Another case of an AGW supporter being unable to Answer my perfectly reasonable comment

This conversation started at  http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/

The conversation was lively to be sure but the crux of it is presented here, including my final comment which appears was unpublishable.

8/11/12 Barry and Amoeba finally do reply, but by the number of ad hominem remarks and their preparations for bailing out of the conversation, they are simply unable to answer MY questions at all.

They certainly spend some time making excuses for the shortcomings of the IPCC who I believe with their fabulous resources should not have any shortcomings at all. That is if they are based on reasonable facts!

But you as the reader be the judge. Tell us what you think!

The conversation escalated when I produced links to a number of peer reviewed, published scientific papers, all of which contradict AGW in one way or another.

Immediately the sources, publishers and authors were attacked, but the irony of it all is that these are the very sorts of papers that the also IPCC relies on.  Just because they are published and peer reviewed, does not guarantee that they are going to 1. Support your point of view. 2 . Be absolute fact . 3. or be any use whatsoever.

Please read, and unlike the Climate Consensus blog, I do publish all comments except ones containing obscenities or obvious spam.

Feel free to visit my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

A copy of the full conversation is at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/anti-climate-change-extremism-in-utah-climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/

You would do well to refrain from attacking the authors of these papers just because they do not agree with your faith.

The truth is thay are perfectly good peer reviewed scientific papers with at least equal authority to those used by the IPCC. I would suggest more authority and independence.
Perhaps you should look to the content before you do any blanket criticism of the authors, papers and their work.

Most of those sources look perfectly respectable to me.

Did you actually read any of the papers that disagree with any of your pet theories?
Did you actually read any of the papers that agree with what you believe?

Of course the answer to both of the above is no.

Perhaps if the IPCC was honest, they would have a section on the economic costs of meeting their CO2 emission reductions, but I notice that is conspicuous by its absence.

I suggest you abandon your religion. Faith will not save the world incidently, and look to some real facts.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Amoeba said 3 days ago:

Roger,

Well, I’ll look at one, this will provide a test of your ‘perfectly good peer reviewed scientific papers with at least equal authority to those used by the IPCC’, together with a test of the peer-review process of the journal that published it.

The paper is:
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Patrick J. Michaels had trumpeted this:
“After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record. McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: statistically speaking, the greater the GDP of a nation, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.”

Except, when I went to download it, there is an erratum notice, which I read:

‘The formula for computing cosine of
absolute latitude (COSABLAT) takes the angle in radians, but our data were entered in degrees.

FYI, a radian is 360/2π degrees or ~ 57.3°, so this isn’t a trivial error. It’s like thinking the cost of a house or a boat is £100,000, when in reality it costs £5,729,578!

Now a quick google shows that this paper has numerous problems that make it pretty worthless.

Benestad (2004) points out, Michaels & McKitrick failed to account for “spatial correlation” which renders their results to be statistically insignificant. Doesn’t say much for the peer-review process at CR either!

Do you really expect me to take this paper seriously? Especially when the authors claimed: ‘….the original discussions as worded in our paper need only minor modification, and our overall conclusion, re-stated here, is unaffected….’!

I remain sceptical.

The fact that the peer-review process of Climate Research was already considered deeply suspect, leads me to the conclusion that this paper isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, even when it’s virtual paper.

Michaels’ words: “After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever….”
What sweet irony!

My conclusion is that this is grade-A bull-shit science.

Amoeba,

Say what you like, the point is that this is peer reviewed, published science. Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.

So like you, we look at the content and find things we dont agree with, omissions, eroneous conclusions and downright lies.
Some good examples are the papers we label as Himalaya gate, (Chapter 13 of the IPCC Working Group II report AR4)(Source WWF) and Amazon Gate (Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 2007) (source WWF Again! and a Green Activist) , sealevel gate where the IPCC claimed more than half of the Netherlands was currently below sea level.
And the IPCC I understand got a Nobel Prize for the report that contained these bloopers.
In my country we find the same disease. “Scientific” adjustments to our national temperatures which result in severe warming, except when challenged (in parliament) over the rational of the adjustments (the raw data shows no warming) they are unable to produce any papers explaining the methodology of the adjustments. http://www.youtube.com/user/inthehousenz#p/u/2/Roku_QeiE3s

An example, of which I have the expertise to objectively criticise, is Nicholas Stern’s report which frankly would get a resounding fail at freshman level.
In other words do you wonder why rational people are describing things as alarmist?

So looking at the content is good. Why dont you spend a bit of time looking at both sides and making up your own mind on whatever FACTS emerge.

