Debunking the AGW Theory?

[BethesdaWX]

Excellent. You noted earlier that you're not employed right now, and don't have much to do. I would make this priority #1.

You have been very fortunate to be given substantial resources by your parents. If you are smart about managing those resources, you will be able to put yourself in a position to have a lot of options down the road. If you aren't smart about it, you are likely to be sitting around at age 30, working your ass off, wondering why you squandered such a great head start.

Thanks, will do I've been told this alot lately, so it is a priority.

[stellarfun]

In giving career advice, Agricultural Sciences and Technology is not your major if you want to be a landscape architect or a landscaper.

http://agnr.umd.edu/...20Plan_AGST.pdf

Though you would get a course in technical writing, which should be invaluable in understanding how to write and/or read technical papers.

What you should be majoring in, given what you've posted, is a major in Plant Science, with a concentration in landscape management.

http://www.psla.umd...._LandManage.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

In giving career advice, Agricultural Sciences and Technology is not your major if you want to be a landscape architect or a landscaper.

http://agnr.umd.edu/...20Plan_AGST.pdf

Though you would get a course in technical writing, which should be invaluable in understanding how to write and/or read technical papers.

What you should be majoring in, given what you've posted, is a major in Plant Science, with a concentration in landscape management.

http://www.psla.umd...._LandManage.pdf

I said in the area of Agricultural Sciences & Techology, I have not worked out specifics in the exact area of study yet. But a BS in Plant Science is within the Agricultural & Plant Sciences division.

[Avdave]

I said in the area of Agricultural Sciences & Techology, I have not worked out specifics in the exact area of study yet. But a BS in Plant Science is within the Agricultural & Plant Sciences division.

Or you can work with DT and do forecasting for farmers and stuff like that

[BethesdaWX]

Or you can work with DT and do forecasting for farmers and stuff like that

I'd rather commit suicide.

[skierinvermont]

yeah, skeptic blogs with peer reviewed data and direct quotes like CO2 science...yeah! If that is "crap" to you, then you're a dipsh*t. Just like how you post Blogs from RealClimate and SkepticalScience. I suppose an alarmist blog is more trusting?!? Are you friggin kidding me?

I don't go around posting crap articles from WUWT (and agree/support them) unless they're linked to a peer reviewed datasource.

CO2 science doesn't reference peer review literature... the owner lacks a scientific background and writes his own interpretations of peer reviewed literature. He doesn't even post the actual abstracts. Instead he writes his own summaries of the papers which often misrepresent the content of he paper. Then he uses these results and comes up with his own arguments based on these papers.

Skeptical science simply provides summaries of the papers and then links you to the actual papers themselves so you can read them for yourself. It doesn't come up with its own arguments or interpretations.. it just gives a straightforward presentation of the conclusions of peer-reviewed papers.

The owner of CO2 science invents his own arguments and provides inaccurate summaries of the work cited.

[skierinvermont]

Kind of, and the fact that it looked like actual science was done. I just brushed through it and posted it. But It's funny how that amuses people here.

But that "science" may have been achieved through several starting miscalculations.

It doesn't amuse me. I think its unfortunate that instead of posting peer-reviewed sound science, you post crackpot rantings, thereby distracting from the real issues, confusing less knowledgeable posters, and making it more difficult to discuss actual science on a science forum.

This is a science forum.. threads like these detract from the forum's credibility and from meaningful discussion.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not as knowledgable as you or most adults on how to invest properly, I've basically just used what was available to me in the past 8 months I'm only 18.

Do you recommend anyone, specifics, etc?

I know I am mean to you and what not but for your own good PLEASE PLEASE see an investment advisor if you have that much stock.

[BethesdaWX]

CO2 science doesn't reference peer review literature... the owner lacks a scientific background and writes his own interpretations of peer reviewed literature. He doesn't even post the actual abstracts. Instead he writes his own summaries of the papers which often misrepresent the content of he paper. Then he uses these results and comes up with his own arguments based on these papers.

Skeptical science simply provides summaries of the papers and then links you to the actual papers themselves so you can read them for yourself. It doesn't come up with its own arguments or interpretations.. it just gives a straightforward presentation of the conclusions of peer-reviewed papers.

The owner of CO2 science invents his own arguments and provides inaccurate summaries of the work cited.

He quotes the scientists directly, direct quotes, and shows their data backing up the conclusions drawn. The scientists he cites are also on record as believing the MWP was as warmor warmer than today, or in the 2nd "blue" category, that they believe the MWP to be colder.

He also never uses anything unless its been peer reviewed.

[BethesdaWX]

I know I am mean to you and what not but for your own good PLEASE PLEASE see an investment advisor if you have that much stock.

I'm not Mad at You, sometimes you drive me crazy though.

And yes, I certainly will. Enough people have scolded me over the past month that I'm scared sh*tless.

[BethesdaWX]

It doesn't amuse me. I think its unfortunate that instead of posting peer-reviewed sound science, you post crackpot rantings, thereby distracting from the real issues, confusing less knowledgeable posters, and making it more difficult to discuss actual science on a science forum.

This is a science forum.. threads like these detract from the forum's credibility and from meaningful discussion.

I've always posted peer reviewed papers to back up my argument. This paper was not something I would ever defend scientifically.

But SkepticalScience is the same thing from the other side really, except its more of Bad Method rather than Bad science in that regard.

WUWT is the anti RC

[skierinvermont]

He quotes the scientists directly, and shows their data backing up the conclusions drawn. He also never uses anything unless its been peer reviewed.

Only in his and your opinion. Which is why the peer-review process is essential.

He is making his own arguments and any time somebody is making their own arguments there is potential for error. That's human nature. We are not hyper-rational beings. As Rusty put it quite well once, we are by and large irrational beings with the capacity to think rationally. Which is why the peer-review process is essential. Even if the data he uses is peer-reviewed, his arguments and conclusions are not. In fact, they are specifically at odds with ALL other peer-reviewed conclusions.

Plus, as stellarfun and I have pointed out numerous times, his summaries of peer reviewed articles which he uses for data frequently misrepresent the actual original studies.

[BethesdaWX]

Only in his and your opinion. Which is why the peer-review process is essential.

He is making his own arguments and any time somebody is making their own arguments there is potential for error. That's human nature. We are not hyper-rational beings. As Rusty put it quite well once, we are by and large irrational beings with the capacity to think rationally. Which is why the peer-review process is essential. Even if the data he uses is peer-reviewed, his arguments and conclusions are not. In fact, they are specifically at odds with ALL other peer-reviewed conclusions.

Plus, as stellarfun and I have pointed out numerous times, his summaries of peer reviewed articles which he uses for data frequently misrepresent the actual original studies.

Actually, he only uses peer reviewed sources, nothing else. Skeptical sites like "The Hockey Schtick" are nonsense, which is why I dont use them, and never will.

Even WUWT is a source that I hesitate to Use, Anthony Watts is always "updating" things due to his usually (but not always) False assumptions regarding Fraud, Although WUWT is better than some sites on both sides by a long shot.

CO2Science Quotes the Scientists Directly in saying such.