Clever. Very clever. Good game of CYA (that's "cover your ass") you try to play.

That you assume we're all so stupid that we don't see right through it, shows your arrogance.

Right. Tell us all about ME, the screen name I used to use, and have us ignore YOUR consistently snotty arrogance. If MY "contribution to USPO over the past few years has been mainly to insult and bait other posters..."

What do we say YOUR "contribution" has been ?

You haven't been snotty and arrogant ? You don't ignore things people say and don't address or answer their questions or points because it won't serve your arguments ? Of course you do.

YOU don't insult and bait other posters with snottiness and arrogant remarks ?

You, my dear "Daisy" have been one of the nastier posters in these categories I'VE come across here. I long AGO put YOU on ignore because I learned that addressing what you say was ALWAYS a complete waste of time.

That I'd only get insults and snottiness returned.

As you're doing HERE to Si Modo.

Who really IS intelligent BTW. (No, I'm not saying that because I always agree with her. I don't. Both ways.)

Might I suggest that you re-read a bit of your own writing ?

virtually every response you make to a post of mine is bitchy and childish.

Exactly (along with your snotty arrogance) why I put YOU on ignore :-)

And will keep you there. I'm sure you'll make something remarkable for us all now :-) Here it is. Have fun :-)

No, I asked for evidence and you gave me mostly op-ed pieces. That might be evidence in your world, not mine.

If you want to preach to your particular brand of the choir, go ahead, but leave me out of it. If you want to discuss the issue without the arrogant tone, I'll be here. The choice is yours.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Yet, they are models...just that...as are the basis of the doomsday predictions of the others that the politicians are so at ease to quote. It seems you missed my comment to Kijana about models.

As most of my colleagues are from China, I am not so easily proned to dismiss the work of those from that country or those educated there. I find that they are quite apt at science, otherwise they would not be working with me, nor I with them. I also know that my colleagues in the world would not dismiss my work as having a political agenda because of my location. It is sad that so many who dabble in this particular area are willing to do just that.

My apologies. I made that post while at work and didn't consider access issues.

First of all, Springer is extremely reputable in the biological sciences, chemistry, and the medical sciences. Perhaps others are willing to dismiss this publishing house (who asks for reviewers...they are peer-reviewed journals), but my work would be limited if we allowed politics to dictate what publishers could be cited, rather than reputation based on the quality of the articles. Again, perhaps the political agenda is interfering with the science. Wiley is an American publishing house; so is the ACS (the ice-core article) - should these publishing houses be dismissed as well because the US opposes Kyoto?

Finally, I am obliged to respect copyrights. There would be potential ramifications for me if I violated those rules as we have strict policy at my place of work in this respect. If there is a specific question you have, I would be willing to (and within policy) to post an excerpt when I return to work on Wednesday.

And, all the articles are peer-reviewed.

__________________
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

As they are peer-reviewed, I give more crediblity to the reviewers' questions than to yours. The articles are published, thus any questions the peers had have been addressed.

__________________
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

Sounds like a plea for the status quo to me. And what "adjustment costs" might those be? Especially those that would be incurred by "insignificant" changes?

I find it abhorrent that you would consider making drastic changes in a mechanism that you don't understand based on "best guess". I knew someone that used to think that an uncooperative vehicle could be made cooperative by beating on the steering wheel. Another plea for the status quo.

And a "world" of advice back to you; I actually have used the word "Institution". If you intend any part of this comment to imply that you are more "educated" and therefore have unassailable knowledge, you have failed miserably. When I use "worlds", I use ones like "curmudgeon, kerfluffle, obfuscate, arrogance, ignorance, bloviate" and many others that apply to narrow-minded "educated" people whose education has been based on a fraud. I also use a spell checker, and usually proofread my posts. Next time you try a thinly veiled, condescending put-down, you might try to make it acceptable to a fifth-grade English class. As it is, you have pretty much knocked yourself out of the debate. Go take some more Algore lessons.

__________________

Good God; another tedious task of responding to a Daisy post.
Your feigned innocence is as credible as the pitch of a snake oil salesman. I wonder why you are apologizing to me and not Spadplanter? As have others. The list of those who have called you out on your snipes, etc. is quite long, so your claim that you are a victim of my interpretations alone is a non-starter.Those on that ever-growing list will disagree with your attempts to project your issues onto me.Consorting? I’m wondering how you came to that conclusion. But, how very un-liberal of you to cast guilt onto others for the associations you imagine exist. Tsk, tsk. He is a chemist; I am a chemist. Yes, burn the witch!As that member is completely unfamiliar to me, this means nothing to me.*sigh* I wonder what makes you think I have “issues” with non-Americans? As you make this claim, back it up. Get this straight and get it now – I haven’t any issues with any other posters based on gender. I detest the tactic some women use to attempt to marginalize other women by claiming they are put-upon by that woman because of their own gender. I detest the tactic some women use of playing the victim card in this manner. It is weak, cowardly, and detrimental to any solidarity of true feminists. I won’t play into it, so sell it elsewhere. Expect to be called out on it each and every time you use it with me. You call it an attack; I call it correcting your false assumptions in a tone appropriate to the nature of your posts. As you don’t like my calling you out on it, don’t do it or suck it up and accept responsibility for your participation in your role as a victim.

If a woman cannot stand on her own without marginalizing another woman based on gender alone, then she is moving progress of feminism in the opposite direction. It makes other feminists work much harder as we must compensate for this type of crutch some women use in desperation.I imagine if you wouldn't allow your ideological differences to make you blind to the content of my responses to you (and many others who have responded to you similarly), you may have some actual insight into why you are such a victim of your own actions.Yes, Daisy, we all are aware of how put-upon you are by my “viciousness”. It must be difficult being such a victim of imaginary crimes.

At this point, I will view future posts of this nature by you as baiting. I resent the tedious task of correcting your false assumptions about what I post and who I am.

__________________
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 only read the articles you linked. I supposed it was the only substantial thing in the thread. The days that I read every post in every thread are long gone.

Am I to understand that you admit this particular article is a sloppy piece of work ? I even missed its biggest problem, probably because it's not even hinted at in the article. Where are the physical explanations for IMF 1-4 ? To which natural occurences correspond these "quasi-periodic" functions ? Until there is at least a hypothesis (in the scientific sense) that explains these oscillations and gives a physical basis for their existence, the whole thing is just Masturbating with Maths.
I note that you haven't responded to the actual substance of the critique of the article so far.

This isn't just a 'model'. It's a lousy model. If you want to use it to suggest that all models are lousy, then that is most unscientific of you. If you want to attack any model that is used as corroborating evidence for climate change, please present it actually and completely, so it can be assessed scientifically and unblemished by any political, popularizing or vulgarizing influences.

It's not sloppy because it's Chinese. I observe that it is sloppy because of its scientific failures. Connecting it to its origin is but a consequential hypothesis as to the reason why it is sloppy.

I know they're peer reviewed. I read the article and most of the publisher's site. However, in these days of extreme specialization, it's -how shall I put this- unusual to find an article on climatology, done by a Department of Geology, in an edition published by a company that is reputable for "biological sciences, chemistry, and the medical sciences". Why isn't it in a journal for climatology ? Not accepted ?

Mighty nice of you, but nothing short of the full article would satisfy me. I don't do abridgements, extracts or Executive Summaries. Thanks anyway.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Si modo;
What rot. I've only just realised that the guy isn't called 'Spudplanter' myself.
There ought to be a separate forum for Triviality and Minutiae. It would, of course, require a very small-minded and overconscientious mod.

I'll apologize for my tone and hypocrisy at times (I'll admit that knowing damn well some WON'T).

The fact is, is that we really don't know all we need to know about this yet.

Sure, we all have our opinions.

You know what they say about opinions :-)

My advice to all.

Relax over the "holdays."

Stay outta this joint :-) ...sometimes I have to to relax. My reactive nature at times LOL

Don't waste your time with it. I did. I should know better.

Not perfect I am :-)

As I've just noticed yours isn't "moron". You can't read the 24 point type above every post, but you think everything else you say should be given the utmost consideration, as it comes from the Great and Wonderful Moon. Nice try. The Hillary campaign needs more people like you.

You ever going to deal with the topic or just continue to throw insults and innuendo?

__________________

Sorry, that was not what I had meant to say. I was commenting on the whether the abstracts supported the “consensus” on whether greenhouse gasses affect global temperatures. If I am not mistaken the first article states that greenhouse gasses do have a deterministic effect but that effect is overshadowed by a cyclical component. This would imply that greenhouse gasses still have an effect. An interpretation of this is that weather consists of both cyclic components and a deterministic component. While, if this model represents reality, the results in the IPCC may be overstated, according to the paper the effect still exists. This is a contradiction of the initial article, the message of which you seem to be supporting.

I reached the wrong conclusion on what another paper was saying.

Shall I take the words "Bullshit removed" to mean that you don't have a suitable counter argument? The things that you first commented on are basic facts. Everybody in the developed world should know that without the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere the earth would be uninhabitable. At the same time everybody should know that if the concentration of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, was greatly increased the earth would get too hot to sustain life. The question is what happens for somewhat smaller changes, or looking it in another way, what change in greenhouse gas is sufficiently large?

The comments on political choice under uncertainty by no means common knowledge but are by no means "bullshit".

As far as who should make the decisions on what actions should be taken, it unfortunately comes down to a political choice. Our politicians should be making choices based on some reasonable understanding of the issue at hand. That choice consider the economic case by examining the stochastic cost of greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of action. Obviously Al Gore should not have decision making power given the nature of his stance on the issue.

I don't understand the "get to work" comments. There are a number of complicated processes that we have a limited understanding of. Certainly even an economist's understanding of economics is quite limited. At the same time I am willing to bet you have made comments about economic topics. By the same token you should devote your whole life to the study of economics until you understand it completely.