However, in my mind, the most important issues are found in the omissions made by the IPCC and other commentators.
1) Where is the empirical study that proves the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW arguments rest? Instead we are bombarded with often questionable data and correlations of which the weak minded among us consider proof.
2) Where abouts in the IPCC reports are the economic and social costs of attaining the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands and wealth transfers? This is a very important issue so why is it ignored?

So Amoeba my friend. Try looking for facts and omissions and do not believe anyone and best of all use your own head.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Barry Bickmore says:

So, to summarize, this seems to be Roger’s position.

1. If he can find ANY papers that go against the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, then he is justified in saying that the consensus has been disproven. After all, the papers he listed are “Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.”

2. But Roger doesn’t seem to realize what “peer reviewed” literature is. A commentary on global warming in an electrical engineering trade publication, and many of the other publications he listed, isn’t typically going to be “peer reviewed” by anyone with expertise in climate. It’s just an opinion piece by someone with a broad scientific background, but no specific expertise in climate. Furthermore, if a paper on climate science is published in a journal like “The Journal of Scientific Exploration,” it probably isn’t going to be peer reviewed in the normal sense, either, because real climate scientists wouldn’t bother peer reviewing for some weird journal that publishes on everything from climate to dog astrology. Dog. Astrology.

3. And of course, if it’s going to be expensive to deal with climate change, that means we should be more skeptical about whether there’s even a problem to deal with. In other words, Roger thinks that if we really, really don’t want for humans to be significantly affecting climate, they won’t! Or at least, if enough people don’t want to have to deal with a hard problem, it will go away by itself.

4. So since he doesn’t WANT there to be a problem, he goes shopping for mistakes by people who maintain the consensus. The Himalayas one is an actual mistake, of course, which is why the IPCC people checked into and admitted the error. (Since the IPCC is composed of people who have biases and make mistakes, that can happen. Thank goodness some people have the integrity to admit their mistakes, unlike certain others who cite literature they haven’t even read, that turns out to be from a dog astrology journal. Dog. Astrology.) The others are more complicated. I heard a piece on NPR about the sea level business, and it turns out that it depends on how you define sea level. Is it the average? Or is it the high water mark? They said the IPCC statement was correct if you use the high water mark, and I think there’s a good argument to be made for using that instead of the average. Most people wouldn’t be satisfied with having their house above water most of the time. As for “Amazon-gate,” there was a problem with that in the IPCC report, but it was much more minor than how the critics and media painted it. Check out this piece from one of the scientists often quoted at websites like Roger’s about “Amazon-gate”.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101103/full/468007a.html

5. And finally, after demonstrating that he doesn’t know what peer reviewed literature is, and that he opposes mainstream climate science because he doesn’t want to have to pay for a remedy to climate change, and that he doesn’t keep up with what the opposing side says when there is a “scandal,” Roger goes on to adjure his readers to be more objective! Yes! After all, ” Where is the empirical study that proves the ‘anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming’ hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW arguments rest? Instead we are bombarded with often questionable data and correlations of which the weak minded among us consider proof.” Hmmmm. I dunno–maybe he could look in Ch. 9 of the working group 1 report, titled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.” Here’s the link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Amazingly, it’s quite a bit more sophisticated than a few weak correlations. Imagine that.

But of course, Roger might come back and say that none of the studies cited in that chapter ABSOLUTELY PROVES humans affect climate. And remember, if we don’t want there to be a problem, we can make it go away by insisting on ABSOLUTE PROOF, which is impossible to obtain in science! Presto!

Hey, wait! What about Roger’s other question? “Where abouts in the IPCC reports are the economic and social costs of attaining the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands and wealth transfers? This is a very important issue so why is it ignored?” Gee, that’s a good question. Maybe you should look in THE ENTIRE WORKING GROUP 3 VOLUME of the IPCC report. Here’s the URL;

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html

Now, Roger, since I’m getting bored with this conversation, I’ll allow you one more post to reply, and then I’m not going to post any more of your comments. I’m sure you will be gratified to be banned from yet another climate blog. If you want, I’ll even design a special award logo for you!

Sure Barry,

I can answer just one part of your comment so far.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html

I have read that very carefully, and it supports exactly as I said, the IPCC does not tackle the issue of the economic cost of their CO2 emission reduction demands at all. All that is in the above link which you have not aparrently read is a lot of waffle and scenarios with some references to rediculously small GDP percentages. The issue like I said is not tackled at all reasonably and is as about as informative as the book of Ezekiel.

Try reading it yourself and see if it deals with any expected price rise in energy-specifically oil based products which we all depend on so much.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

 

Amoeba says:

“Say what you like, the point is that this is peer reviewed, published science. Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.”

Most of the papers you cite aren’t ‘science’. First of all, how many are Web of Science Journals?

