What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Jimbo- I respectfully count none of your items in post #1483 as facts.

Care to elaborate?

Jimbo

[bntii]

Url where found?

Thanks,
Thomas

"Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago. Since the mid-1970s, the increase in temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade. This rate of change is very unusual in the context of past changes and much more rapid than the warming at the end of the last ice age. Sea-surface temperatures have warmed slightly less than the global average whilst temperatures over land have warmed at a faster rate of almost 0.3 °C per decade.

Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming."

• * "Global warming has not stopped"
  * "Natural climate variations temporarily enhance or reduce observed warming"
  

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...g_goes_on.html

[Guillermo]

Now about the MWP against CWP:
( from: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php)

Figure Description: The distribution, in 0.5°C increments, of Level 1 Studies that allow one to identify the degree by which peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures either exceeded (positive values, red) or fell short of (negative values, blue) peak Current Warm Period temperatures.

Level 1 Studies:
Studies that allow a quantitative comparison to be made between the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Current Warm Period (CWP). These reports are very important, especially those that reveal the MWP to have been warmer than the CWP and that were published after the papers of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) appeared, because the authors of such Level 1 reports likely knew that their findings were not in harmony with the contemporary position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which strongly endorsed the Mann et al. papers that claimed the warmth of the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented over the entire past millennium. Authors of more recent Level 1 papers have additionally had to contend with the contrary force of the paper of Mann and Jones (2003), which claimed that the warmth of the latter part of the 20th century was unprecedented over the past two millennia. Hence, it can be appreciated that the authors of many Level 1 papers were really "sticking their necks out" when reporting something considered by much of the scientific community to be incorrect, which would tend to give special credence to the sincerity of their belief in the validity of their data.

Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley of South Africa (1)
Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley of South Africa (2)

Dengloujao Reef, Leizhou Peninsula, China
Eastern China
Lake Qinghai, China
Lake Teletskoye, Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, Russia
Lake Teletskoye, Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia, Russia
Pearl River Delta, Shenzhen Bay, China
Permafrost Regions of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China
Polar Ural Mountains, Russia
Yakushima Island, Southern Japan

Cave Stalagmite, New Zealand

Apennines, Italy
Austrian Alps
Central Scandinavian Mountains, Sweden
Lake Korttajarvi, Central Finland
Lake Neuchatel, Jura Mountains, Switzerland
Lake Redon, Central Pyrenees, Northeast Spain
Lake Toskaljavri, Northern Fenoscandia
Lake Tsuolbmajavri, Finnish Lapland
Northern Icelandic Coast
Northern Icelandic Shelf, North Atlantic Ocean
Northwest Spain Peat Bog
Polar Ural Mountains, Russia
Spannagel Cave, Central Alps, Austria
Spannagel Cave, Central Alps, Austria
Swedish Scandes
Tagus River Estuary, off Lisbon, Portugal
Tornetrask Area of Northern Sweden
Tornetrask Area, Swedish Lapland
Voring Plateau, Eastern Norwegian Sea

Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Columbia Icefield, Canadian Rockies, Canada
Crête, Central Greenland
Dye-3, Southern Greenland
Eastern Sierra Nevada Range, California, USA
Great Bahama Bank, Straits of Florida
GRIP Ice Core, Greenland Summit
Hallet Lake, Alaska, USA
Lake Erie, Ohio, USA
Pigmy Basin, Northern Gulf of Mexico

Northern Hemisphere: 20-90°N

Indo-Pacific Warm Pool
Pigmy Basin, Northern Gulf of Mexico

Peruvian Shelf
Cariaco Basin off the Venezuelan Coast


I do not cite second and third level studies to not make this post a bigger 'Bostonity' than it already is.

Cheers.

[Boston]

The term 'climatologically significant' is used by AGW proponents to describe these releases which is generally agreed began circa 1950.

now I know your high
when did generally agreed upon, become a fact
this kind of cavalier use of "facts" is the basis of your argument
please
and you wonder why Im laughing at you guys

In the years immediately following the agreed upon beginning of important anthropogenic CO2 releases, the climate cooled for ~40 years.

Ild love to see your definition of a fact if this is what you present as one
A) no one agreed on anything
B) are you high again, whats this climate cooling for the last ~40 years tripe
C) ends up with more than a few folks rolling on the ground laughing

and this is getting really old

The study titled “Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuation in Eastern Australia” uses data from 1876 to the present to examine the correlation between solar cycles and the extreme rainfall in Australia.

uses the same old argument that the sun did it
to which the only reasonable response can be
no **** Shirlock
sun does seem to have a lot to do with climate now doesn't it

The difficulty I find is to figure out the relative weight of each component. There are several graphs and tables available, but none includes all of them.

and speaking of components to the global climate
one of them would be human interaction wouldnt it?
and that is the crux of the mater
is human interaction causing an effect on the global climate
no one is arguing that the sun has nothing to do with it
what were arguing is that 6,000,000,000 people also have an influence
like we are eating every living thing on the planet and
have demolished the ecosystem and altered the chemistry of the atmosphere
and are pumping **** out of the depths of the earth as fast as we can

tell you what
you keep distracting the issue
Ill keep bringing it back on track
the factor we are questioning is human
not wind or waves or swallows burping in Zimbabwe
what was it
82~84 + million barrels of oil dumped into the ecosystem every day
and you think that will have no effect
are you nuts
of course it will
and that "fact" alone is bound to come home and bite you in the ass eventually

[bntii]

No problem Jimbo,
Point by point:

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

While we're on the 'Fact' train, I'll add these:

Fact: The beginning of 'climatologically significant' anthropogenic CO2 releases IS NOT coincident with the start of the industrial revolution. There is a ~150 year gap. This is a significant gap, and we have very good data for this time period both ITO temp and CO2 concentration.

I think this is splitting hairs... it is clear that there is a remarkable change in atmospheric Co2 which occurs right at the time when we are adding remarkable amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, and centuries after we affected many components of the carbon cycle via land use changes


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_to_Y2004.png

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Fact:
In the years immediately following the agreed upon beginning of important anthropogenic CO2 releases, the climate cooled for ~40 years.

You posted just above this that:

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The term 'climatologically significant' is used by AGW proponents to describe these releases which is generally agreed began circa 1950.

By ALL measures and your own admission, temperatures have been rising since the 1950's:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The significance of this is that CO2 was already rising before humans began releasing it in quantities that matter.

You have mentioned this a number of times and have yet to document it.

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

There has been no warming in the tropical troposphere. This is very significant because basic greenhouse theory and all the climate models tell us that we will see significant, unmistakable warming in the tropical troposphere if the observed warming is due to the greenhouse effect.

This is one of the items I countered thoroughly & you described my posts as "obscuration"

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the validity of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite data showed little or no warming above the surface. There is no longer evidence of such a discrepancy. This is an important revision to and update of the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Since those reports, errors have been identified and corrected in the satellite
data and other temperature observations. These data now show global average warming in the atmosphere similar to the warming observed at the surface and consistent with the results from climate models, although discrepancies remain to be resolved in the tropics. The recent evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes."
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...ft/default.htm

And:

"We find that there is no longer a serious and ubiquitous discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates."

Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, submitted: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology. 3/08.

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Thomas,
Let's go one at a time (second 'fact' first. I noticed you didn't question the first one)

Cheers.

No I didn't- I take this as a valid observation (a fact), and is part of those things we know.

On MWP: I prefer to look directly at the science not commentary when I am trying to understand these topics.

I do not take co2cience.org as science but rather commentary.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by bntii

Url where found?

From here:
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles...ng-since-1995/

Matches well with NASA's plot (see attached image)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

The statement about the warming rate being unusual is unsupportable. You can look at any number of recons and see some steep slopes sustained for a few decades at a time; no different than recent warming.

Here's hard data for my statement about anthropogenic Co2:

Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning,
Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring:

The first number is the year. The second is the total global CO2 releases in million metric tons:


1751 3
1800 8
1850 54
1900 534
1950 1630
2000 6745

Find the data here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

It's easy to see why the 1950's are generally agreed to begin the significant releases. This is a very interesting site and completely apropos the discussion:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp030/ndp0301.htm

Then there's this:

In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."


In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."

Read the rest here


Some good graphs of historical CO2 levels. Take special note, Thomas, of the rising CO2 levels way back before 1800, when our industrial output was miniscule; we exhale far more today(12 MMT)! This is quite important, because if the levels of CO2 in the recent past were actually substantially higher than the 'generally accepted' 280 ppm, that may indicate that current CO2 level rises are not from the use of 'fossil' fuels, but merely a natural fluctuation.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/



Note that the 'knee' in the graph corresponds to circa 1950, the turning point in anthropogenic releases. But it's the part before the knee that I'm asking you to focus on because it proves my point: how could we be responsible for that bit of the rise given the paltry sums of CO2 we were the releasing Even AGW leaning scientists concede this point; why won't you? (Hansen admits that's why he chose 1958 for his study back in the 80's)

I'll flesh out all the other 'facts' in my previous post later. I have to go to bed, now

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

And this is from the University of Alabama
See the attached graph.
Find the raw data here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

Read Dr. John Christy:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/chris...gless_etal.pdf

From there:
"5. Summary
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
In summary, the debate in this field revolves around the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature trends warming faster than the surface. What is new in this article is the determination of a very robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations which disagree with trends from the models.
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution."

I'm also going to bed. Nice dreams!

Cheers.

[Boston]

this is exactly the kind of blatantly biased research Im talking about
please people at least check your sources before offering such embarrassingly bad research for comparison
good Gods and you wonder why Im laughing at this hole view when you once again have harped on Mann
what is it every other post there is some rant about Mann's graph
can we please at least hear a new argument rather than the same old tired diatribe from the same old tired industry cronies

Now about the MWP against CWP:
( from: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php)

I would bring your attention to the source of this next little moment in BS
the CO2 Science people
and question there ability to perform an unbiased and quantitative study on anything let alone the effects of the pollution caused by there employers

Level 1 Studies:
Studies that allow a quantitative comparison to be made between the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Current Warm Period (CWP). These reports are very important, especially those that reveal the MWP to have been warmer than the CWP and that were published after the papers of Mann. (break) Hence, it can be appreciated that the authors of many Level 1 papers were really "sticking their necks out" when reporting something considered by much of the scientific community to be incorrect, which would tend to give special credence to the sincerity of their belief in the validity of their data.

any else know who the CO2 Science people are
am I really the only one to catch this
well there was a huge expose' done of em recently and they were laughed right out of Dodge
gads I cant believe you actually quoted them G

check your sources kids
there are industry cronies being quoted right and left
for instance
these CO2 Science people that G is so fond of

chairman 
CRAIG D. IDSO

C. Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO. According to a newsletter from Basin Electric, a Western Fuels Association member company, Craig and Keith Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association. Western Fuels Association is the suspected tfunder of the Center, though there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence. The Center does not reveal its funding sources.

and who is Peabody Energy

Peabody Energy is the world's largest private-sector coal company, with 2007 sales of 238 million tons and $4.6 billion in revenues. Our coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. We serve global coal demand from electricity generators and steelmakers, and we're growing to serve new global customers and emerging "Btu Conversion" markets.

or who is the President of CO2 Science
Sherwood B Idso 



or the Vice President 

Kieth E Idso

or surprise 

Operations Manager

Julene M Idso

funny but as it turns out Exxon pays this close knit family a lot of money to print there tripe
The Heat Is Online http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...)+&Cache=False has the skinny of who funds em and with such biased funding its not to much of a leap to expect them to hold the views they do eh

nice try G but your going to have to do a lot better than this to fool the readers into considering blatant industry propaganda as real unbiased data

it gives us all pause when you are found out so badly friend
surely your argument stands on better ground than these industry fools are providing

please
I dont have the time nor the inclination to research every detracting post but when the sources quoted have been so completely exposed as industry stand ins what are the readers to think
how can you justify your position when it is only substantiated by such obvious industry rag

[Boston]

And this is from the University of Alabama
Author: Dr. John Christy.

really Jim we just went over this kind of thing
Competitive Enterprise Institute
are you kidding me
you actually; after I cleaned up with G's last embarrassingly bad source went ahead and used this guys research
he's waffled more times than Aunt Jemima
you guys have really got to get it together if you expect to keep peoples attention let alone convince anyone 6,715,830,000+ people arent effecting the environment.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.

Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

and who is
Competitive Enterprise Institute that was Christy's publisher
and were does there funding come from
among there largest contributors
Amaco
Coca Cola 
Ford Motor Company
Philip Morris
Texaco

In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal." [6]

so I think this goes to prove that the university system will not discriminate against a detracting view and that although Dr Christy was a serious dissenter not only has he changed his tune but kept his job in the process
although he was definitely getting funding from some pretty shady and biased sources that frankly, should have got him fired
he still however found it in his heart to finally admit that humans were a mitigating factor in global climate change

or the sponsors of his work
Cooler Heads Coalition
a front group for consumer alert

Formed in 1997, the Coalition and its website were revised in April 2004. It is currently hosted and financed by Consumer Alert

so who is Consumer Alert

Consumer Alert may have ceased operations. Its former website, www.consumeralert.org, is no longer online. Its website was operational until at least February 2006 (according to the archives at: http://tinyurl.com/2q6soe and http://tinyurl.com/3daeo4, which the owners of the CA domain have blocked).

Consumer Alert operates the National Consumer Coalition, a collection of front groups and industry friendly organizations

Consumer Alert published a "declaration of support" for agricultural biotechnology signed by over 600 industry scientists including signatories from Monsanto (67 individuals), Pioneer Hibred (22 individuals), Dow (21 individuals)

now Ill grant you that this particular publication you directed us to may have been accepted by a reputable source
unlike many of his other publications
but his ties to industry biased and his indecision are indisputable

you guys are really struggling here
could you maybe please keep it interesting and make a viable argument on subject
that humans are not effecting the enviroment
cause so far
I see nothing but poorly constructed distractions
thanks
B

[Guillermo]

Boston,
those are exactly the kind of contributions you just seem to able to do: personal attacks against people you consider are wrong (or plainly you do not understand or refuse to read) and trying to mix pears with apples instead of debating or at least posting useful data on anthropogenic CO2 warming, the only issue we are debating here. Tiring, disgusting and not useful at all, making all of us lose our time, both the warmists and 'cooliests', who are trying to maintain a minimally constructive and learning debate here. Could you please avoid doing that anymore? Please, please, please.....

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by bntii

No I didn't- I take this as a valid observation (a fact), and is part of those things we know.

Excellent. So we got another 'consensus fact'

Originally Posted by bntii

On MWP: I prefer to look directly at the science not commentary when I am trying to understand these topics.

I do not take co2cience.org as science but rather commentary.

Thomas,
perhaps you prefer to have a look at more in deep discussions on the matter here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8

If you search there, you'll find a lot of studies suggesting warmer than today's temperatures at variety of locations around the globe, not only in Europe.
Like these ones:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=145
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1165
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=378
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=105

Of course the magnitudes of the MWP global temperatures are under strong debate, but I don't find position from defendants of lower than actual ones being better supported than the contrary. They rather seem more like an agenda, to me.


Cheers.

[Boston]

is it a personal attack to show ones work as biased and therefore subject to question

is it a contribution to point out that research supporting an industries ability to continue its profitable pollution; is provided by that industry

is it usefull to discuss the levels of co2 when you wont admit that human activity has something to do with those levels

how does it help the discussion for detractors to refuse to admit that gigatons of waste spewed into the atmosphere every year, year after year is altering the atmospheric chemistry

what you call disgusting is the basic logic through which your view of man having nothing to do with global climate change is shown to be untenable

I regret I may be having a little to much fun with this
I've always found it easy to demolish pseudoscience
and following the funding is a real easy way to find out who is who and why they may believe what they do

anthropogenic CO2 warming?
I was under the impression the subject was

What Do We Think About Climate Change

climate change is based on a lot of factors
I maintain one of those factors is man

the admission of which is key to our discussion concerning co2
is it so wrong to as doggedly pursue that admission as detractors pursue there own agenda

the analogy of the blind leading the blind may not be as easy for some to accept when they consider themselves the leaders spoken of
but in this instance it does seem to apply well
as the level of blatant biased disinformation is extraordinary
I think there was one viable reference made in the last twenty or so
and that was a blatant distraction

with the detracting view's basic logic being to try and argue that because one thing out of hundreds may be causing climate change, that something else, isn't
you just wouldn't get to far
at least not in any of the scientific or academic communities

you have to admit
when you tried to say the sun may have something to do with global climate change
what was I supposed to do other than laugh
I was rolling when I read that
I mean please common seriously
ya think the sun may have something to do with this hole climate thing
really
thats going to be funny to a lot of people there G
it may have been a sarcastic funny to those who's view was being shown as sorta silly
but it was kinda funny none the less

tell you what
if you and Jimmy admit that this vast number of people
nearly 7 billion at this point
is emitting massive amounts of waste products into the ecosystem
and that that waste can only have an effect
then I think this can begin to move forward a little

I think the obvious reality that 97% is a consensus might also be best admitted
because it represents a willingness to at least face the truth
that was a Harris poll for Pete's sakes
how can you guys possibly deny a Harris poll

those are just two very simple beginnings that could seriously serve to help that learning process you mentioned

best
B

[Boston]

ok G so Im and try to make one simple point
and see if it gets across

first thing I do when Im offered information on an unscientifically moderated forum is check the source

in your latest you mention

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8

so I go there and I see its a site by Steve McIntyre titled Climate Audit
now that name rings a bell cause Ive seen his name come up before
but to be thorough Ill look him up again

He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]
Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies

now this isnt a personal attack to note that the man has some pretty extreme ties to the oil and gas industry
but it doesnt bode well for his work being unbiased
nor is it evil to notice his education
he studied rocks not climate science and has a bachelors degree in mathematics
nor did I notice ( and I certainly may have missed something ) that he had actually published anything

Im then going to notice the first thing it says in his bio is
hockey stick controversy
ok
so now maybe some of the readers can see what Im getting at
once again we are stuck on the Mann wagon

if you go back about fifty posts you will find that I posted about twenty or so graphs of temperature vs time in response to this ongoing problem with the Mann graph. I tried to move on from it and give you the Mann graph if you would give me the other thousand or so your not mentioning as being fraudulent, but no
hear we are how many months later with the Mann graph still out on the table

a proverb begins to come to mind
why am I watching this dead horse getting beaten to a pulp
but to be fare I go on

and every subsequent reference is from the same biased source
the oil guy's page

now seriously G in your own words

Tiring, disgusting and not useful at all, making all of us lose our time

now I ask you and the readers
was any of this a personal attack
was I to hard on any one
did I manage to point out the obvious about that horse looking pretty dead from any angle
did we really have to mention Mann again

all I can do is continue to point out the obvious and hope rational minds consider that in a scientific debate, peer reviewed works hold a lot more ground than industry biased pseudoscience

cheers
B