There IS a Consensus- Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical...

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Actually, the authors explicitly don't state that. Stop misrepresenting their thoughts on the matter, which have already been posted on this thread. I will post them here again:

No you stop misrepresenting them, am posting from my phone but my post you're quoting included a direct quote from the letter which you omitted when you re-posted it. Majority say feh on emissions regulation

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

No you stop misrepresenting them, am posting from my phone but my post you're quoting included a direct quote from the letter which you omitted when you re-posted it. Majority say feh on emissions regulation

I posted the letter in its entirety. Maybe your phone finds new paragraphs in letters. But no, your comment did not contain any part of the response from the authors of the research paper to the article that misrepresented their research.

That letter has been widely distributed. It is posted on the comments section of the Forbes piece and has been sent to a variety of media as the standard response to those inquiring about the issue. There are 6 paragraphs (two of which are one line long) within the body of the letter. It is listed as a comment from Lianne Lefsrud (the lead author) in the comments section and has been sent to other media who have emailed her about the issue as the author's response.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I posted the letter in its entirety. Maybe your phone finds new paragraphs in letters. But no, your comment did not contain any part of the response from the authors of the research paper to the article that misrepresented their research.

YES I DID, I quoted lines starting with, "Correct interpretations would be..." If you want to parse and minse words and argue with my interpretation of what they said then go ahead but stop lying, I did include a direct quote from the letter in my post.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

YES I DID, I quoted lines starting with, "Correct interpretations would be..." If you want to parse and minse words and argue with my interpretation of what they said then go ahead but stop lying, I did include a direct quote from the letter in my post.

Okay now I see it, you quoted me quoting them. Simple mistake as I looked at my quoting of you, which wipes out the fact that you quoted me quoting them. Of course, I did not omit that quote from the second time I posted the letter as you lied about.

You are still misrepresenting them. They said: "Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry [i.e. more experienced] oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions [i.e. less experienced]."

You said: "According to them, a majority of geoscientists oppose emissions regulations such as the Kyoto Protocol."

That is not what they said. They said that more geoscientists opposed regulations than non-geoscientists. They did not say anything about a majority. So you are again misrepresenting what they said.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Erica Martinson reports that the House hearing on global warming has been canceled this morning, due to the snowstorm that struck Washington D.C. last night.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee announced early Wednesday that it’s postponing its environmental subcommittee’s scheduled 10 a.m. hearing on the state of the science behind climate change. As a reason, it cited “weather.”

From the Washington Examiner

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

From the Washington Examiner

Come on you really are better than the whole "it snows somewhere that has always had snow, therefore, there can't be global warming."

Trust me, if global warming was decided by the temperature in DC, we would have pretty definitive proof, as every year I have lived in the region has been warmer than the year before. It does look like March this year will be considerably cooler than March last year (which was the warmest March in history), but I walked outside late at night without a coat on more than a couple of times this January.

[jimgata]

Check out the 1930's, pretty damn hot decade. It is debatable, whether it could be the hottest decade on record. If it isn't, there is very little difference in it and the hottest decade.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

From the Washington Examiner

I am stuck at home in the snow (now rain). We average about 2-3 inches of snow a year in March and have had some big storms the first week or so.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I think the idea that man cannot possibly affect the climate is a ridiculously naive and limited view of the world.

Remember this old joke?

Q: What happens when the smog lifts in Los Angeles?

A: UCLA.