“sunsettommy – how about making some sense? Your drivel offers no justification for quoting think tanks instead of journal articles.”

ROFLMAO!

You simply walked right into my fist.Are you really that dumb?

Here is what I was asking YOU to do…. several times.

“It is revealing that you use the path of innuendo and smear.Than to just post a counterpoint againt what Indur Goklany wrote.”

“No refutations thoughts to form in your brain?”

“How about instead make substantive comments on the posted article.Minus the smears and innuendo? “

The wild idea of just posting a rational counterpoint to the article minus the childish irrational epithets is apparently not a good idea to YOU.It flies right over your head.

Maybe because you lack the ability to post such critical replies to something you think is wrong? Too busy being hostile to leave out the irrational worthless smears.

It is certaintly obvious that spewing out smears and namecalling against people and organization who writes something you think is wrong.Fails to shed light on the supposed errors.That is why you are looking the fool with your (he he he) debunking skills.Just smearing people fails to debunk anything.

Try posting rational counterpoints instead.This way your credibility low as it is now will start to go back up.

By the way.Not once did I justify that we should be quoting think tanks over science journals.I was stating that I believe in freedom of expression and speech.

Try not to put words in my mouth.

Back with the name calling again? Well, you had your chance to behave in a civilized fashion. I don’t have time to waste on you.

sunsettommy – how about making some sense? Your drivel offers no justification for quoting think tanks instead of journal articles.

“It isn’t a flimsy argument. If you have a choice between quoting results from peer-reviewed journals, or pieces written by right-wing think tanks and funded by oil companies, why would you choose the latter?”

LOL,

It is a BLOG!

A part of the internet that is all about free speech.It is revealing that you use the path of innuendo and smear.Than to just post a counterpoint againt what Indur Goklany wrote.

Then you go on with this:

“Bottom line, why should one trust a gov’t funded entity over a corporate funded entity – why should one trust a neutral body over one with a vested interest? Hmmmm…”

That is all you can do? Make smearing comments? No refutations thoughts to form in your brain? Is your pen too dry or paper too brittle?

Then you finish with this hilarity:

“If you think everybody is equally corrupt, you really need to explain what would motivate every single climate scientist to manipulate their results in the way you presumably believe they do. How about you do a bit of research and tell us the typical wage of a climate science post doc?”

How about instead make substantive comments on the posted article.Minus the smears and innuendo? Is it really that hard for you to do? Come on!, it is written in ENGLISH and written in an easy to read style.What is stopping you?

For a person who chose the moniker SCIENTIST.You sure show none of the rational writing I would expect from a real scientist.

Mike Mann helped create the HS and was lead author of IPCC AR3, so by extension his biases should render that report unreliable. And as for Keith Briffa, lead author of AR4, his temp reconstruction showed a downturn in temperatures after 1960 that he considered “inappropriate” to show in the IPCC AR4, so the downturn, or “divergence,” was simply deleted. Self-interested bias again, so let’s not reference the IPCC’s AR4.

The issue is the quality of the science and not the source of funding. Somehow, accepting money from government entities instead of private business guarantees that a researcher is pure of heart? No, of course not.

It’s the science that matters.

BTW: What are your scientific credentials, again?

a government body entirely dependent upon the public purse for its funding and the continuing employment of its members is anything but neutral. no crisis, no budget. given that a climate post doc has very limited employment opportunities, such budgets are critical for their having a career at all. AGW has been like the climate scientist full employment act. if it went away and the billions of dollars of government funding went away, a large number of people would be looking for work.

odd how you never see a government group making the statement: “the working group has examined the issue for which it was empaneled and determined that it is not, in fact, an issue. there’s nothing to worry about. here is the remainder of our unspent budget back. no further funding will be needed.”

private industry has a much stronger track record of performing sound science than any government agency.

Bottom line, why should one trust a gov’t funded entity over a corporate funded entity – why should one trust a neutral body over one with a vested interest? Hmmmm…

If you think everybody is equally corrupt, you really need to explain what would motivate every single climate scientist to manipulate their results in the way you presumably believe they do. How about you do a bit of research and tell us the typical wage of a climate science post doc?

Of course, if you use that flimsy argument, then the next logical step is to see how much more money is stacked on the pro-man-made global warming side of research. “Obviously” there is more money and careers to be made which must “obviously” mean they are biased. Your argument seems to imply that all the immoral climate scientists decided to work on the skeptic’s side of the debate, while the holier-than-thou climate scientists chose the righteous path. Or maybe it is all a big conspiracy –> Get a few skeptics to cause imbalance in the system so that all the “true scientists” can keep getting paid !?!?!

Bottom line, why should one trust a gov’t funded entity over a corporate funded entity. Both want to ensure their survival and grow.

Of course, if you use that flimsy argument, then the next logical step is to see how much more money is stacked on the pro-man-made global warming side of research. “Obviously” there is more money and careers to be made which must “obviously” mean they are biased. Your argument seems to imply that all the immoral climate scientists decided to work on the skeptic’s side of the debate, while the holier-than-thou climate scientists chose the righteous path. Or maybe it is all a big conspiracy –> Get a few skeptics to cause imbalance in the system so that all the “true scientists” can keep getting paid !?!?!

Bottom line, why should one trust a gov’t funded entity over a corporate funded entity. Both want to ensure their survival and grow.