[ QUOTE ]
Talk about a load of [censored]. Are you honestly trying to state that you've never disparaged anyone's argument by stating that it stems from a tool of oil company and thus shouldn't be considered? What does an association with an oil company have to do with the merits of an argument?
[/ QUOTE ]
No I do it plenty of times, however I always state that I point out the oil link as merely a trend that is extremely prevalent among skeptics. It does not, in itself, prove anything. This is something I've made clear numerous times. Your argument I objected to was this:
Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead.
Which is a totally different accusation. BTW you were the first person to bring up oil in this thread. You were the first person to bring up oil in this thread as well:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1
A thread where you called him an oil shill and I called him a 'TV personality without a relevant undergraduate education or a publishing record'.
Kind of ironic.
[ QUOTE ]
What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven?
[/ QUOTE ]
The argument that NOAA's forecast is based off of climate models models. You may have come up with this argument on my own but experience tells me that people almost always pick up anti consensus arguments from some blog, newspaper or think tank.
[ QUOTE ]
????? Believe who ever you want.
[/ QUOTE ]
Adios, if the forecast was based off of climate models it should be SUPER easy to link that forecast to the GFDL. This really isn't that difficult of a request. If you have trouble figuring out how to do this you can always e-mail NOAA. They normally reply within 24-48 hours. If you can't accomplish this simple feat or admit you are wrong on this very specific issue then this conversation is going into absurdity. You are better than that adios. I know you are.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's something for you, why don't you refrain from making the accusation that someone is nothing more than an oil company tool (as if working for an oil company is evil) or give us your best shot at proving to us how oil companys are in bed together and purposely spreading disinformation.
[/ QUOTE ]
well here is one site of many:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
There was Philip Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute oil lobbyist, who edited white house documents. Once he was forced to resign due to scandal he went over to Exxon.
There's an internal memo from API hosted on my website. You could go to realclimate and type in $100,000 to get another one from the IREA. You could go to sourcewatch and check every other skeptic and especially the websites like junkscience and CEI. Or you could read my websites skeptic profiles to see how some of these skeptics will admit they are wrong on scientific newsgroups and then go to the reporters and say the complete opposite. You can read up on Pat Michaels Ph.D. and how he takes tons of money from API and screws up highschool math to disprove climate change or edits NASAs graphs and lies to congress.
You could read rolling stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...l_warming/print
You could read about the teachers association being bought off by API:
http://tinyurl.com/32g72n
The list is tremendous. Desmogblog tends to specialize in covering the oil link. Not all skeptics are oil shills. You will always have skeptics, heck they were debating whether the earth was flat on The View last week. But there is an enormous link between skeptics and skeptical media with oil companies. Heck many of the climate skeptic Ph.D's were former tobacco shills. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz are two ivy leaguers that fit the mold. I could go on. Do I really need to continue because this could end up being a book. But there is plenty on the web.
But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments?