1. You can't deny that their only expertise is having been TV weatherman.

2. You can't deny they have documented ties to ExxonMobil.

3. You can't deny that their article is not peer reviewed.

4. You can't deny that their article is unpublished by any reputable journal.

In other words you respond to the single trivial point of whether they should be called skeptics or deniers but ignore 4 major points casting doubt on the validity of their so-called "work" which (per usual) involves no original effort on their part but instead is essentially a book report based on the data and work of people to which they cannot hold a candle.

As to anything else you have to say, I have so little interest in your opinion I'm surprised I've bothered to give you even this much of a response.

1. Only?  Yea, I guess you are only a kid - as you stopped progressing when you were 6 as well.  What an assinine statement!

2. Ties?  So do I!  I buy gas there.  And your point is?  How about the 70m that exxon gave to the AGW crowd.  BP gave to Jones?  Again you are an idiot as if you can find 7 degress of separation that is your proof of a conspiracy, and then you stop looking before finding the mote in your own eye!

3. Peer reviewed?  Oh, like the ones that Amman and Wahl pulled?  The Jesus paper and the teleportation paper?  taht Peer reviewed?

4. Unpublished?  Like how the CRU gang torpedoed all the papers they did not like?  Geez!  You are so stale you are starting to crumble!  Pulling out crap that has been refuted long ago.  Don't you ahve any new tricks or are you still relying on discounted lies that have been shown (by the emails, and investigative reporting from the blogosphere) to be bunk? OMG!  I said Blogoshpere!  They could never find out the truth about anything, right?  rathergate.

The problem with you is that if RC does not print it, it does not exist to you.  So you miss most of the story and continue to rely on already debunked myths.  I guess you are going to now claim the Met has been taken over by your feared "deniers"!

Try doing some real investigation instead of relying on the "No dissent" RC site and its ilk.  If you actually read anything that allowed dissent (from both sides), you would see how shallow your "points" are.

And as I said before, it is easy to fish you in.  All you need is some facts as bait and you will byte to show how little you know and how much faith you have.  The only doubt you have cast is in your intelligence for all others to see.

Taking me longer to look at than I'd hoped (can't read the data on this computer, have to use a different one), but thanks for the link, at first glance it's pretty much exactly what I was looking for

FOIA is not usually required for Propaganda and indoctrination sites.  If you want some real sites, try climateaudit.org, noconcensus.wordpress.org, bishophill.squarespace.com, pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com, icecap.us, etc.  Like Realclimate, they are blog sites, but at least they invite opposing views, not stiffle them.

Yes, I can recognize them.  Want me to teach you how to?

Weathermen are members of the climatologicall society, to be a member you have to be certified as a climatologist. So being a weatherman is not a bad thing and it is within their realm of expertise. You do know that the girl at the weather channel is trying to get all deniers kicked out of the society and taken off the air? Sounds like an open debate to me.

Doc, it is obvious that since they received money from big oil that what they have to say is wrong and we should not listen to them.

[quote]Show me.

Show me where in the IPCC report it says the human contribution of global warming is .006 degree over the next 100 years.[/quote

I love the fact that you use Wiki as your go to site. while I foolishly read all the actual reports. below are excerpts from my posts that date back to 2008. The IPCC stuff are quots from the report cut and pasted to my articles, I have not edited or left out anything from the actual reports. Keep in mind that the IPCC put out four reports. I am in error, using only my memory I wrote .006 when in reality it is 0.05 if you want the full story look up my articles on global warming over the last two years they are a bit more accurate than Wiki. Don't be put off by the big words, if you need help I am sure Dr. Guy can help you sound them out. Cheep shot i know but i only mean it in jest.

The IPCC Report:

It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650 kyr. Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within a range of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period. Over the same period, antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations covary, indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle.

• It is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplified climate variations, but it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.

• It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the Pliocene, about 5 to 3 Ma) and for warm events lasting a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 Ma). In each of these two cases, warming was likely strongly amplified at high northern latitudes relative to lower latitudes.

All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated radiative forcing. There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC

Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and

A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C).

Release Date: Aug 14 2008          

According to recent news reports, a top observatory that has been measuring sun spot activity predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity slows and the planet drastically cools down. They suggest this could potentially herald the onset of a new ice age. Following the end of the sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now decreasing.

