USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Nope. But I also don't claim to be more of an expert than anyone but you, econ boy. That said, I've got a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry and have forgotten more about science than you'll ever know. Put me up against the general population and I can easily hold my own.

 

Well, that settles it. I'm "econ boy", and you can't refute the data I've presented, nor the data that Carlin has presented. As I said earlier, if you are a "scientist", then science means nothing at this point in terms of finding answeres.

[/QUIOTE]Put me up against the general population and I can easily hold my own.[/QUOTE]

Really? You keep calling me "econ boy" without knowing a thing about me or my degrees. You seem to be struggling with "econ boy", however. Does an Ph. D. in analytical chemistry mean much these days? I thought chemists like controlled settings instead of random data.

 

While you're at it, why not continue to smear Dr. Alan Carlin? Since you're on the Google and all. Or you could just continue to ignore his (along with others') report that was shelved by Obama's EPA.

This isn't political though, right?

 

Carlin isn't a climate scientist. Why would his report have weight?

 

Carlin is a 38 year analyst for the EPA with a BS in Physics from Cal Tech and a Ph. D. in economics from MIT.

Why not let his report out into the public, since he's paid by the public?

 

That's an opinion. Have you read his report that he co-authored with EPA scientists? How is he "asking for it" by merely interpreting available data?

If you were an EPA analyst for 38 years, I'd expect to at least give you the courtesy of a public airing. Have you been an EPA analyst for 38 years, barfo? Has this guy been a waste of money for 38 years, barfo?

Yes, it is. I've seen nobody refute the data that has been presented the past 10 years. Even the analytical chemist has to resort to cheap shots and ad hominem attacks.

Was this post really worth you tagging it?

 

Because he was paid by the EPA, and he had to have his manager approve it. The manager subsequently suppressed it. Why are you smearing this man, barfo?

barfo

 

Really? You keep calling me "econ boy" without knowing a thing about me or my degrees. You seem to be struggling with "econ boy", however. Does an Ph. D. in analytical chemistry mean much these days? I thought chemists like controlled settings instead of random data. [/QUOTE]

Oh, I've refuted plenty -- you're just too ignorant to know it. You've had plenty of chances to give your background, but you've only hid behind your B.S. (which sometimes loosely translates to "I was too lazy to learn a language, so I took basic stats and calc for idiots and got my B.S. instead of a B.A.) Really, I dont' need to know your actual major because your understanding of science is clearly lacking. And anyway, econ would be too hard for you if you had to take econometrics. Sociology or P.E. are probably closer to the truth.

Analytical chemists have a need for controlled settings? A laugher how far you are off on that. Although, it is true we don't like random data -- we generally prefer to have at least some signal. Good boy! You got one right.

 

Why are you smearing the man?

Moreso than your opinion, and at least with a review. Has Carlin been fired yet?

That was a red herring. My argument is about the CO2 man-made emissions versus temperatures rising.

barfo likes to smear men who merely gave their entire life to the EPA because they filed a 98 page report that questioned the "science" behing the global warming bulls**t.

barfo

 

Oh, I've refuted plenty -- you're just too ignorant to know it. You've had plenty of chances to give your background, but you've only hid behind your B.S. (which sometimes loosely translates to "I was too lazy to learn a language, so I took basic stats and calc for idiots and got my B.S. instead of a B.A.) Really, I dont' need to know your actual major because your understanding of science is clearly lacking. And anyway, econ would be too hard for you if you had to take econometrics. Sociology or P.E. are probably closer to the truth.

Analytical chemists have a need for controlled settings? A laugher how far you are off on that. Although, it is true we don't like random data -- we generally prefer to have at least some signal. Good boy! You got one right.[/QUOTE]

Do analytical chemists know how to format a post prior to posting it? The rest is gobbledy gook. Refute Carlin's work, or don't. Stop making me the object of your derision.

I bolded this because your quote formatted this way.

 

That's a fine education. It still doesn't make him a climate scientist.

As long as it's labeled as an outsider's look at climate science, sure. It shouldn't be marketed as serious climate science, since that would be misleading.

 

Al Gore's movie is shown in many classrooms as an educational fact. That's not misleading though, right?

barfo

 

Lol. You can keep saying nobody refutes your data over and over again. Doesn't make it any more true the 15th time.

Cheap shot or calling it like I see it. You know (and we know) you're playing Mr. Science in this thread and that you're in over your head. Call it a day or actually take the time to understand this stuff instead of spouting off like an idiot.

 

You have to make up my position. Good night.

barfo