SkyHunter’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Actually science and politics are easy to separate. In politics perception is reality. It is very difficult to discern which side is right or wrong, since so much depends on ideology. This is why the deniers inject politics into AGW, then cry that the science is polluted by politics. It is an argumentative fallacy known as poisoning the well. Science is easy. The correct argument is supported by empirical evidence and can be demonstrated. Physics doesn't dither and gravity always wins!On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 1 week, 4 days ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Llogan, There is not one peer reviewed paleoclimate reconstruction that shows the MWP as globally warmer than today. The MBH98/99 is in the IPCC 4th assessment report. The NAS concluded that due to the sparsity of proxies, especially in the SH, that the claim of warmest in the last 1000 years was overstating the confidence level of the study. Since then, new and more robust reconstructions have confirmed that the last century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. They also applauded the study, being the first of it's kind, was a significant contribution to the scientific body of knowledge. ALL the reconstructions since have a hockey stick shape! Mann has released his code. The miner and his bean counter made a lot of noise about nothing. All that they accomplished, and what they intended to accomplish, was to create a lot of denier talking points not grounded in reality. The end result of all the hoopla was an even more robust study that confirms the conclusions of MBH98/99. But go ahead and spout off all the specious arguments surrounding the "controversy".On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 1 week, 6 days ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Uh... Boxer is the chair of the Environment and Public Works committee. The committee that has primary legislative authority on this issue.On What does recent Senate drama on the climate bill mean? Peak Boxer posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Llogan, The IPCC does not ignore water vapor. Water vapor accounts for ~65% of the greenhouse effect. Specific humidity is a function of temperature and is therefore a feedback, not a forcing. You cannot increase the amount of water vapor without increasing temperature. None of your statements, or the opinions of the scientists you quote are supported in the scientific literature. The Hockey stick was found to robust. Their were questions raised about the sparseness of proxies, which led the NAS to question the claim that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years. The Wegmon report questioned the statistical method used and found an error. Neither of which had a statistically significant effect on the results. Subsequent reconstructions have shown that MBH 98/99 was accurate and robust. Cherry picking specious arguments off the internet is not a part of the scientific method. Your website and booklet is a joke.On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Llogan, I have looked into every one of the claims you make... and found them to be baseless. Your argument is based on fallacies, distortions and outright lies. I am not going to waste my time refuting every specious claim you make on this comment thread. If you want to know why you are wrong, or think you can convince others with evidence from the refereed science journals try this forum. http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84 You have a political bias and are promoting that agenda. You will not be allowed to make appeals to authority, like citing the Oregon petition, nor will you be allowed to make reference to opinions. Science is not politics, so if you decide to join the conversation there remember to cite your sources (provide links) and make sure your sources are published in peer reviewed journals. AGW is based on sound physics. There is no debate about it in the scientific community. The open question is not whether atmospheric carbon dioxide increases temperature, that question was answered by John Tyndall in the 19th century. The open question is how much? You are not "sharing information", you are propagating disinformation. Bailsout, Chrichton writes fiction. HIs novel is fiction and bears no resemblence to reality. The scientific method is based on disbelief. Nothing in 100%, and every assumption is tested and challenged constantly.On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 25 Responses