If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[Wuwei]

What Soon lacks in language ability is made for in his gesturing and occasional shrieking.

I was not aware of the Soon and Baliunas controversy so I read about it in Wikipedia. A messy situation.
I know a lot of right wingers here dislike Wiki, but that source did not mention any dirty tricks. The thrust of the article was that Soon et. al. did very sloppy unsubstantiated proxies on temperature and had their paper published in Climate Research which was rather friendly to AGW and had a poor peer review process. The editor-in-chief of Climate Research resigned because of the lax publication standards mired in the journal.

What you heard seems to be Soon's side. You say the climategate emails supported Soon?

 

[IanC]

What Soon lacks in language ability is made for in his gesturing and occasional shrieking.

I was not aware of the Soon and Baliunas controversy so I read about it in Wikipedia. A messy situation.
I know a lot of right wingers here dislike Wiki, but that source did not mention any dirty tricks. The thrust of the article was that Soon et. al. did very sloppy unsubstantiated proxies on temperature and had their paper published in Climate Research which was rather friendly to AGW and had a poor peer review process. The editor-in-chief of Climate Research resigned because of the lax publication standards mired in the journal.

What you heard seems to be Soon's side. You say the climategate emails supported Soon?

You seem to be somewhat uninformed about most of the skeptical positions. I could go on and on about Soon and Balunas, or Connelly's deathgrip on your favourite resource, Wikipedia, but it is old news to me and I find it boring to rehash the same old things. I suggest you widen your reading horizons a bit and check out skeptical sources as well.

I don't see how anyone can make informed opinions without analyzing both sides.

 

[Wuwei]

You seem to be somewhat uninformed about most of the skeptical positions. I could go on and on about Soon and Balunas, or Connelly's deathgrip on your favourite resource, Wikipedia, but it is old news to me and I find it boring to rehash the same old things. I suggest you widen your reading horizons a bit and check out skeptical sources as well.

I don't see how anyone can make informed opinions without analyzing both sides.

Well, I did listen to the Heritage presentation for their opposing side the IPCC report.
.
In principle I would think that there would be a tug of war in a controversial issue in wiki. It seems that that would result in a narrative that is a compromise between opposing positions. It's well known that conservatives think the MSM is liberal. I'm not surprised they think the same thing about Wiki.

 

[mamooth]

I could go on and on about Soon and Balunas, or Connelly's deathgrip on your favourite resource, Wikipedia, but it is old news to me

Translated, that means the facts say Ian is wrong, so Ian is invoking yet another aspect of the GreatConspiracy to handwave away those pesky facts. Same old same old.

And naturally, if you don't read Ian's conspiracy blogs, you're not well-informed. The Antivaxxers and Birthers and 9/11 Truthers tell me the same thing about their conspiracy blogs, but I don't pay attention to them either.

 

[jc456]

I could go on and on about Soon and Balunas, or Connelly's deathgrip on your favourite resource, Wikipedia, but it is old news to me

Translated, that means the facts say Ian is wrong, so Ian is invoking yet another aspect of the GreatConspiracy to handwave away those pesky facts. Same old same old.

And naturally, if you don't read Ian's conspiracy blogs, you're not well-informed. The Antivaxxers and Birthers and 9/11 Truthers tell me the same thing about their conspiracy blogs, but I don't pay attention to them either.

and still no experiment as per the OP. more mumbo jumbo of nothing.

 

[IanC]

You seem to be somewhat uninformed about most of the skeptical positions. I could go on and on about Soon and Balunas, or Connelly's deathgrip on your favourite resource, Wikipedia, but it is old news to me and I find it boring to rehash the same old things. I suggest you widen your reading horizons a bit and check out skeptical sources as well.

I don't see how anyone can make informed opinions without analyzing both sides.

Well, I did listen to the Heritage presentation for their opposing side the IPCC report.
.
In principle I would think that there would be a tug of war in a controversial issue in wiki. It seems that that would result in a narrative that is a compromise between opposing positions. It's well known that conservatives think the MSM is liberal. I'm not surprised they think the same thing about Wiki.

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

 

[Wuwei]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

You might want to read AR5

 

[Wuwei]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

You might want to read AR5

Does AR5 go into Wikipedia corruption???

 

[IanC]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

Undoubtedly. I would imagine a great deal of Connelly's corrections were to prank inserts. But putting a cat in charge of the canaries' safety seems misguided. I don't think you could find a more biased judge on climate science than Connelly. Do you think, say, the evidence that the Climategate Investigations were bordering on a whitewash would be allowed to stand on Connelly's watch? Not bloody likely.

Again, old news. Either you are interested enough to look deeper or you're not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

You might want to read AR5

Does AR5 go into Wikipedia corruption???

Stay fucking ignorant, on your it's an improvement

 

[jc456]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

You might want to read AR5

Does AR5 go into Wikipedia corruption???

Stay fucking ignorant, on your it's an improvement

he really wishes to know about climate science when he really doesn't.

 

[Wuwei]

Again, old news. Either you are interested enough to look deeper or you're not.

I agree. I'ts old history.

 

[IanC]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs

That's interesting. Is there another side to the "Wikigate" corruption. I would like to read both sides of that too.

I though I would find out what Wikipedia had to say about the upsidedown Tiljander cores. Nothing, no mention. Scads of Google returns but apparently no interest at wiki.

Another subject you might consider looking into.

 

[IanC]

BTW, upsidedown proxies are not old news. I'll bump a recent thread if you are interested.

 

[Wuwei]

I though I would find out what Wikipedia had to say about the upsidedown Tiljander cores. Nothing, no mention. Scads of Google returns but apparently no interest at wiki.

Another subject you might consider looking into.

Au contraire, Wiki mentions that Tiljander is a member of the Swedish progressive death metal band. On a less serious note I looked up Tiljander cores. That was an audacious act. He should have known better than to attempt that.

No need to bump a thread. I don't need to be convinced that there are other less than honest publications on all sides of every issue in every field.

 

[IanC]

I did bump a thread for you on PAGES2K.

It discusses a number of issues.

 

[mamooth]

Undoubtedly. I would imagine a great deal of Connelly's corrections were to prank inserts. But putting a cat in charge of the canaries' safety seems misguided. I don't think you could find a more biased judge on climate science than Connelly. Do you think, say, the evidence that the Climategate Investigations were bordering on a whitewash would be allowed to stand on Connelly's watch? Not bloody likely.

Again, old news. Either you are interested enough to look deeper or you're not.

And if anyone actually is interested in looking deeper, which excludes Ian ...

Deletion log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is, Connelly's deletion logs.

First, they're pretty innocent. Most of them don't address global warming.

Second, they stopped in ... 2009. According to Ian's conspiracy, Connelly's mysterious censoring powers have extended for over 6 years after he stopped editing.

Third, Ian's conspiracy posits that Connelly somehow had dictatorial powers at wiki, and no other editor had any input at all.

That ought to tell you how seriously one should take Ian's conspiracy theories.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A scientist had a theory that there should be anti-matter particles, formulated and conducted experiments and sure enough, we find anti-matter particles.

The AGWCult has a theory that a rounding error of CO2 will raise temperature and alter climate and they can't manage to post a single experiment.

 

[Crick]

Where do you believe these data came from Frank? Obviously they are measurements made to test the hypothesis that CO2 absorbs certain portions of the solar spectrum. Your standard complaint here is that these are worthless because they do not give a measure of temperature. Feel free to repeat that charge. Make it loud, Frank and make it proud. Let no one challenge the position you've earned here.