brewengineer, I added this rebuttal for you:
Criticism: Papers on the list have had their peer-review status retracted.
Rebuttal: Not a single peer-reviewed paper that has ever appeared on this list has had its peer-reviewed status retracted. If any of these papers are retracted by the journal they were published in they will be removed from this list. This is explicitly stated in the Criteria for Removal.
It seems that no matter how many rebuttals I write, alarmists perpetually invent even more ridiculous and false allegations.
@brewengineer, the list is not old it was just updated this year. Why are you making things up? Not a single paper on the list has had its peer-review status retracted. I suggest reading the rebuttals section before making any more incorrect statements about the list,
Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
Criticism: Authors on the list are not skeptics.
Rebuttal: It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that, "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."
So I suggest you take your own advice and "don't get lazy".
You have proven my point again. Thanks.
They also made the top 10 in Southern Living picks!!
I'm not under the impression that Mt. Pleasant is either quaint and innocent or a fake suburban hellscape. I guess that's why I get to enjoy living here.
nofaith, your link is old and I have been through that before. I am welcome to new evidence, not old regurgitated lists. You did no fact checking on your link, anyways. Many of those studies have had their peer review status retracted, and some were never reviewed at all. You are smarter than that. Don't get lazy.
Another point, many of these studies are not even specifically for AGW. Hell, even most of the authors don't admit to siding with the AGW skeptics. Did you even click on any of those study links?
That wasn't Trayvon. It was Denzel Curnell.
I know the difference. I just left it that way so you would write a comment. Think of it as a little Jedi Mind Trick grammatical error.
Now that's accomplished, I've fixed it all right like.
Since the author does not know when to use "then" versus "than," I quit reading the article.
Mario Delgado must be on acid or something, or maybe commented on the wrong article.
As for Edmund's Oast, they deserve all the success in the world. Scott and Rich have been innovators in the Charleston beer business for years, and a lot of places have been able to succeed based on the hard work of people like them and the owners of Coast Brewing. It wasn't that long ago that liquor was only in mini-bottles, and ABV was capped at the level of everyday domestics. That didn't just change on its own.
Every experience at the restaurant has been top notch, and Scott is in there running plates, checking on customers, talking shop, and everything else that a great restaurant owner does. Kudos and good luck to them for Best Restaurant of the Year.
They have the franchise because either through working there or investing there they paid for it.
They are getting rented and quickly so obviously the rent rate they are asking for is not too astronomical yet.
You missed and proved my point at the same time. You can't bring yourself to believe that there is a possibility that climate change is not created by man and you use as the basis of your belief that only studies that have shown that is the case can count as valid. And, I am not saying that it is a correct or incorrect belief, just that the people who believe it refuse to look at anything that questions that belief as a valid point of view, just like the young earther crowd does. That has nothing to do with the two crowds having similar beliefs, just similar logic structures to personally validate those beliefs.
It is recent enough in history that it can probably found out but I wonder how many papers were put out that Darwin's theories were incorrect at the time? Quantity of dissension is not necessarily a good evaluation of the quality of the dissension. Oh, and here is a link to a bunch of articles but I am pretty sure you poo pooed on them before because: a - you and other 'believers' refuse to believe there is another side and b - I have looked at this link sometime recently because it is a different color. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/p…
I do tend to agree with Native Ink, however, on the fact that we should be worrying about how to mitigate issues associated with climate change that are actually occurring and that there is no sense in doing things that we know are not going to have positive results long term. But we do not need to make drastic changes in response to the alarmists who's predictions have not been coming true (refer to artrogue's short list above) and are making these predictions based on a belief that it can only be man causing these changes when there are dissenting opinions on such a massively broad subject.
The city paper is a joke. You brought back treyvon martin's picture to your cover in a desperate grab for viewers. Wish there was any good local literature to read. Hater.
You're an idiot.
I strongly suspect that those who are lobbing insults regarding the cost associated with living in Mt. P are those who are also most jealous they can't afford to live here. For those who do live here and are so unhappy there are numerous avenues of exit. Please feel free to use one and go back to wherever you feel is so much better!
"I don't know, I was told there was an actual plane that nearly crashed on 526 Tuesday afternoon."
That could have been it. It was really close to the Don Holt bridge.
Of course the debacle of a 'needed housing' development got pushed through with limited parking - it's The Beach Company for God's Sake - they get whatever they want. Satisfying a 'need' for rental housing and charging astronomical rents are what The Boulevard project is ALL about - $1200 - $1400/ month for an EFFICIENCY apartment is ridiculous! Its all about Beach Company making their $'s .
dude you dont get it , iwas born and raised in mt p worked on shrimp boats for many years , as a local mt pleasant the city starts about where 526 comes in . the old village is wat its called from shem creek to mccants maybe center street we want that protected as for the shrimp boats wat do you think brought everyone of non locals here it was the beauty of the creek and the laid back atmosphere .mt p doesnt want to be a city . why ruin this beautiful place! only the town council whom are not from here voted for this . actually i think it was done at nite one day it was just there. do you think the boulevard looks out of place well we do!!!!!!!
"I find Science Daily to be on the warmist side as far as GW is concerned. I'm not knocking their entire website."
No, they are just one of the better popsci news sources out there. The fact that they have a lot of studies posted about global climate change is simply due to the fact that there are so many research projects looking at it right now.
"Climate change and young earthers are cut from the same cloth"
nofaith, just when I think you use some logic in your posts, you completely let me down. Climate change denial is where rational discussions are lost. Look at the deniers, almost always hard core religious. Personally, I come from petroleum and automotive industries. Do you think I would just blindly follow the side that could threaten my livelihood some day? I don't want there to be human cause climate change. I spent years on the side that said there is nothing to worry about. Then, scientists kept producing more and more studies showing that we are changing our ecosystem in a negative way. Feel free to show me all the peer reviewed studies showing we have not affected global climate trends. I am very open and always enjoy seeing new evidence. The problem I have found, is that for every 1 study showing no link to human interference, there are 100 showing we have done damage. I am not here to argue that we can fix what we have started, either. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper