Apparently it is not science but a political agenda looking for science to legitimatize it.

Global warming as I stated before is a hoax. Upon further research since my last post, it is costing the City of Spokane millions of tax dollars unnecessarily. (The extra cost on the new STA Hybrids alone makes the case.) Wait and see how the global warming hoax pans out before wasting another dime of tax money.

Al Gore should be paraded as the very fool he actually is. The very Internet the “fathered” was the author of his human caused global warming downfall. He should give back his Nobel Prize if he had any integrity.

Let’s hope the liberal community who swallowed the pack of lies about human caused global warming will have the courage and conviction to except the fact they have been mislead and act accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Then they should evaluate the competing claims, and not rely on any *ad veracundiam* arguments.

The reason I asked for Jon to define “Peer” is because of this: we need a definition of the terms bandied about before we can intelligently discuss these issues. Sorry if that bothers you. Not remembering that I’ve ever in my life having been called “lazy”…..I work 80 hrs/week.

SO when I ask questions, it’s not because I haven’t done the work to be informed old chum. No… it’s that I’m not sure the definitions in a given field are unclear. One thing I haave discovered since OCT 16th is that CO2 is related to nothing causing health problems and very little to do with warming directly. Seems to be an accompaniment (as many things are) but not causative of much as it sits right now. I ask for data to achieve a complete picture.

“Peer” is an elusive term. For example when half of the 750 alleged experts who at one time supported all the propaganda have retracted their support, are they still “peers”? How are they thought of? Are they still “experts” now that they cannot make up their minds? If they’re not experts anymore, do they still review manuscripts?….and do they do that chore objectively.

AMong the biggest flaw in this whole field is that the so-called “peers” quote each other but don’t do their own research. This leads to a “rah-rah” group but not critical thinking or valid criticisms of their friends who are “true believers”. Bart…if you’ve ever sat on a scientific editorial board or referred manuscipts, you’d know what I mean. I used to do some of that before I was kicked upstairs….and subsequestly changed fields. I know from which I speak.

Lots of what I’ve found is just sloppy science in a culture of cheerleaders. Lots of it ( the preponderance) is garbage masquerading as science. SO I ask details because it’s severly important to know who knows what. It might be a “world-changer”. Because it’s so important o know, I will continue to look and continue to ask. You should do the same. Best wishes. D

You keep coming back telling everyone else to fetch you scientific research – and at the current pace we’ll be at 200 comments and you won’t be satisfied. Take a nice day off, hunker down in the library, and start taking notes. Then come back here and tell us what you learned.
And at the very least, please use Google before commenting. We’re over 300 and 350 ppm.

Here is an article in the journal Science speaking to the report and to the peer review process the report went through.