News flash!!!!!

The IPCC has been challenged by credible scientists with real scientific reports and in order to retain some semblance of scientific credibility. The IPCC has acknowledged the reports are correct and true. What is this great truth? That the Earth is in a cooling phase in its cycle. Yes, folks the Sun has been less intense the last 9 years resulting in the Earth cooling which agrees with the established solar cycle that has been published and accepted by the scientific community back in the 1970’s.

In reality the only requirements to be a TV weatherman or woman is to be able to stand in front of a green board and be able to point towards the left when looking at the monitor at something that appears to be on the right. That's pretty much it.

I will however grant that there are certainly a lot of TV weathermen with *meteorological* expertise. Again it’s not something that’s an absolute requirement of being a TV weatherman but it’s something that is reasonably common and I will grant that *most* TV weatherman have a reasonable amount of meteorological expertise.

The thing is *meteorological* expertise is not the same thing as *climatological* expertise.

In any case with regard to Watts as far as anyone can tell he never even graduated from college. From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts.

“Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University, studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology. Watts' “About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.”

“Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university) with a status of retired.”

“Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified", but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists, and Watts possesses neither certification.”

Again this in no way “proves” that he does not have an expertise in climatology but on the other hand it certainly by no means “proves” that he has any climatology expertise. However when Watts states something that conflicts with someone that has a PhD in a field specifically related to climatology, that has been working in that field for many years and has published literally hundreds of peer reviewed articles then I apologize but I will place my trust in the accredited professional over the unaccredited amateur every single time.

As far a D’Aleo is concerned he actually holds both a BS and an MS in *Meteorology* from The University of Wisconsin. He also is a Certified Consultant *Meteorologist* and was elected a Fellow of the American *Meteorological* Society. While I do want to point out (again) that *Meteorological* is not the same as *Climatology*, I will grant that D’Aleo certainly has more documented expertise than Watts. Again not necessarily up to the level of a PhD climatologist but some level of expertise nonetheless. The above is from http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1276.

But I am not a total credential snob. I will grant that just because someone does not have credentials that necessarily means they know nothing, but again I maintain that being a TV weatherman does not automatically qualify *anyone* as an expert on climatology.

Of more importance to me is being published in peer reviewed reputable journals. And contrary to the blogosphere there has in no way been any proof that a handful of climate scientists hold any kind of stranglehold on the peer reviewed publishing process. While I do have a PhD it’s in Electrical Engineering not climatology, and I make no pretense at any expertise in the subject of climatology. Someone with sufficient knowledge could easily “snow” me, however the peer review process requires that someone convince their “peers” which by definition are people that will not be facetiously misled. To me the process is the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” It's the same process used in all other scientific fields and while people have recently denigrated this process based on a sentance or two out of thousands of emails *nothing* has been even close to sufficiently proven to cause me the least bit of doubt in this process.

I assume this focus on the expertise of TV weatherman is based on my reply #10 where I mentioned in passing that Watts’ and D’Aleo’s only claim to expertise is being a TV weatherman, but that hardly was my primary argument. My primary argument in rebuttal to the report that ID referenced (i.e. Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?) was the article The IPCC vs. Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts.

Of course no one bothered to address the arguments presented in this article preferring instead to claim that every TV weatherman is a qualified climatologist and their every utterance is to be taken as proven fact.

So if someone wishes to address the real content of the rebuttal then fine, otherwise all you’re really doing is pissing in the wind.

And if you’re *really* interested here’s another pair of rebuttals to the Watt’s D’Aleo article. Dropouts from the denigrated for no apparent reason Tamino/Grant Foster and ‘Extraordinary Claims’ in KUSI Broadcast On NOAA, NASA … but ‘Extraordinary Evidence’? by Zeke Hausfather who I’m sure will be found unacceptable for some reason or other.

I'm perfectly familiar with the claims made against William Connolley and his "editing" of AGW related articles. I've debunked this claim a number of times myself and that's the thing about "skeptic" claims, they just get repeated and repeated without any kind of proof, no matter how many times and by how many people these claims have been shown to be baseless. The thing is that to the "skeptics" it really doesn't matter. There's no need to show any credible evidence, it's sufficient to merely make a claim because the goal is to merely confuse and obsfucate.

