The most interesting saga of "The turd whirls" CONTINUES.

Fascinating

Perhaps it is not your memory at issue.
In this quote, you and I appear to be in agreement that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that global warming is a concern but you go on to indicate that you believe the conclusions are premature considering the expensive ramifications.
I wasn't sure what conclusions and ramifications you were talking about so I asked and your response was thus:
This did not quite clarify what part of the "conclusion" you found to be "premature" and so I further queried:
I did indeed draw a conclusion that may be inaccurate. Here is how I came to my conclusion:

You state that you believe the "conclusions" are "premature" for the United States to be signing on to Kyoto.

Earlier, you used a Chinese scientists conclusion in a discussion with WOI, to dispute the general consensus of global warming. When WOI states that the Chinese scientist may be suspect by political association, you dismiss the possibility out of hand.

The general consensus is what ultimately prompted the Kyoto protocol.

Yet, advocates of the United States signing on to Kyoto are apparently politically influenced since the scientific "conclusions are premature" in relation to Kyoto.

From my perspective, you dismiss the possibility of political influence in regard to the Chinese scientist, but emphasize the possibility of US political influence in the decision to ratify Kyoto in spite of the general scientific consensus.

Note: I went on to say that there was undoubtedly political bias on both sides and therefore, our judgement might best be served by weighing the cost and benefit without the specific issue of man influenced global warming.

Thank you very much.

__________________
...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

First, to Si modo and Daisym:
Someone "ran over a box" this morning and took out my DSL connection while I was responding to Si modo so my post responses appear a little strange if not a latent response to the argument between the two of you.

Now to the good stuff...
Thanks for the links Daisym. I am aware of most of this information and opinion already and in this instance, you and I agree with little qualification. (Unlike the porn thread ).

No doubt, the details of global warming will be argued forever both politically and scientifically. Constant scientific challenges are a good thing obviously, and political bias is a bad thing which must, unfortunately, be weighted along with the evidence on both sides.
You give very good examples!

And, since the scientific consensus is not nationally aligned, I tend to give it a little better odds of carrying less bias than say, a Chinese scientist (under communist China), or President Bush's appointed and anointed.

__________________
...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

Interesting perspective but incorrect. I do not agree that there are sufficient data to indicate that global warming is enough of a concern to warrant such expensive actions (as Kyoto).
Yes, you did.
Along with others. Did you miss them? Of course, I don't recall the authors' national origin, since that usually has no importance to me, peer-reviewed does. I would be glad to do more than a five minute search next time I am at work to find more than the first four articles. Of course, since many are trying to dismiss the Chinese scientists because of politics, I will try to steer away from them for this crowd at USPOL. It's so refreshiing that I don't have to worry about the national origin of scientists when I reference them at work.
There's that "consensus" word when folks discuss scientific conclusions. It is an irrelevant word to use when referring to scientific conclusions. Kyoto is political and media and propaganda outlets have more influence.
Again, interesting perspective but not applicable to me. Now, although you admit the possibility of being incorrect about my view, yet still try to justify your false claim about my view, I am still finding myself in a possition to state that the claim that I damn US research is not applicable to me. It isn't applicable to me, yet others will try to spin it as they may.

__________________
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

That is precisely what I said.
Drawing conclusions, particularly while accompanied with questions for further information, should not be considered a negative. I merely took what you gave and bounced it back to see if it was correct. You seem to have taken offense.
I have to confess, Si modo, I'm picturing a scientist reacting this way and feeling rather concerned.
I did not ignore your sources, I didn't even look at them. I read WOI's comment and saw your response. If the scientist works in communist China and publishes research which may impact the economy or politics of his country, I guarantee his work will be either biased, coerced, or edited by the Chinese government.
When WOI made this political suspcet comment, you dismissed it. You now say the "national origin" of the scientist is not of concern but you did not outright say that this scientist is not actually working IN China UNDER the watchful eye of the Chinese communist government.
If this comes from a scientific journal which only you have access to (among us), then I must leave it to you to clarify whehter or not he is merely Chinese by birth or Chinese working under the communist government of China.
If the scientists research has been peer reviewed, perhaps you can share the reviews. After all, a peer review merely states whether or not the science is total crap. Seems to me that I recall a big stink of peer reviewed Chinese claims of cloning. (Was it cloning? I can't quite remember) - Of course the truth did eventually come out that the entire thing was completely false.

Your defensive stance and failure at direct communication are not helping me resolve my incorrect conclusions at all! In fact, I am beginning to suspect that my conclusions were very incorrect. It appears that your arguments are not scientifically based at all but entirely political!

Why so defensive?
You ought to go back and read that post which you took offense at which clearly is a question prompting you to clarify your position.

Your knee jerk defensive reaction is evident right here:
By the time I finished responding to this post my entire view of your argument had changed. Can you see why?

