"2. Stevens agrees"
You're going around in circles so fast you've forgotten the message board knows what Stevens agrees upon (see below), which is totally the opposite to what you're stupidly trying to conclude.
"So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change
is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously" - Bjorn Stevens
Failure to understand the various, valid processes of data normalization.
to the list above.
I could elaborate, but since you referred to Mann's critic as Muller, when in fact it was McIntyre and McKitrick (2003), that Muller "used", you obviously have no clue.
...and yours I've listed as "Failure to understand that climate skepticism is purely conspiracy theorism", accompanying "Failure to provide evidence of conspiracy between climate scientists, institutions generating and handling climate data, or independent bodies overseeing climate science reports."
Yes, a full repeating circle.....
Now which post was it that explained your repeated misrepresentation of the Michael Mann situation? Oh yes....the one about Mann's defamation lawsuit against the guy whom you are probably regurgitating. Very interesting to know that his lawyers are not arguing the validity of the offending articles' content. Says a lot...doesn't it?
Although the suit is still pending, I characterized this particular revelation as "Spinelessness in avoiding comment on proven instances of misrepresentation, falsification and incorrect accusations by climate skeptics."
.......'round' and 'round we go in the looney land of climate denial.
So, in a full circle, lasting some weeks, where we’ve now returned to a public declaration of misunderstanding the difference between weather and climate, we’ve seen;
Ignorance on how scientific analyses handles variance.
Ignorance on how different scientific method considers variance.
Failure to provide a logical argument for how funding interferes with an underlying science.
Spinelessness in avoiding comment on proven instances of misrepresentation, falsification and incorrect accusations by climate skeptics.
Failure to understand that climate skepticism is purely conspiracy theorism.
Failure to provide evidence of conspiracy between climate scientists, institutions generating and handling climate data, or independent bodies overseeing climate science reports.
And best of all, the use of references who's author says exactly the opposite to its intended use.
Thanks for the introduction to the world of climate denial. What a screwball realm you guys live in.
"You're right, you are confused. And let's not forget clueless. We won't go into the science to spare you from looking even more foolish and confused."
LOL !!! You don't realize the post was parodying you?
"came across some e-mails"
The emails were hacked from the University of East Anglia. Only extracts from some emails were published to accuse scientists of falsification and manipulation or destruction of data.
We now know these accusations were completely unsupported and were "commonly mistaken about the scientific issues".
Real tards use references who's author says exactly the opposite to its intended use.
So, from your response, I'm thinking the dilemma I posted won't be mentioned on Fox because it wouldn't be understood by its audience.
"righteous indignation" seems a feeble description.
Have you ever seen a right-winger accept a Supreme Court decision that goes against their superiorly informed opinions?
"where CO2 is not a pollutant"
Unfortunately, this particular misrepresentation (polite form of falsification) is not just voiced by the rightwing media, but is also tied up in more truthful disputes, such as legal definition(s).
Whether CO2 is an "air pollutant" causing "air pollution" is a question limited by wording of their respective definitions by the CAA. It is therefore devoid of substantial scientific evidence demonstrating that high concentrations of naturally occurring CO2 is toxic, because the newly established mechanism by which CO2 is toxic (or a pollutant) does not fit outdated criteria that determine 'pollutants'.
Of course, you won't see this factual aspect of the climate "debate" on Fox.
You may think your audience is dumb, but your inability to justify the "giving terrorist states nuclear weapons" statement is as clear as day.
You will, but those with respect for the Office will not.
Evidence found by Judge Napolitano, the Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News. Pity such gusto wasn't forthcoming in examining the "evidence" for invading Iraq.
I would like to know what the congressional oversight session found out, since the actual hearing revealed few new revelations about the attack. Pity we have to wait four weeks before the presidential election. I wonder why?
You offer an abolishment of terrorism, but what you really want to do is to kill lots of innocent children.
Right. The deceptive focus on the deal being Obama's sheds light on the right's campaign against it. They'll stoop as low as agreeing with a Democrat to support it.
"....he destroys Obama’s arguments."
I don't agree with that. Even if he did, it would have to include the destruction of arguments posed by dozens of experts, as well as the rest of the UN security council + Germany. I'm sure there's more. Good luck with that.