I think you’ll find that if it isn’t listed in the Web of Science, the chances are that it isn’t worth a bucket of cold spit, at least in respect of science.

http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER

Secondly, if a subject falls outside the normal purview of a journal, what is the likelihood that the journal could summon-up a suitably qualified panel of referees?

The answer is not much.

Regarding the IPCC, they are permitted to use grey literature.

This is AFAICT the definitive account of what went wrong.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/

You will note that the glaciers are still melting and that fact alone threatens the millions who rely upon Himalayan meltwater.

Your wilful failure to understand is quite tiresome. Even If you haven’t got better things to do, I have.

A copy of the full conversation is at including some of mine which were spammed can be read at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/anti-climate-change-extremism-in-utah-climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/

 

Cheers

 

Roger

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

25 Responses to “Another case of an AGW supporter being unable to Answer my perfectly reasonable comment”

  1. cmb Says:

    What you mean is, you cannot disprove a single word I wrote. Not one.

  2. cmb Says:

    1. When a source disagrees with your beliefs, you immediately label it as lies and /or “bought” evidence and consider that a sufficient argument to prove your point.

    — A blatant lie. IIRC, the only valid source you have ever provided was the Geocarb III paper, which I also used. You cannot find one single solitary source that I have mislabeled. Not one, not ever. Go try.

    2. You call me a liar, even when I present peer reviewed papers and logic to support my assertions.

    — You have produced one valid paper, which I also used, but continue to lie. I’m going through this list of them now. And you know nothing about logic, or you wouldn’t have written even one of these items. lol

    3. You have not yet, so far as I am aware, referred to a relevant peer reviewed, published scientific paper in support of anything you say but refer to blogs or other similar sites.

    — Sorry, I referred to yours, and several others besides. If your Geocarb III paper (which proved you wrong) was not a good source, why did you give it to me first? =)

    4. You have not demonstrated any sound logic in support of your opinions.

    — A pathetic lie. I have wasted several paragraphs doing so, only to have you repeatedly lie about it. Shall I list them, and your responses?

    5. You cannot tell the difference between data, correlations and empirical causation.

    Three insane lies in a row. Can you see atmospheric CO2 with your eyes?

    6 You cannot understand that a laboratory test is unlikely to give the same result in the atmosphere with its myriads of systems interacting with one another.

    Ah, so you do admit there are other forces at work in the climate besides CO2 and temps, making comparison with past events impossible. That wasn’t so hard now, was it? Anyway, your accusation is yet another lie. CO2 heats whatever medium it is in, when irradiated by thermal IR, every time it’s tried. Lab, Planet, wherever. Do you get that? THERE IS NO POSSIBLE EARTH ATMOSPHERIC SCENARIO IN WHICH ADDING MORE CO2 DOES NOT ADD MORE HEAT TO THE SYSTEM. NONE. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. Prove me wrong, anyone.

    7. You have no idea what constitutes empirical evidence or proof.

    Two more lies. And unless you can see atmospheric CO2 with your unaided eyes, don’t bother people with words l.ike “empirical” until you learn what they mean. Jo Nova is not a source.

    Let the record show that at no time have you ever answered an on-topic question in this thread,and have NO ANSWER for the satellite earth emission spectrum that PROVES thermal trapping by CO2. Prove me wrong.

    And remember, no national government or scientific society now disputes AGW theory. None. Have you ever heard the expression “tilting at windmills?”

    Have a nice tilt.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      I am afraid that your comments are making less and less sense.

      Not only are you confirming your apparent age but one has to start doubting your sanity.

      Your defence that anything or anyone who contradicts your beliefs are lies or are liars does not enhance your credibility.

      I will allow your comments as they are a good example of what this blog is all about, but I think replying is pointless.

      Cheers

      Roger

  3. cmb Says:

    Now, Roger’s original demand for “empirical evidence for “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” has become a demand for “Empirical Proof.” Classic creationist goalpost moving, and an admission that he has lost.

    Unfortunately, his latest post is more stupidity, lies, and evasions from Roger, in lieu of discussing any of the science at all – and laden with indications that he is not a native speaker or reader of English. Further, he expects his use of an unending parade of lie sites – sites exposed not by me, but by experts and scientists all over the world, as bought and paid for propaganda mills – is magically my fault. lol

    Answer the question, coward. Why doesn’t CO2 holding heat inside the atmosphere at 4.3 and 15um heat the atmosphere?

    Proof of global atmospheric heating by anthropogenic CO2:

    That’s a spectrum of light leaving earth, filtered by earth’s atmosphere.

    Empirical evidence for AGW.

    A direct causal link from atmospheric CO2 to global warming.

    Roger can never, ever prove otherwise, and neither can anyone else.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Goodness me, In spite of erroneously accusing me in some other comment of character assassination, you are resorting to to the same thing with regard to my character.

