Wild Cobra

I focus on the semantics that are imprtant. I am really getting sick of all this nonsense you spout. I say what I mean, and you argue every point. Why can you accept it when I elaborate? You are the one derailing the discussion, and I have just about had it with this lame tactic you use.

What deception have I used? Please elaborate. I'm not asking you to blindly accept anything I say. I'm asking you to read, understand, and decide for yourself instead of appealing to what the authority of what consensus says.

I would ask why do you all have your panties in a bunch over it. You guys fail to accept anything I say. I elaborate, and all you do is hound me over and over. Get over it.

And just exactly what context did I bring it up? Did I say this paper represented the truth? Please. Show me what I said that was wrong. Your assumptions are not my problem, so please stop trying to make them my problem.

I'm going by what was written, not your inaccurate paraphrasing: No mention of the other feedback. Granted, the link said otherwise, but I was resonding to what was written in the original post.

It might not be accurate or true, but just because it is a "vanity publication" doesn't make bad or wrong either. That is where your logocal fallacy arises. Automatically assuming it to be bad, unworthy, etc. I don't know about you, but I don't care much for such elitist attitudes. I didn't miss what you said. I disagree with the unuendo of "possible" being classed as bad as others. I see this as an excuse to deny another scintist his veiwpoint. There are papers that are extreme in their values. As for this one, I like his detail and different approach to modeling. It would take to much space and time to defend it, and I shouildn't have to. If I were to critisize it, it would be because of merit. Not elitism. I find it laughable that there is no valid critism over the paper, onlly logical fallacies. I need not defend it at all over such fallacies.

Just because it is a pay to publish site does not mean it is illegitimate. I did search. I only found it listed among journals that included “possibly.” I linked that, and you have not shown me any evidence to believe otherwise. Please stop construing “possible” to “is.” It hurts your reputation. Please… Words have meaning. I can construe your words as a lie when you say I am “claiming this is a legitimate source.” I didn’t go that far in its defense, I only said there is no proof it isn’t legitimate. To take the side that it is automatically worthless is denying real science in my opinion. You are denying other possible facts. Words have meaning! Please keep up. There you go misrepresenting what I said AGAIN! I never said the 50 pages was why. I said "what if," and it was one of a few possibilities I was pointing out. Again, you are taking the polar opposite and misconstruing my words. I offered it as another study, and one I agree with because I long ago decided 0.55 degrees was the most I could account for, for a doubling of CO2. I am open to the idea that it is wrong, but you are so polarized here, I find myself defending something I shouldn't have to. For a forum that moderators keep calling skeptics on "logical fallacies," how is it you get away with it? Possible questionable... = wrong... My God! What if it is valid? You are just flat out dismissing it. I call that being a denier of real science. Many of here you fully supporting the AGW consensus do nothing but find real poor reasons to attack the paper, author, etc. I find that appalling.

How accurate is the claim of publication putting them on a blacklist, and what evidence did they offer? I hope you aren't simply appealing to authority without verification, of what could be an unwarranted attck. Trust but verify... Was that the Nature link offered earlier? Are you speaking of this? http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Hmmm.... Potential, possible, probable... That's real solid! Have anything that has solid information showing science Online as a bad self publishing publisher? How about some evidence specific to the publisher if you are going to make such allegations, otherwise it can be viewed as slander! Am I wrong, or is all this questionable hype traced and caused by one man. A librarian named Jeffrey Beall?