For example what happened to the argument that the sun was increasing by 10% every 100 or 1000 years in some vague and unspecified way? What was the point of introducing that and then just as quickly dropping it as if you had never said such a thing.

Anyway, like I said I'll respond to your other points sometime later as this reply is way too long already.

That's a very head-in-the-sand approach, completely ignoring that 'what is said' by either might matter.

Hardly baseless, and tell me how you debunked it when Wiki could not even do that (and eventually pulled his admin priveleges).  Indeed, for you to "debunk" it, you would have to prove that he never audited any climate articles on Wiki.  So since you claim it, prove it.  Show us how he never edited or audited any climate posts on Wiki.

You claim a lot and have yet to prove any of your claims.  I can see why you are in the Mann/Jones camp.  Birds of a feather and all.

However I'm under no obligation to "prove" anything to you, just as you have "proven" nothing yourself other than to parrot accusations.

Even if I wanted to take the time and effort to "prove" my assertions there is no proof that would be sufficient to change your mind. Nor is it my goal to change your mind. In effect I'm not really arguing or talking to you at all, I'm arguing and talking to the occasional person that might happen to read this thread that might actually have an open mind.

So basically the entirety of your "proof" is that the Wiki pulled his admin privileges and that therefore "proves" he behaved badly in some unspecified manner in regards to climate posts on the Wiki.

If that's your "proof" then you must not have read the Arbitration case regarding Abd (a Wiki "contributor") and William M. Connolley which is publicly and easily accessible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley

Firstly the entirety of this case rests with the interaction between a specific user, Abd, and Connolley which also specifically occurred in regard to the Wiki Cold fusion article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion.

There is no reference whatsoever in any of these arbitration proceedings related to any editing or administration malfeasance of *any* climate related articles.

Secondly read the arbitration proceedings above and come to your own conclusion. There are statements from all the users involved. There are also statements from multiple sources that show Abd to be known problem user with a history of edit wars.

Finally read the remedies section. Abd was banned from the entirety of the Wiki for 3 months after which he was required to identify a mentor to approve his future activity, was further banned from the cold fusion article for one year, was prohibited from participating in any dispute resolution discussion of which he was not an originating party and was admonished to not edit war, to not engage in personal attacks and for failing to even attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct leveled at other editors.

The remedies against William Connolley were that his administrative privileges are revoked, although he may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. Connolley was also admonished to not edit war. The most damning criticism of Connolley's use of administrator tools was that he was found to have "inappropriately extended a block that he had made, because of incivility directed at himself [and] later inappropriately reapplied his block after it was reversed..."

That's pretty much it. The bottom line is that Connolley's loss of admin privileges had nothing whatsoever to do with any climate related article, was related to one specific user and based on "incivility directed at himself." In other words someone was an asshole to him and he retaliated by using his admin privileges for which he lost those privileges.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Wiki climate articles other than Connolley just happened to be one of many admin involved in the many different climate related articles that are in the Wiki.

So I know this "proves" nothing to you but as I said I really don't care what you think. This is for those that might read your baseless accusations but still be open minded enough to follow the links I've provided and make up their own mind.

Again this is like the 5th time I've had to go through all of this and like most other skeptic arguments I'm sure these same accusations will be repeated in the next thread or even in the next page of this thread. And the next, and the next, ...

Q.E.D.

WRONG (and a cop out, why am I not surprised?).  YOU CLAIM to have debunked the issue.  So you have to PROVE your CLAIM.  I have not claimed anything other than to show you your errors, which I have proven (with links and all the pretty stuff).  just because you do not read them does not make them invisible.

But I do love your weaseling.  To then "not prove" (since you stated you would not), you then quote the compromised source!  Again, if I was to ask Kim il Sung if he was a ruthless brutal dictator, I am sure I could prove to you that he was just a mis-understood benevolent care taker of the worker's paradise! 

If nothing else you are amusing. 

Now if you do not want to prove your claim, remove it.  if you do want to prove your claim (or I should say offer data to support it as it is not provable since it is patently false), I will offer evidence that destroys your evidence and show that indeed Connolley was monkeying with the Wiki entries to the point as to make them just a propaganda stunt, and not a resource for AGW.

You have a lot to learn about science, debunking, claims and proof.  I thought you were just another mindnumbed AGW robot.  Turns out you are not even that smart.  Just one of George Orwell's sheep.