let’s just look at the first 10. 1. Nothing skeptical about AGW in Loehle’s article. Not one word. 2. is a correction to 1. Double-counting 3. Opinion piece by Balling in the AAPG’s journal. Not peer-reviewed. 4. First real peer-reviewed paper. Considering the authors, expect major flaws. 5. Article in 2000 from E&E. NOT peer-reviewed. 6. Not ‘skeptical’ of AGW in the WUWT-sense. 7. Commentary of Boehmer-Christiansen. Peer-reviewed? Doubtful 8. Valid entry number 2. 9. LOL. Comment on comment to paper #8. In a sense double counting, and those comments are usually not peer-reviewed 10. Even more LO. Correction to paper #8. Triple counting!

Interesting, isn’t it? In the first 10 already so many problems. Also interesting: They refer to Zeebe et al, which isn’t even close to critical of AGW. It only notes that with the accepted climate sensitivity to CO2, there wasn’t enough CO2 to explain the observed temperature increase during the PETM. In other words, it argues that other forcings must have been present, or the climate sensitivity to CO2 is LARGER than currently accepted…

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2076797

Mr Garrett said the central point in the Weatherston case was that the defence failed.

“Abolishing it suggests we don’t trust juries,” he said.

The repeal shifted the argument of provocation from juries to judges, who can consider it in sentencing.

“It makes more sense to put our trust in juries,” he said.”

getstaffed at 11:19 pm

Perhaps read each of these 450 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS SUPPORTING SKEPTICISM OF AGW

Skepticism of AGW and climate change is healthy. How many peer reviewed papers are there in total on the topic?

If Anthony Watt is having is having a balanced look at it he will have surely collated them too? But that’s not likely, the policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute is Monckton, and the institute financed the film Apocalypse No. So this is more likely to be one sided.

“While the SPPI seems primarily to be the work of Robert Ferguson, it also features on it website the work of other prominent climate change skeptics who are involved with one or more other anti-Kyoto treaty groups.”

And yes, the source is important, it puts the balance (or imbalance) into context.

can you elaborate on your earlier post please? whats Rus and the corroboration?

Provocation defense gone

Friday, 27, Nov, 2009 12:01AM

The partial defense of provocation can no longer be used in court.

MPs, sitting under urgency, have passed the Crimes Provocation Repeal Amendment Bill into law by 116 votes to five.

ACT was the only party to vote against the law change.

Labour’s Charles Chauvel told ACT’s MPs that opposing the bill was an insult to the victims of violent crime. Mr Chauvel said they should be ashamed for sanctioning a defense that legitimizes violence against gay men and against women.

Where was Findlayson who is supposed to stand up for the integrity of the law making process. He should resign forthwith as should all the other lawyers that sit in that house and supported this legislation. Appalling.

Before you all beat me up, no women or man that is driven to that point by another individual now has any defense no matter how heinous the provocation. Think about that.

So the paper you was contentuous and only sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

Looking at the fraud now discovered who can believe that crap?
It was obviously slanted from the start.
The whole credibility of climate change is now in doubt.
Let the unbiased data flow!!

You’ve read the emails? How are they used out of context then? Please explain. Just cite the email # you’re talking about and we’ll have a look at it, OK?

You’ve read the documents? What did you think of HARRY_READ_ME. Devastating isn’t it? Shows conclusively, in their own words, that they made the data fit the ‘models’. Is that how you think science should work?

Anyway, the kids will be up a 6am so I better try and get a bit of shuteye.

I think I’ll make you my ‘special’ friend Luc, you seem so smart and all.

Talk to you tomorrow Luc ;0

yes.

Hurf

that was naughty of them. But that’s not about the science, it’s about paranoia. There is a difference.

“waaaaaaaaaah all dey wont to do iz poke holes in it,” yeah, testing your theory is sort of the point. Eco-socialists yelling THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED is hardly that.

Have you read any of the documents?

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists

QED

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

As for how old I am, maybe you should ask my 14mth old daughter.

How about the documents? Are they out of context?

The quote from ‘Harry’ is from HARRY_READ_ME (which I think will become the most famous computer file ever in the next few months). Harry is the guy trying to sort out the Dataset and modeling software. ‘Harry’ has a Phd and is an expert Climate Scientist. Poor ‘Harry’ thinks the dataset is ‘completely useless’. ‘Harry’ also notes in this document how he has been ordered to insert made up data to get closer to the model. I shit you not.

Maybe you need to do a little more research Luc

The full file is up on multiple torrents. Have look for yourself. Have a look at the entire email strings and see if they’re out of context. Have a look in the docs at HARRY_READ_ME. Go on I dare ya.

Actually, my baby is, including 2 stepchildren I have raised from a tender age, Junior No 5.

And they all love me still, even the ones whose Mums are no longer my wife.