quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I'm glad someone has finally caught on to what I was trying to do ;)

Some of us were even ahead of you. [8|]

I`m still waiting for proof of his assertions about the EU policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Well, to start you could supply the papers from which you got your graphs that supposedly support your points. In addition to that, any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce. No news pages, no articles, no conservative or liberal sites, real hard scientific research.

If you have trouble figuring out what you're looking for, an example would be something along the lines of this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x/abstract;jsessionid=71A8F7F125872E37DB90FD24950A3086.f03t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false


Except of course it won't be "drivel" because your almighty brain can clearly tell the difference XD

A good place to start looking would be google scholar, have fun ;)

http://scholar.google.ca

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

On a side note, I'm wondering how many climate change papers Phydeaux is currently wading through as we speak? You search up climate change and countless upon countless papers discuss the effects of climate change on various environments, or the economics of it, or the political and social aspects of it. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. Will he find a paper that supports his view? Maybe, but for every 1 paper he finds, 10 more probably exist that criticize said paper and debunk whatever misconceptions it has. The peer review process isn't perfect, and every once in a while, a piece of crap makes it's way through, but it doesn't usually take long for the journal and the scientists involved to see the mistakes that they have made. Tick tock Phydeaux, tick tock [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

On a side note, I'm wondering how many climate change papers Phydeaux is currently wading through as we speak? You search up climate change and countless upon countless papers discuss the effects of climate change on various environments, or the economics of it, or the political and social aspects of it. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. Will he find a paper that supports his view? Maybe, but for every 1 paper he finds, 10 more probably exist that criticize said paper and debunk whatever misconceptions it has. The peer review process isn't perfect, and every once in a while, a piece of crap makes it's way through, but it doesn't usually take long for the journal and the scientists involved to see the mistakes that they have made. Tick tock Phydeaux, tick tock [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

On a side note, I'm wondering how many climate change papers Phydeaux is currently wading through as we speak? You search up climate change and countless upon countless papers discuss the effects of climate change on various environments, or the economics of it, or the political and social aspects of it. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. Will he find a paper that supports his view? Maybe, but for every 1 paper he finds, 10 more probably exist that criticize said paper and debunk whatever misconceptions it has. The peer review process isn't perfect, and every once in a while, a piece of crap makes it's way through, but it doesn't usually take long for the journal and the scientists involved to see the mistakes that they have made. Tick tock Phydeaux, tick tock [;)]

It's not even close to 1 in 10. Last year out of 2200+ journal articles on climate last year only a single one rejected human causes for climate change.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-chart-makes-it-painfully-obvious-that-climate-deniers-are-ridiculous/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Pretty sure they want links bud, something you seem to have trouble supplying on these forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Pretty sure they want links bud, something you seem to have trouble supplying on these forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

FR

On a side note, I'm wondering how many climate change papers Phydeaux is currently wading through as we speak? You search up climate change and countless upon countless papers discuss the effects of climate change on various environments, or the economics of it, or the political and social aspects of it. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. Will he find a paper that supports his view? Maybe, but for every 1 paper he finds, 10 more probably exist that criticize said paper and debunk whatever misconceptions it has. The peer review process isn't perfect, and every once in a while, a piece of crap makes it's way through, but it doesn't usually take long for the journal and the scientists involved to see the mistakes that they have made. Tick tock Phydeaux, tick tock [;)]

It's not even close to 1 in 10. Last year out of 2200+ journal articles on climate last year only a single one rejected human causes for climate change.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-chart-makes-it-painfully-obvious-that-climate-deniers-are-ridiculous/

Snicker.
What did you think grist would say? Really? When I've already pointed you to a different site that has, you know over 10,000 papers that disagree with AGW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Who's weaselling out when you're the one complaining about one part of what I said? XD

You asked me what parameters were to exist in this search and I provided them in their entirety.

In that same post I said : "No news pages, no articles, no conservative or liberal sites, real hard scientific research." So no, I don't want it to be in some left wing "rag" as you call it, I explicitly asked that it isn't.

And as to what "proper" means, I answered that as well: "any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce. No news pages, no articles, no conservative or liberal sites, real hard scientific research."

Seriously man, how is this difficult? Unless of course...these papers don't actually exist. [;)]

Also, lets add that they be within the last decade, because you yourself have voiced issues with papers that haven't been recent. Sound good?

quote:


Ok. This is too good to pass up - not to win the argument, but the actual chance to educate a brainwashed lemming.

So lets set the terms.

What will meet your requirements of a peer reviewed paper? (Don't want to spend the effort to have you back out and say it doesn't qualify).

Just want you to formalize it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Btw Phydeaux, I'm taking a climate class right now. While climate change isn't the focus, it is something we are talking about. If there's any simple questions you want me to ask my prof, just let me know and I'll post the answers :)

quote:


I've said that even the IPCC and NASA have admitted that their modelling of absorption by CO2 is incorrect - and their model of aerosol contribution to global temperatures .. is wrong.