      The only thing I have said about you which could be construed as derogatory is my opinion that you are a 13 yr old schoolboy. And it is true that nothing you have written so far makes me want to change that opinion.
      Why?
      1. When a source disagrees with your beliefs, you immediately label it as lies and /or “bought” evidence and consider that a sufficient argument to prove your point.
      2. You call me a liar, even when I present peer reviewed papers and logic to support my assertions.
      3. You have not yet, so far as I am aware, refered to a relevant peer reviewed, published scientific paper in support of anything you say but refer to blogs or other similar sites.
      4. You have not demonstrated any sound logic in support of your opinions.
      5. You cannot tell the difference between data, correlations and empirical causation.
      6 You cannot understand that a laboratory test is unlikely to give the same result in the atmosphere with its myriads of systems interacting with one another.
      7. You have no idea what constitutes empirical evidence or proof.

      I know its difficult to be told facts that are different from what you have been taught at school. Thats why people go to university and hopefully learn to be logical and learn how to understand things from evidence rather than believe what the teacher tells you.

      Cheers

      Roger

      PS although I am loath to stop publishing your comments, I think I have given you fair licence to air your views such as they are.
      Do not be surprised if I do not publish any of your comments, especially ones that accuse perfectly good sources as being lies without some good reasoning to support you accusation.

      Cheers

      Roger

      By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, I have not set out to prove anything. All I have ever done is 1. Point out that there is not scientific consensus on AGW. 2. Give people a chance to produce empirical evidence or proof of the as yet unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.
      I believe, until both the above points are settled, it would be both foolish and irresponsible to burden economies with CO2 emission reductions.

  4. cmb Says:

    Another set of stupid, ignorant, easily checked lies from Roger – oh, and a bunch of stolen graphs, logs, lie sites, and actual papers that, unfortunately, prove nothing damning about AGW. lol

    Empirical evidence for AGW:

    That’s a spectrum of light leaving earth, filtered by earth’s atmosphere.

    Just tell us why CO2 holding heat inside the atmosphere at 4.3 and 15um does not heat the atmosphere. Feel free.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      I notice you have dropped your strange fixation on “sinks and sources” shows some good judgement at least.

      I like your authorative damning of any source that disagrees with your belief. “All lies”. You seem to have forgotten that to be the least bit credible in anyones eyes you have to display some facts, logic and reason to backup your opinions.

      I think you should do a little study on the meaning of “Empirical Proof”. All your graph shows is some is some data at various spectra. The unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is about CAUSATION, thats why the word “cause” appears there. Data and correlations mean nothing unless one can show a CAUSATION link. This omission is justifiably the cause of most criticism of the IPCC and AGW believers.

      Cheers

      Roger

  5. rogerthesurf Says:

    Thank you for your comment.

    You have no idea how much I enjoy being called a liar.

    Mind you I can see that just about any source that you do not agree with is immediately dismissed by you as being a big lie and the author designated to some degree of lunacy.

    All done without any scientific literature to prove your opinion. I hope you understand why it is difficult to gain a good idea of your personal credulty.

    Still perhaps you can explain to me (now we understand which processes involve these “sources and sinks” you seem fixated on), what the significance of this part of the discussion is.
    Bearing in mind of course that the proxy records measure atmospheric CO2 as best they can and presumably the CO2 greenhouse theory involves only atmospheric CO2 as well.

    The medieval warm period? gosh you are an authority on that as well. Of course there is the skeptical science blog that you quote. I’m sure they have a balanced view of things. Seeing as how we are basically discussing that validity of the IPCC reporting, I see you happily included some material from them as well.
    Oh dear the National Academy of Sciences also use IPCC data. Also quote Mann & Jones a lot. Now isn’t Mann that guy who produced the infamous hockey stick curve that we are all so upset about? Jones is the head of HADCRUT. After seeing videos of him sweating in front of enquiry panels, I dont think I would trust him too much.

    Check out the climategate emails reproduced at http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/porky-no-3-ipcc-attempts-to-change-history/ where Jones and his friends try and talk down the MWP.

    Anyway here are some proper academic papers for you to read. Even a graph from NOAA is included.
    All from my blog by the way. Would help if you try and read it properly. The medieval warm period papers are under their own heading on the right hand side.
    Note that evidence runs from Greenland, China, NewZealand, Antarctica and the Pacific Warm Pool just to name a few.
    And dont forget that Viking Farm in Greenland that was excavated out of permafrost recently.
    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf
    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf

    http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2006/pdf/2006GL027234.pdf
    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
    http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters/2009-1/special%20section/science%20highlights/Bentley+Hodgson_2009-1(28-29).pdf

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2997337
    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
    http://tenthmedieval.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/darn-climate-sceptics-get-out-of-my-field/

    Next you should concentrate on the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. Producing some empirical evidence for that, that is better than vague correlations ,would be impressive in my view.

    Cheers

    Roger

  6. cmb Says:

    “Yawn,
    Thank you for your explanation on what you mean by “Sources and Sinks”. Neither word actually appears in the paper you may have noticed and neither would I think that your term “Sources and Sinks” is appropriate for describing those processes.”

    Funny, everybody else does. “I think” does not count. =)
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_natural.html
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo689.html

    “1. All the data from the ancient periods show is that it could be warm with low CO2 and vice versa. In other words there is not even a correlation. ”

    A ridiculous lie, which you cannot prove in any way without knowing the other sources and sinks for CO2, general atmospheric compostion, solar irradiance, etc., etc., etc. for each period where you claim “no correlation.” lol

    “The processes you refer to do not appear to be relevant to that point.”

    A ridiculous lie, in which you pretend only one thing at a time can be responsible for climate – a typical denialist stunt, just ignore any other climate differences besides CO2 and temps. Idiotic.

    2. “As I said, the most relevant periods are the historical warmings and coolings which I mentioned. What does the Mesozoic period have to do with that? ”

    You mentioned it. Three times. lol http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf ,
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html, http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time1.jpg

    … and your other periods are just as irrelevant unless you can isolate the same variables your Geocarb paper plots.

    “As far as I know, I have only quoted academic sources, copies of which are stored on my blog.”

    No, I’m afraid not.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html — A well-known lie site, and no academic source whatsoever. “THIS SITE BY: Monte Hieb– 1996”, ROFLMAO

    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01 — Your own lie-packed, crazyassed hobbyist blog.

    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf — document of testimony by climate crackpot and tobacco denialist Lindzen, not an academic source whatsoever.

    “Why don’t you try and explain away the Medieval Warm Period for instance. It would be more to the point.”

    First, it’s not global – and second, it was globally cooler even then.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm:
    “Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. ”

    (Note that there are those sources and sinks again. As you can see, I myself didn’t have to explain jack, and just like all the rest of this stuff, you could have found the same info in five minutes if you were not an infant.)

    Now, if you have a source saying the MWP was warmer than today which is not from some anti-AGW CO2 scarecrow site, but a real scientific study published in a real scientific journal, I’m all ears.

    But you don’t. Which is why once again, you write only about fantasy problems with my posts, but not a one of my facts. lol

  7. cmb Says:

    “Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times”:
    Your Geocarb III reference, last two sentences in abstract.
    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf, already quoted above.
    I have no idea where the above reference refers to sources and sinks

    ….Well, here, then, let me show you.

    and the last two sentences in the abstract read “However, the new results exhibit considerably
    higher CO2 values during the Mesozoic, and their downward trend with time agrees
    with the independent estimates of Ekart and others (1999). Sensitivity analysis shows
    that results for paleo-CO2 are especially sensitive to: the effects of CO2 fertilization

    OK, that is one sink. CO2 fertilization of plants. So, which of the periods you wish to discuss had exactly the same plant distribution as today?

    and temperature on the acceleration of plant-mediated chemical weathering;

    OK, that is one source/sink. Plant-mediated chemical weathering. So, which of those periods had exactly the same weathering?

    the
    quantitative effects of plants on mineral dissolution rate for constant temperature and
    CO2;

    OK, that is another source/sink. Mineral dissolution. Same question.

    the relative roles of angiosperms and gymnosperms in accelerating rock weathering;

    OK, that is another source/sink. Rock weathering. Same question.

    and the response of paleo-temperature to the global climate model used. This
    emphasizes the need for further study of the role of plants in chemical weathering and
    the application of GCMs to study of paleo-CO2 and the long term carbon cycle.”
    Are you talking about the same paper?

    Yep. You just have no idea what you are reading. When you can answer all four of my questions for each period you wish to discuss, you will then have more of a right to consider only CO2 and temps.

    Some other fun quotes:

    “The above links appear to be blogs fanatically supporting AGW and are attacking the person not his work.”

    An outright lie.

    “Remember you said earlier “Also, blogs are not original sources and should not be cited as such. It’s like saying “it is so because I and my friends say it is so.”

    Then why didn’t you stop? Because A. You are a liar, having just quoted your own blog — and B. You expect to maintain a double standard, while asking people to do your homework for you.

    Sorry, serial liar. You cannot read basic scientific literature and so nothing can be explained to you from worthwhile sources. Enjoy your fame, and I’ll enjoy AGW mitigation. Because, again, not one single scientific society or national government expressly denies AGW theory. Not one. You’ve lost. Have a nice day!

