I see your response to post #29 but not to post #37.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Then something is fishy with the links. The link in your first post on this goes to #81. I linked to #82 (my response to #81). Maybe we should stick with post numbers? (Ah, I bet your setting for posts/page is different than my settings for posts/page). Let me know to which post your are curious to see a response by indentifying it by post number. {edit} Nevermind, you want to see my response to #37, right? {edit} LOL, which still goes to #81...something is fishy.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Yup, looking for a response to #37 on page 3.

Cheers

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Pogo: The question of models was addressed by #15 and #17 - an exchange between Kijana and me.

The question of the origin of the scientists has been addressed throughout this thread.

The question of peer-review has as well.

The question of that one paper being in a journal of geology and not climatology is pretty irrelevant as articles on the Earth's climate have been cited from many different journals. It is no stretch that a geology journal publishes an article on the Earth's climate. In fact, the recent popularity of citing the ice core data indicates that a chemistry journal is valued, as that article is the seminal work in the popular ice core data.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

You still haven't addressed this:

If it isn't too much trouble, why don't you respond to his post, rather than my excerpt?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I'll take your word for it - but I still think its a strange way to do things.

If the logo was accompanied by "this project/research has been funded by the NSF" that would make sense.

But I don't think to just whack the logo onto a page/publication because its been funded is appropriate - especially if the information presented as FACT has not been ascertained as fact.

I would have thought accountability would prevent that.

shrug. I don't know if its part of the scientific culture, or part of American culture, that allows questionable points of view to appear to be endorsed by the funding agency.

BTW - I'll ask again as it seems you've missed it: what DO you think of http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf

It appears that political interference with science is quite common.

Yeah and some people refuse to see what is obvious to any thinking person, that legislation is bought in this country every single day and that it is often times a conspiracy in progress.

A conspiracy is two more more people planning secretly to commit an illegal or immoral act.

All thinking people knows this happens every single day in this country, in every single city.

If you just look at the corruption at the local level of government, I doubt many of us can actually imagine how bad it truly is at the Federal level of government.

How much has the pharmaceutical industry spent on lobbying on the last 10 years and what did they get for their money?

And a thinking person is able to know the difference between a media outlet and a scientific journal. A thinking person is also able to differentiate between a topic involving science and a topic involving policy. A thinking person is able to know funding occurs before the science is done and, as a result, that thinking person would know that peer-review for funding is fundamentally different than peer-review for a journal pub. Of course, when this ignorance exists, it is usually manifested in claims that others are ignorant and not thinking, and your post provides further support.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

At the beginning of the thread, I had no idea that I would have to repeat myself from prior posts for the obtuse. WOI does not appear obtuse. I am no expert on modeling the climate. The journal pub was peer-reviewed (already discussed prior to the post). I suspect if WOI is an expert on modeling, he could have been one of the reviewers, along with the others, and they would have brought up his concerns in that review. It's not a stretch to make those connections.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Nope, I didn't miss it. In fact, I'm still looking for the thread you said you started on it.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

WTF??? I asked if you had faith in the science behind those statements...WTF??? You either have faith in something or you don't.

Let me crouch way down, bend way over, get really, really small, and see if I can and speak like you do:

Lets see if you can comprehend this-"If this represents some consensus" was merely rephrasing an already understandable statement for someone having difficulty with the English language.
"Do you have faith in the science behind these statements?" is a pretty simple question.

If they aren't peer reviewed, and that is your criteria, you say "no, I've not seen any peer reviewed papers that come to support those statements".

Gosh, are you having difficulty?

It doesn't matter much to me if I peg you wrong. However, your refusal to speak frankly and civilly leads no recourse but for people to make assumptions.

I gave you this huge open window to just point out the "politicization" and you then actually argued against yourself and said there wasn't any in the actual science...then said politicization was affecting the actual science of SOME things. (Which, by the way, is what I argued right from the get-go and you spent pages trying to refute).

I gave you ample opportunity to refute the science and you avoided it.

Now...lets go slowly. My very first post on this thread made an interesting comment completely unrelated to you, until now. I think you ought to read it. If it's over your head, get your Chinese colleagues to help you.

You tell me!! Your the one arguing against it. I asked you if you had faith in the science.
And whats this "effectively" shit? I thought there was no "if" in your belief.
I'm the one that argued that peer review wasn't the end all, if you agreed with me you should have kept your trap shut.

Slow enough for ya?

Oh...you mean sometimes peer review isn't always "proper"? Why WOULD you form an opinion?

You have quite obviously formed an opinion. My question should be easy for you to answer IF you could support your own bias.
Quite an effective "tirade" really.
wiggle, wiggle little worm
Like pulling fucking teeth. This is why I started keeping track of time - not to measure if you were running away, but to see how long it took to get a straight answer. I lost track frankly...what, a day per question?

Now, lets go slowly so you can understand...
All one would have to do to make you say you had faith in the science behind these statements then, is produce the peer reviewed data behind them. Correct?


Which, by the way, I have not forgotten, is NOT what you first told me your problem with global warming is. Improper peer review...
This, coming from the woman who, for three pages, argued that there could be no possible bias on the part of a Chinese scientist in China because he was "peer reviewed". How do you know it was "proper"? Particularly since you confess that you have no business reviewing scientific data that is not in your field.

Anyway...that was great fun. Lets do it again sometime.

By the way, little miss puff-up-your -chest-I'm-busy-doing-science, I set up a company in Cyprus this week while we chatted. Just like you, global warming science is not my field. I have to take it from the experts and assume that there is political bias from all sides.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I suspect there are others here who feel quite the same.

Anyway, climate models aren't your bag so you can't address WOI's critique of the article by the Chinese scientists -- gotcha.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

IPCC Working Group I -The Physical Science Basis - Fourth Assessment Report, Review Comments & Responses

It is not possible to copy and paste from the pdf files but if you have adobe reader, you should be able to view the files.

As you can see, the data has been peer reviewed and the issue then is not whether the data was peer reviewed, but if the peer review is (to use another posters word), "proper".

How does a non-scientist or a scientist from another field, evaluate the propriety of a peer review?

Surely anyone who would rely on the peer review process to preclude political bias of a scientist subject to communist government, without considering whether or not that review was "proper", should also comfortably rely on the peer review process in the instance of the IPCC report.

Here is an example of the argument against the IPCC:
Science and Public Policy dot org