The Flight of the Wingnut

[Si modo]

Come on, Si. Show me some of that critical thought. All you have given so far is a line of bullshit. And insults.

You claim to be a research scientist, but present not the least evidence for your point of view. Damdest scientist that I have ever seen!

I do not claim to be a scientist, so I present articles by real scientists that work in this field. You claim to be a scientist, and present insults, and unsubstantiated nonsense.

So, 'scientist' support your point! You cannot and will not. You have no point.

As you've already tried some remarkable strawmen, I need to check: What exactly do you imagine my point is?

By the way, the bolded section of what you quoted from me is nothing I typed in my post. I like accuracy.

That there is significant doubt that the GHGs we are creating has anything to do with the observed rapid warming that we are seeing.

Not quite. My point, yet once again: The state of the science does not support any definitive claim about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on global warming.

This has been my point since I started posting, yet you still haven't understood that.

Now, this puts you in a remarkably easy position. All you have to do to refute my statement is present some science that can do so.

Yet, in all my time here, you and others have yet to accomplish that. I keep waiting for it. And, unlike a few other scientists, if the science supports claims, I take them at that value based on the science, not the politics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cimategate is the biggest Fraud in the history of science.

There is far far far more solid scientific evidence for UFO's, Atlantis and the Moon being a hollow, artificial satellite than there is for AGW

LOL.

The great climategate debate;


The Great Climategate Debate | MIT World

From the people who brought you this bit of settled science

Wheel of Climate Change

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Show the evidence that nothing is changing. Show the evidence that in past periods of very rapid GHG buildup nothing untoward happened.

We have now a good deal of information from paleo-climatologists. Go to the NASA, NOAA, or USGS site and see what they have to say on the subject.

Or do you prefer to get your 'scientific' information from a junkie radio jock, or a whack job like Glenn Beck?

Three things problematic with your post. One, you shouldn't interpolate your comments into mine like that. It isn't that hard to surround your stuff with '[\quote] [qwote]' tags. The way you do it makes me look like an idiot when someone else tries to read it. I can do that well enough on my own without your help. It raises the global temperature of the message board when you do marginally dishonest stunts like that.

Second, I never said anything wasn't changing. One of my main arguments against global climate hysteria was that climate is changing all the time, with many swings, most of them substantial. It has been lots hotter over time, it has been lots cooler. The hard part is separating out what is background fluctuation from what we are making happen. I am sure you have seen that Oregon Historical Society picture from when they were building the Hawthorne Bridge. During winter back at the turn of the century it got cold enough that the Willamette would freeze hard enough that you could drive across it.

That we are making things change is also undeniable. To what degree is hard to know. I do my best to make things better. AlGore talks a lot, but does more pollution in an hour than I do in a year. If you do the talk, if you want to convince me you are for real, do the walk. And it isn't that hard, especially if you have the kind of money he does. President Bush built a totally green house with a negative footprint.

My main issue is that the solutions offered by the hysterics have no relation to the problem. It is mostly gimmie gimmie.

It is not up to me to disprove your theory. You have to make the theory strong enough to withstand any assault. If your assertion is that we are the cause of something happening, then you have to show a co relation between the happening and what we do. Carbon changes should track climate changes. They don't.

And then there is the issue of your authorities. The problem is, your authorities are compromised. They have either been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or their funding is dependent on showing what people in power want to hear. Glen and Rush may have their issues. But they have been honest with me. We can't say that about the warming hysterics.

 

[Charles Stucker]

You people are straight up denying the basics of physics, lying purposely about that fact that CO2 heat retention is in direct proportion to the amount in the atmosphere.

You are a total imbecile. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere will only raise the thermal absorption limit for the atmosphere. Yes that will have an impact on weather patters, but NO it won't lead to runaway greenhouse effects. You are, at best, an out of date engineer with a 19th century understanding of science. At best. Yet you act as if you have the final word on warming.
You are a total fraud who has a guilty conscience from all the years you claim to have been a major polluter; ruining the environment by running a mill for you own profit. Now having made your profit you want someone else to clean up the mess you made and, with gall worthy of a Kennedy, want us to thank you for pointing out to us what you want done.