"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:10:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


I think you addressed that question to another..

but very approximately so, yes. Why so rude about it?


Why do you take the statement as "rude"? I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately, you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement, I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:30:27 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 3/30/2007 3:10 PM:
...

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a
"research assistant."

How Jaxian of you. I've often found that those who demand identification
and scoff at credentials are those that provide neither.

Not at all, just trying to clarify. The original presentation of the paper
was done in a way that made one think he was a scientist, without stating
that he was a research assistant. He then posted that he wasn't a scientist,
then posted again linking his name to several scientific papers without
mentioning his role in those papers, again leading one to believe that he
has bonafides which he really doesn't.

If I'm speaking with Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking, I want to know it. If
I'm speaking with one of their students, it make a difference.

Just as a matter of interest, who do you consider to be The Big Chief
of this particular subject matter?


As for my own identification, I post here and everywhere else with my
name -- I hide behind no handles. I have no scientific credentials, merely a
keen interest in the world around me. I am, however, smarter than the
average bear. In point of fact, and not to brag, significantly so.

Practically perfect, in fact..

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:44:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:10:48 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

So, as I suggested before, your position is along the lines of a "research
assistant."


I think you addressed that question to another..

but very approximately so, yes. Why so rude about it?


Why do you take the statement as "rude"?

Adressed to "mr.b"

"So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that
paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing
it, based upon your contributions to this thread. "

Did you mean me?

I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately, you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement,


I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.


I am not surprised, you probably could not change a lightbulb with a
manual in front of youl..

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:30:27 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Just as a matter of interest, who do you consider to be The Big Chief
of this particular subject matter?

I don't know that there really is one. However, such a person would have to
be someone untouched by -- and immune to -- political agendas.



As for my own identification, I post here and everywhere else with my
name -- I hide behind no handles. I have no scientific credentials, merely
a
keen interest in the world around me. I am, however, smarter than the
average bear. In point of fact, and not to brag, significantly so.

Practically perfect, in fact..


Just call me Mary Poppins.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:44:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Why do you take the statement as "rude"?

Adressed to "mr.b"

"So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that
paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing
it, based upon your contributions to this thread. "

Did you mean me?

Yup, my reply followed Mr.B's, but addressed your link to the paper you
originally posted. At that time you appeared to be leading us to believe
that you wrote the paper. Had you said, "I worked as a research assistant on
this paper, and others," the entire matter would have ended right there.


I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately,
you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement,


I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.


I am not surprised, you probably could not change a lightbulb with a
manual in front of youl..


I usually hire an electrician.

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:23:45 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?
Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?
Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

and you are wrong as well

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

your impugning the motives of academics renders whatever "argument" you
are intending to make, fallacious and therefore invalid.

You don't know much about science, I see. Bias is a very important issue
in all of science, so much so that any experiments or reasoning *must*
address bias and correct for it.

If you watch the video, there is much more to the argument than the bias
of the involved scientists. Why don't you address any of those issues?

Stephen

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:06 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:24:36 -0400, Jeff said:

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 12:55 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff said:

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?
A bit disingenuous, don't you think? Oh....you were trying to be cute.
An allegation was made that "most of the experts" would lose their
jobs if the theory were proved false. I've seen no evidence for that
at all.

Again, you're trying to be cute. Your rhetorical question was as follows:

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?
No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that?

Your claim, in other words, is that the answer to the question (whether
experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory's being
true) is to be found in a peer-reviewed journal article.

Pretty clear example of trying to blow smoke.

Do you have a peer-reviewed article to prove that? Otherwise, you're
just blowing smoke.

An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who
supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no
supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke!

And on the other side, its well established that much of the "anti"
research is funded by front groups supported by big oil, and published
in non-peer reviewed journals. That's mirrors!

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:12:05 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:44:26 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Why do you take the statement as "rude"?

Adressed to "mr.b"

"So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that
paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing
it, based upon your contributions to this thread. "

Did you mean me?

Yup, my reply followed Mr.B's, but addressed your link to the paper you
originally posted. At that time you appeared to be leading us to believe
that you wrote the paper. Had you said, "I worked as a research assistant on
this paper, and others," the entire matter would have ended right there.


With all due respect, you don't have the background or knowledge to
judge my contribution to those papers and I don't have the inclination
to attempt to explain. I was trolled into indicating that I had some
knowledge, connections, public funding in related fields. I am sorry
Jeff was somewhat misled for a period.

I am not responsible for what Gore says or anybody assuming I am a
tree-hugger. Despite my poor verbal skills what I actually say can be
very precise. Sometimes I wonder if I have spent too much time with
lasers and become one.

Enough is enough, I apologise to the group for off-topic posts but I
feel BS must always be countered particulaly something as gross as
T.G.G.W.S.

I have finished. :-) Byeeee.


I'm simply trying to clarify your
professional credentials, since you chose to offer them. Unfortunately,
you
chose to offer them in a way that would lead one to believe that you are
*more* than a research assistant. If you think that is also a rude
statement,


I'm not even a research assistant, and work for no scientific or
political institution(s) at all.


I am not surprised, you probably could not change a lightbulb with a
manual in front of youl..


I usually hire an electrician.

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:46 PM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:32:41 -0400, Jeff said:

An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who
supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no
supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke!

No Jeff. Blowing smoke is claiming the issue of whether those supporting the
theory of GW are corrupt is to be found in a scientific journal.

Why is that, Dave? I don't follow your logic at all. A claim was
made, I only asked if there was supporting evidence that would be
acceptable to most people. How is that blowing smoke? Most people
would look at it the other way, that making such a claim without
supporting evidence is blowing smoke.

Logic was never your long suit, was it Dave?

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
With all due respect, you don't have the background or knowledge to
judge my contribution to those papers and I don't have the inclination
to attempt to explain. I was trolled into indicating that I had some
knowledge, connections, public funding in related fields. I am sorry
Jeff was somewhat misled for a period.

Actually, you don't know what my background is, do you?

And you are still unwilling to clarify what your contributions to those
papers may have been. Why the continued obfuscation? If I put my name on a
book, I think it makes a difference whether I actually wrote it, or simply
typed the manuscript. To list my name along with that of the author without
clarifying my actual role would be disingenuous at best.

If you receive public funding in related fields, it is not unreasonable for
one to assume that it is in your own personal interest to keep those funds
flowing. This is not an implication of corruption -- it is simply a
statement made based upon an understanding of how money flows in acadamia
and governmental institutions.


I am not responsible for what Gore says or anybody assuming I am a
tree-hugger. Despite my poor verbal skills what I actually say can be
very precise. Sometimes I wonder if I have spent too much time with
lasers and become one.

I have no way to judge your verbal skills, it's your writing skills that I
have commented on.