realclimate.org does not footnote or show references for the underpinnings of its statements. On the other hand, junkscience.com has a considerable number of references as its underlying work. As far as how scientific papers are really written, junkscience.com is doing it right and realclimate.org is doing it wrong. It has to do with strength of evidence.
Neither site is equivalent to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Furthermore, the Realclimate.org posts tend to be short and to the point wth appropriate references to the scientific literature. Junkscience.com, on the other hand, seems to subscribe to the more is more philosphy, throwing all the spaghetti at the wall, hoping some of it sticks. That’s just how I see it. But people can judge for themselves: go to
Here’s a personal attack: I think you are a cynical and dishonest debater. Several people (especially DrChaos) have respectfully tried to educate you on the state of climate science, have answered all of your questions, have rebutted your inane arguments, have forgiven your unsubstantiated personal attacks on the integrity of thousands of working scientists whom you have never met (and you accuse them of propaganda, fearmongering, data manipulation). And then you have the gall to imply that DrChaos is trying to overwhelm (read intimidate) his audience? His explanations have been textbook examples of clear, concise writing. Your arguments, on the other hand, are weak, ever shifting, and now the best you can come up with is some vague feeling that the mechanism for AGW is extra-terrestrial in origin (BTW, I think you are extra-terrestial in origin). People in this forum have spent a lot of time trying to respond in the clearest possible way to your dishonest questions, and … poof … it takes you 30 seconds to grab another insubstantial, inane “argument” off the web, all so that you can keep your little game going.
You are not interested in the truth. You will never acknowledge the evidence that AGW is occuring, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. The only thing I can’t figure out is if you actually work for the oil industry, or if you are just one of those “smart” people who is more interested in the ego-trip of arguing than the truth. It is vital to acknowledge the validity of several decades of scientific effort and conclusions, so that we can actually start addressing AGW. But you would rather treat it all as some high-school debate. You should feel ashamed. You are acting like a spoiled teenager. (You aren’t a teenager are you?)
Anyway, I’m done responding to you directly. Anytime you post something especially misleading from now on, I’ll probably just post some automated boilerplate that readers should know that you are insincere and that they should read the entirety of this thread to see just how obtuse you actually are.