    I guess we can now title this thread “Another case of this AGW denialist being unable to Answer (sic) my perfectly reasonable comment.” After all, you’ve spent eight days running away from addressing any point whatsoever. lol

    BTW, serial liar – insult me all you want.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Yawn,
      Thank you for your explanation on what you mean by “Sources and Sinks”. Neither word actually appears in the paper you may have noticed and neither would I think that your term “Sources and Sinks” is appropriate for describing those processes.

      However:
      1. All the data from the ancient periods show is that it could be warm with low CO2 and vice versa. In other words there is not even a correlation. The processes you refer to do not appear to be relevant to that point.

      2. As I said, the most relevant periods are the historical warmings and coolings which I mentioned. What does the Mesozoic period have to do with that?

      As far as I know, I have only quoted academic sources, copies of which are stored on my blog.

      I still think you are acting like a 13 year old.

      Why don’t you try and explain away the Medieval Warm Period for instance. It would be more to the point.

      Cheers

      Roger

  8. cmb Says:

    “Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times”:
    Your Geocarb III reference, last two sentences in abstract.
    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf, already quoted above.

    “H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas. When its vapor pressure increases above the dew point, it becomes rain and the vapor pressure equalizes, which makes it irrelevant.”, and “H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that”:
    http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=99 — “Though the amount of precipitation varies widely over the surface of the earth, evaporation and precipitation are globally balanced.”

    “The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant.”:
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Liepert2002.pdf — “Observed reductions of surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide from 1961 to 1990”

    “That pretty much leaves plant life, which is a CO2 sink, and which we are rapidly reducing, and geologic factors, which man outdoes by around 50 to 1 nowadays.”: Geocarb III and http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf — “Climate change: evidence from the geological record:
    A statement from the Geological Society of London”

    Then you state “Also in Paragraph 3 of your original comment you state “But you can’t just look at CO2 and temps.”
    Then in Paragraph 6 you state “The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there” in support of your argumernt.”

    However, I don’t use them in support of my argument. I use them as examples of things you must explain away if you plan to actually put forth a counterargument:

    “What you “anything but carbon dioxide” folks need to do is find another variable that has changed alongside the new heating. The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant. H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that. That pretty much leaves plant life, which is a CO2 sink, and which we are rapidly reducing, and geologic factors, which man outdoes by around 50 to 1 nowadays.

    The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there, and has been identified as mostly fossil CO2. We have contributed about 37% of current atmospheric CO2. What other variable will you blame? Even Svensmark’s cosmic rays have been discredited.”

    As you can see, I make it quite plain all through my post that you cannot only consider CO2 and warming over geologic time, just like the Geocarb III paper you cited also does, and these two paragraphs are no exception. I am not using those two variables in my argument, except to say that you must find a way to explain them away if you want to rule out CO2. So, since you have denied those, what other variables WILL you pick?

    BTW, oil-funded bought-and-paid-for tobacco denialist Richard Lindzen’s lies to Congress do not interest me, I’ve read them. And he keeps changing his story. =)

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
    http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded
    http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
    http://cenblog.org/the-editors-blog/2010/11/richard-lindzen-skepticism-and-unprofessional-ism/

    Let me know if you need any other quacks exposed. And remember, holding someone up as an expert means that Ad Hominem is not fallacious in assessing their expertise. When you hold up Lindzen, you make his entire record relevant, as any logic site will tell you.

    Now, there is only one omission left – I will be interested to see you quote from your responses to me a statement or two which you have backed up with “reasonable logic and/or reasonable sources,” I believe you said.

    I’ll wait. =)

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      “Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times”:
      Your Geocarb III reference, last two sentences in abstract.
      http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf, already quoted above.
      I have no idea where the above reference refers to sources and sinks and the last two sentences in the abstract read “However, the new results exhibit considerably
      higher CO2 values during the Mesozoic, and their downward trend with time agrees
      with the independent estimates of Ekart and others (1999). Sensitivity analysis shows
      that results for paleo-CO2 are especially sensitive to: the effects of CO2 fertilization
      and temperature on the acceleration of plant-mediated chemical weathering; the
      quantitative effects of plants on mineral dissolution rate for constant temperature and
      CO2; the relative roles of angiosperms and gymnosperms in accelerating rock weathering;
      and the response of paleo-temperature to the global climate model used. This
      emphasizes the need for further study of the role of plants in chemical weathering and
      the application of GCMs to study of paleo-CO2 and the long term carbon cycle.”
      Are you talking about the same paper?
      Also the periods that are most relevant, are all within historical times. Like the Holocene Maximum, Roman Warming and the Medieval Warm Period

      “H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas. When its vapor pressure increases above the dew point, it becomes rain and the vapor pressure equalizes, which makes it irrelevant.”, and “H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that”:
      http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=99 — “Though the amount of precipitation varies widely over the surface of the earth, evaporation and precipitation are globally balanced.”

