abstracts, which you have read most recently and provides you with satisfactory evidence to your standards?

Just one...
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
All you cited was a magazine article.
Click to expand...
What?

I just clicked on that link and it's a compilation of links to everyone of those peer reviewed papers. All 1350 of them are linked, all 1350 of them are peer reviewed and all 1350 published. It's a long ass page.

Dude.....

here, check it again
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

You'd be better off claiming they all work for exxon than trying to claim it's just a magazine article with no links. Holy shit you got it bad.

You can read the comment section and many more published, peer reviewed papers are linked. Damn... Just one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top