__________________
...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

[Emphasis mine] A subjective observation, but incorrect. If correcting perceptions appears to you as if I have taken offense, there is not much I can do about that. Now I hope that we are clear after your bounceback. As that perception is also subjective, others can judge as they may. But don't worry; it's Sunday and I'm not doing science today. Good to know.I'm wondering how many times I will need to say the same thing. I, and most other scientists, do not consider the national origin of scientists based on the politics of their country nor do we dismiss them on that basis. I base the choice of relevant sources on whether they are peer-reviewed or not. All the sources I cited were peer-reviewed, as I have previously stated in this thread. Thus, replying to the rest of your post on this part of the issue is irrelevant.Yet another subjective view. However, when one tries to attribute a view to me that is incorrect, I will correct it. Your attempt to attribute the following view to me [emphasis mine]without supporting that attribution in any way, I get quite concerned about the accuracy of perceptions of posters.

See, you are concerned about your percieved defensiveness in me, and I am concerned about the accuracy of claims about my views.

However, the fact that I have, for a third time, had to clearly state that I do not dismiss peer-reviewed sources based on national origin of the authors indicates that attempts at spinning that or reading more into that than there is, are occurring quite often. If that is read as defensive, oh well.

__________________
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

So...
Is the scientist merely Chinese by birth or does he produce Chinese government monitored/sponsored studies?
Answering this simple question would assure me that you hadn't ignored WOI's point merely to protect a political/ideological argument.

This is what led me to my alleged incorrect assumption about your stance- that you believed the global warming science was unduly influenced by politics to warrant signing on to Kyoto.

Or rather...that is what you meant but denied it just because it came from me... and then said the same thing again. (In spite of your insistence that you have been clear, your position remains occluded).

You clearly, vehemently, and adamantly state that global warming science is unduly weighted by political influence but when WOI asked about the political influence of the Chinese scientist in opposition, you dismiss him. And when I ask you to clarify about the Chineses scientist, you evade.

All I can gather from your response, is convincing evidence that your judgement in this case is not based in reason. What other conclusion can be drawn?

I am not asking you to play scientist today, on your day off. Goodness knows, Sunday, of all the days of the week, is the day when we ought suspend our reasoning faculties.

Cheers.

__________________
...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

Let's put it this way: I don't care if their eyes are slanted or oval. I don't care the hue and tone of their complexion. I don't care where they are born. I also don't care which county's passport they carry. I do care that the publication is peer-reviewed - it is. I suppose I could draw conclusions on the authors' of that article's place of birth (citizenship) based on their names (they appear to be names of Chinese ethnicity), but that is irrelevant to me. As I don't care about these issues of ethnicity or citizenship, I don't look into that. Also, I suspect if those were significant issues with respect to the validity of the science, that information would be included in the article. It isn't, and one can draw conclusions based on that. Now, When I return to work I can check the acknowledgments section and see which grants the PI has.

If I do, I will also post more citations than the first four I came upon in addition to the other three sources I provided which few are discussing.

I'll probably show my Chinese colleagues that folks are concerned with their country of origin - maybe they will change their names so that I can better pronounce them - I can never do the Chinese language justice.

Interesting, but incorrect. I do believe that the rhetoric when this is discussed is indeed too influenced by political agendas. The science doesn't speak as loudly as the media and propaganda outlets.

However, you have yet to provide any support whatsoever for this [emphasis mine]Now, if you continue to put words in my mouth or spin those words differently than they are in their clarity and simplicity, I will continue to correct any spin.

It appears you believe these two points are contradictory; they are not.

__________________
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

High time to call bullshit. I am deeply dissapointed.

I only stated that the political bias was equally suspect on both sides, as did others, and pointed out to you a specific instance someone had already brought to your attention.
Your denial of this on grounds that political bias can be compensated by peer review is dubious. Obviously, either side can and does state the same.

The clarity and simplicity of your statements is irony itself.

You claim that political bias is unduly heavy on one side and not the other. Coincidentall, you support the side which you claim is not subject to this political bias.

You claim that I "put words in your mouth" and "spin" your words and go on to say that you will go to work on Monday and tell your Chinese colleagues that "folks are concerned with their country of origin". Bullshit. Folks are concerned with Chinese government influence on Chinese scientists working under that government.
If you want to spin that to your colleagues for a good laugh, help yourself. Honestly, that no longer surprises me one bit.

__________________
...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

Too bad it's not bullshit, whether you call it or not. I suppose there is no need for you to have any further discussion with me if you have only the ability to call my posts bullshit.

__________________
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

BBC: Science Will Stick With Peer Review

"We were asked questions about those papers and I said, editorially, each time that there is no way that the peer review system can be made proof against misrepresentation of data."

"There aren't any alternative models to peer review. It's a bit like democracy: it's a lousy system but it's the best one we have.

"There are always cases that seem to get through, especially in areas where everyone wants the results to be true."

__________________
...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

A long time ago I was in a very similar thread concerning this exact topic. The discussion excalated and I wrote to the main opposser that he wouldn't realize the consequences of continuing to ignore the problems of global warming until he was sailing to work one day. He said he wouldn't care.

Many months later Catrina hit the US. I think he was from that region.


I wonder if he cares now??? ...........

__________________
" I have become Death, the Destroyer of worlds"

- Hindu saying