      Yes? and the relevance is??

      “The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant.”:
      http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Liepert2002.pdf — “Observed reductions of surface solar radiation at sites in the United States and worldwide from 1961 to 1990″

      The above paper has nothing to do with the sun, it is about how much solar radiation is reaching the surface of the earth which in turn is effected by clouds etc.

      “That pretty much leaves plant life, which is a CO2 sink, and which we are rapidly reducing, and geologic factors, which man outdoes by around 50 to 1 nowadays.”: Geocarb III and http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf — “Climate change: evidence from the geological record:
      A statement from the Geological Society of London”

      Forgive me but I cant see the relevance of the above document to your assertions either.

      Then you state “Also in Paragraph 3 of your original comment you state “But you can’t just look at CO2 and temps.”
      Then in Paragraph 6 you state “The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there” in support of your argumernt.”
      However, I don’t use them in support of my argument. I use them as examples of things you must explain away if you plan to actually put forth a counterargument:
      “What you “anything but carbon dioxide” folks need to do is find another variable that has changed alongside the new heating. The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant. H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that. That pretty much leaves plant life, which is a CO2 sink, and which we are rapidly reducing, and geologic factors, which man outdoes by around 50 to 1 nowadays.
      The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there, and has been identified as mostly fossil CO2. We have contributed about 37% of current atmospheric CO2. What other variable will you blame? Even Svensmark’s cosmic rays have been discredited.”
      As you can see, I make it quite plain all through my post that you cannot only consider CO2 and warming over geologic time, just like the Geocarb III paper you cited also does, and these two paragraphs are no exception. I am not using those two variables in my argument, except to say that you must find a way to explain them away if you want to rule out CO2. So, since you have denied those, what other variables WILL you pick?
      BTW, oil-funded bought-and-paid-for tobacco denialist Richard Lindzen’s lies to Congress do not interest me, I’ve read them. And he keeps changing his story. =)
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
      http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
      http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
      http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded
      http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
      http://cenblog.org/the-editors-blog/2010/11/richard-lindzen-skepticism-and-unprofessional-ism/

      The above links appear to be blogs fanatically supporting AGW and are attacking the person not his work. And you are the one that said one shouldn’t referer to blogs for support of ones arguments. I think any writer who starts using words like Contrarian or any other hysterical name has immediately left reason behind.
      Remember you said earlier “Also, blogs are not original sources and should not be cited as such. It’s like saying “it is so because I and my friends say it is so.”

      Let me know if you need any other quacks exposed. And remember, holding someone up as an expert means that Ad Hominem is not fallacious in assessing their expertise. When you hold up Lindzen, you make his entire record relevant, as any logic site will tell you.
      Now, there is only one omission left – I will be interested to see you quote from your responses to me a statement or two which you have backed up with “reasonable logic and/or reasonable sources,” I believe you said.
      I’ll wait. =)

      So as far as supporting your assertions you have made things worse in my view. I will let you into a little secret:- If you want to use a paper to support your assertions, then at least choose a relevant paper.

      I have to add that I still think you are a kid (13 yrs) trying to act as an adult. Just try giving it a few years before you comment again.

      Cheers
      Roger

      PS you are still welcome to comment on my blog but I for one will not answer again.

  9. cmb Says:

    “However if you want me or any other reasonable person to take your opinion seriously, you simply need to back up your statements with reasonable logic and/or reasonable sources.”

    It would be interesting to see you provide an example in my responses to you where you believe I have not done so for any of my opinions. Easily verifiable facts, of course, need no such backing.

    Also, to see you provide an example in your responses to me where you believe you _have_ done so. And again, easily verifiable facts need no such backing.

    You seem to make an awful lot of fictitious claims about my posts rather than deal with their content. I would have thought that a scientific paper which you recommended to ME would be a sufficient source for YOU. An explanation from you as to why it’s not might also be in order, but since that behavior is dishonest on its face, I’ll leave any choice to explain it up to you.

    Ball’s in your court. =)

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Sure.
      I am not making any claims about your post except on the number of sweeping statements.

      Here is a list of some of your assertions that require substantiation.

      “Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times”

      “H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas. When its vapor pressure increases above the dew point, it becomes rain and the vapor pressure equalizes, which makes it irrelevant.”

      “The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant.”
      “H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that”
      “That pretty much leaves plant life, which is a CO2 sink, and which we are rapidly reducing, and geologic factors, which man outdoes by around 50 to 1 nowadays.”