I'd like to go back to the graph I inserted in post #6 and explained in post #21. I didn't see any feedback as to if any of you believe Ch4 is a stronger or weaker greenhouse gas than CO2 like I contend. Am I correct to assume nobody can point out errors of say over +/- 20%? Based on my explanation of the IPCC material and graph, do any of you think the premise of the OP is plausible? From a 4-5 degree increase, can we really expect methane will take us to the 12 degrees? Are you going to take at face value, what a philosopher says? I guess it goes to asking: does anyone think my graph is far enough off for methane to add that much forcing? I don't like to point out lack of credentials here like many of you seem to enjoy, because so many times, people learn fields very well without the degrees or formal schooling. However... The credentials I looked at puts him at a staff writer, and his secondary education is philosophy. I will assume what he says is based on linear projections of RE and/or GWP elements of the climate science material rather than log curve projections. Right or wrong, that is my assumption, and why I have stated before I believe the IPCC created these terms to induce such implied results. http://grist.org/author/david-roberts/ http://grist.org/about/staff-bios/ He refers to the International Energy Agency statement made by a chief economist. Again not an expert. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/world-on-track-for-nearly-11-degree-temperature-rise-energy-expert-says/2011/11/28/gIQAi0lM6N_story.html I will contend the IPCC is real good at influencing policy makers and others without a science background by their use of RE and GWP numbers. It is easy for people to assume CH4 is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 just because of its instantaneous slope on the curve. Also, can anyone explain this to me: I don't think I have express the thermal lag from the sun much, if any, in any thread here, but for more than a decade, every time I expressed the thermal inertia of the oceans cause by solar changes, I was laughed at. Now, starting this year, I'm seeing scientists are starting to use this 50 to 100 lag that David Roberts claimed for greenhouse gasses. OK, why not solar as well? I would like to elaborate more, but due to the stringent standards of sourcing here, I don’t have the proper time to do such quality. I will ask that if anyone thinks I am in error, or that I may have misstated something, please ask me to elaborate rather than attack. Can we keep this a discussion rather than attacking the message, material, etc?

OK so my termonology is incorrect. However, understanding the interactions between photons and matter at specific spectra still applies, right? "May be" is one thing. It's coming across that they are. I don't recall anyone saying it "might" or "may" be tainted because of where it was published. The claim of this publisher was clearly seen to me as being attacked.

Arte. You are assuming I don't look things up. Please don't assume anything with me, besides, doesn't your claim fall under "poisoning the well?" Do you think Nature would use 50 pages of it's magazine to accept the article? have you ever read their publication submission criteria? Damn. I said I was done, yet what do I do.

Yes, but a brain surgeon doesn't specialize in the underlying medicine of metabolic functions. The physics specific to how photons interact with matter is the science behind greenhouse gasses. I'm going to leave it at that. I am resigned to leaving it to agree to disagree.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "atomic and laser physics" a branch of particle physics? Here is his bio: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-7451 I have a difficulty with German, but there were several links at the university he studied at when I searched 'atomic and laser physics' Another university link has this about that course with that title: http://www.mark-fox.staff.shef.ac.uk/PHY332/ Oxford says this about that title: http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/atomic-and-laser-physics It is obvious to me that his field of study is far more in depth for leaning spectral interactions with molecules than what is required to get a degree in climatology. Ever look at those courses?

---oops---

That is not known with absolute certainty. What would today’s temperatures look like 1000 years from now using a 300 year average proxy, or even 100 year average proxy? The problem is mixing thermometer and proxy data. I doubt this is done with any good reliability.

Yep. Because of the proxy averaging times, we cannot compare them to temperatures of the last few decades and say today is hotter.

I am not directing this comment at you. You at least asked for elaboration of the graph I made. You are probably the most intelligent of those I dealt with so far in this forum. There are those who only accuse and don't ask for clarification. That said, you have infuriated me in not accepting my clarification dealing with the 2 degrees, and the word "significant." I'm speaking in general, of others here. Those who always find some attack angle against us labeled as skeptics or deniers, and the sources we use. Isn’t discussion better than blowing something off for an unrelated reason? Am I wrong to call such reasons a logical fallacy? OK, the poisoning the well idea I didn't consider on my part. It is a derogatory term I will try to lose in this forum. Am I wrong to say that the wording most climate authors are using could be less ambiguous? I feel alarmist is a correct term to apply to many of these authors when they use so many weasel words in papers. This forum has stricter rules than the others I have participated in. This is a good think in many ways, and I will try to do better. I have my own opinions on the evolution debate, but I disagree with this being similar, and will not address them here. I disagree because we have better sciences to deal with the climate science, and nobody outside of joking is claiming a higher intelligence is in play. I am at a loss as to that graph you pointed out as not being in Gore’s movie. I do my best not to use anything from someone who can be claimed to be a crackpot. When others cite Watts, or any other blog, I search for the source material and make my own conclusions. I agree there are several people I come across who are no better at bringing good information to the table as so many of those I disagree with. I do see the fringe, and every now and then I point out to someone who agrees with my views, that they presented poor information. I just figure that with all the others debating against someone I agree with, that I will only do so in the more blatant instances of poor sourcing. I agree it should at least raise eyebrows when someone who has no credentials in a field, criticizes it. However, like that 50 page paper I linked being dismissed as a “vanity” publication, this is being dismissed also because he isn’t a climatologist. He does however have credentials better than all but a few climatologists when it comes to analyzing particle physics, which greenhouse gasses act under. How many climatologists do you think fully understand what he brings to the table? Were they particle physics experts? One of the criticisms I found was it was a simple two layer model. What is it when one layer has over 200 sub layers? Is it still just a simple 2 layer model? Another was he didn’t follow the right formula, but what he did was add more variables to the formula. I see these as rather stupid reasons to claim the paper invalid. As for publishing it like he did, are you considering all possibilities, or just jumping to one conclusion? What if he didn’t want it behind a paywall? What if Nature, or the likes, with their selection process would never entertain a paper that defies consensus? Maybe he tried that angle first? Was his paper a year earlier done at a vanity publisher? I assume you will say yes. However, look at his past works too: http://www.hindawi.com/16572439/ Have you ever read the selection process Nature uses? I assume other climate oriented publications are similar. When you read between the lines, they in effect publish papers that their subscribers are willing to pay for. I can find the link if you like, but for now I’m not taking that time. Just ask if you want me to find it, or go to Nature yourself and look for it. That said, I do have a paid subscription to Nature Climate Change, so none of those articles are paywalled to me. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html

I disagree that the climate sciences are being treated like other fields of science. I have expressed why several times already. Just look at how people are attacking the credibility of anyone who disagrees with consensus. Have you read the paper claiming the 0.43 degree sensitivity, or are you just blowing it off because of the dismissals like "it's a vanity publication."

I hope nobody minds if I read and respond to some older threads. I haven't read this yet, but will. When you don't have a subscription, you can often find articles without the paywall if you search the doi number. I searched DOI: 10.1126/science.1252595 and found the full article: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/Koren%20invigoration.pdf

This should have read: If the science was settled, there would not be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

Whatever. I suppose that keeps you from any critical attempt to view the paper. Looks like logiocal fallacy is working...

Well, when I made that graph, I used the AR4 values. The current values in Wikipedia are probably AR5 values, the lastest assessment report. I've been meaning to update the graph, but sometines I have a hard time finding those round-tuits. Here is a similary graphic from the AR4, I added only the green ovals: I'm using available matterial blessed by consensus. H2O is the largest greenhouse gas contributer. I will throw a ballpark guess that it contributes to about 24 degrees of the greenhouse effect, CO2 about 6, and other gasses the remaining 3 degrees. That however is based on an approximate 33 degree greenhouse effect, which I have a different viewpoint on. I will probably bring that up spomething, but not now. Not relavant to this discussion. Correct. Somehow I missed putting the value "5" in as I intended. I will edit if edit time isn't expired when done here. Gore used that graph, though now you have me questioning my certainty on it. I have An Inconvienet Truth, and I am watching it now. I suspect I clipped a graph Exchenbach used talking about Gore's material. I don't think I'm wrong. I'm sure Gore used it, but I will verify. You mean mol, right? I will not disagre with you since I'm only guessing myself. Edit add: This is interesting. I can't find the graphic. I am certain I saw it those years ago. When an Inconvienent Truth first came out, I had a copy of it. It had a scene that the recent version I bought doesn't. I think this chart was a cut scene. The original movie was 100 minutes according to IMDB. The one I recently purchased to replace my first edition copy is only 96 minutes. I would like to show that graphic was there, but I can't. It is possible I was wrong, but I relly don't think so. Help please. Any one have a first edition of the movie?

Can you prove that beyond douubt? If so, please do! If the science was settled, there would now be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

I didn't respond to those posts those months back, did I? I resonded specifically regarding high latitudes and 2 degress. No context of mortaility to what I responded to. My first post in this thread was #344, and I did not read about 340 posts before it as I am new. I read the OP, and responded. It was clarified what I responded to, yet you just will not let go with what I see as becoming relentless personal attacks. Do I need to involve a moderator? I find it extremely insulting that you continue to say I laughed at death. I did not. Cease and desist!

Except this part: I was laughing at the less hospitable / less livable. Not any part to do with death.