Let's see how your crowd does, shall we? Oh, and rather than just pronouncing a characteristic and saying, "Oh, yeah, that applies," I will offer support - something you never do.
Oh, you mean like, "The oil industry is responsible for data that refutes the global alarmist ninnies?
That claim is a lie, based in significant part upon a claim that 90% of peer-reviewed scientific papers were "funded" by Exxon Mobil ...
Except that claim is a pure fabrication. Here is the truth:
Oil does not finance scientific research. The stupidity of that claim is shown by the fact that the article making the claim "Oil funds AGW-question research" includes the allegation that Ph.D. James Christy is "funded by the Exxon" because he gave one speech to the Marshall Institute, free of charge.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html
AGW wackos believe that opposing research is paid-for by the oil industry, but the claim is demonstrably false.
Strike 1.
Oh, you mean like IPCC lead author, Sari Kovats, who was first identified as an IPCC contributor in 1994 but did not have her first paper published until 1997 and did not earn hear Ph.D. until 2010, more than 13 years after she began her graduate studies?
Why no record of it appears in any of the relevant places eight months later remains uncertain, but all of the above has now raised some new concerns.
According to the document the school produced, Kovats was born in 1969 and became a part-time doctoral student in 2001. In an e-mail to her I mentioned that the public record indicates her first paper was published in 1997. She did not dispute this.
In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldn’t be published for another three years. It would be six years before she’d even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she’d graduate.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/16/the-strange-case-of-sari-kovats/
Like that, you mean?
Strike 2.
Look, this is too easy. You are giving me soft-toss on this one:
Such as how the IPCC saw that this:
View attachment 182
Became the cherry-picked Mann "hockey stick" (the subject of the comment "hide the decline" when referring to manipulating the data to eliminate the MWP)? Which the IPCC then reversed in IPCC 5 to once again denote the Medieval Warming Period, only after being "outed" by Steve McIntyre??
View attachment 183
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/...the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/
You mean like that?
Strike 3.
"Impossible" expectations? How about "reasonably accurate"?
By the way, who decides when expectations are "impossible"? This is not science - it is a purely subjective argument.
That is anti-science.
Strike 4.
Such as "ad hominem" arguments with reference to researchers who publish data showing that AGW alarmists are wrong? The argument that the argument is to be rejected not based upon the data, but instead because "he is funded by oil companies"??
That is a clear logical fallacy, no?
Strike 5.
And how about these facts:
A leading climate scientist has resigned from the advisory board of a think-tank after being subjected to what he described as “McCarthy”-style pressure from fellow academics. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down from the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council. He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper because of his link with the foundation..
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=d62395475c&e=f4e33fdd1e
Any problem with that?? Virulent attacks on lettered scientists who raise legitimate questions about AGW? No problem to you, I bet.