      Also in Paragraph 3 of your original comment you state “But you can’t just look at CO2 and temps.”
      Then in Paragraph 6 you state “The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there” in support of your argumernt.
      I suggest you also explain this conflict in your own writing. Otherwise it appears that I cannot use CO2 and temps to make a point but you can.

      Clear these up and I will continue our discussion.

      Cheers

      Roger

      ps: You should also read the following:
      This testimony, (by Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Head of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology),
      to the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on “A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response”, I think is well balanced and includes discussion on causiality (or lack of it) and the misuse of correlations and models as scientific evidence.
      http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf

  10. cmb Says:

    Since you have chosen to lie outright about both yours and my responses, I should remind you that there is no need to continue this conversation regardless. Again, no national government or scientific society now extant officially refutes AGW theory. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

    It’s a shame you could not come up with a single rational response to my arguments, choosing to misrepresent them instead – even though they are all verified by your own source! But then, you wrote the laughably insane http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com. I suppose breeding will out.

    Have a nice day.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Well my readers will be the judge of whether you are making any sense or not.

      Opinions are welcome here and I always publish comments unless they are obvious spam.

      However if you want me or any other reasonable person to take your opinion seriously, you simply need to back up your statements with reasonable logic and/or reasonable sources.

      I would point out again that all of the above have been conspicuously absent from your comments.

      Cheers

      Roger

  11. cmb Says:

    Sure, Roger. Far-reaching statements such as you describe comprise almost your entire response to me, so I simply assumed you’d check my statements. I’ll try to justify each in turn:

    “Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times” — I said this simply because it is true — that’s just how logic works. Without taking into account additional factors like insolation, ice extent, etc., one simply can’t make an assumption based on heat and CO2.

    As an analogy, one can’t simply say car A gets better gas mileage than car B, when they were both pulling different trailers about which one has been given no information. This is why in scientific method, testing of results usually requires one duplicate the original experiment, and with clean equipment and accurate measures. Hope this is somewhat clear.

    The three statements you have quoted after that, on H2O, the sun, and barometric pressure, are simply well known facts, which anyone sufficiently interested can verify in minutes. Those covering H2O are simple elementary-school water cycle science.

    “But you can’t just look at CO2 and temps.”
    “The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there”

    I was confused by your labeling these as contradictory. What do they contradict? The first statement simply restates my case. All three statements are obvious facts which, again, can be verified in a few minutes by interested parties. As I said, they also go along completely with what I have said so far – you cannot simply measure temperature and CO2 and make climatic decisions on that basis.

    Other things to note – it’s quite possible to determine with laboratory tests what is happening in the atmosphere, it is done every day. Also, you will have no trouble finding variables in the previous warmings (plant cover, ice extent, etc.) that are not active in the same way now.

    Your geocarb III source agrees with me. Quote: Sensitivity analysis shows that results for paleo-CO2 are especially sensitive to: the effects of CO2 fertilization and temperature on the acceleration of plant-mediated chemical weathering; the quantitative effects of plants on mineral dissolution rate for constant temperature and CO2; the relative roles of angiosperms and gymnosperms in accelerating rock weathering;
    and the response of paleo-temperature to the global climate model used.”

    Plenty of verification there that you need more than just temps and CO2 to make climate decisions.

    BTW, you are still using blogs as sources. Geocraft in particular is a denialist lie site. How can we tell? Just by reading it. One quote:

    “However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth’s climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

    The first sentence is true, but is not relevant because the second sentence is false. Changes can also be distinguished by being *faster* than natural, as just one additional example. The current heating satisfies both conditions at the same time. In no other 30-year period than the most recent have we reliably detected as large or as fast a change in global temperatures and CO2 concentrations as we are now.

    The third sentence is simply an outright lie.

    It’s also interesting that even the denialist site makes mention of long periods where both temperatures and CO2 were elevated: “Earth’s climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today.”

    Your conclusion that there is no empirical evidence for AGW is popular, but false. No harm done, this argument was over by 2000, and mitigation attempts are well underway. No national government or scientific society officially refutes AGW theory nowadays. None.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      If we are going to continue this conversation, you will need to start by providing references or a proper logical argument for all these sweeping statements you are making.

      I would point out that everything I say either has a proper logical explanation attached to it or is referenced to a proper academic study or historical account.

      If you cannot discern your own sweeping statements or see your own conflicting statements etc. perhaps you are not equipped for a conversation of this sort.

      Try finding some proper support for these opinions of yours.
      Sweeping statements also include condemning a site as “denialist” just because you do not like a statement or assertion.
      You should spend a little time checking out the references on the site for a start.

      I note there is not one reference apart from a few comments on mine in your whole comment.
      A good start for example would be to reference some papers about these “sources and sinks” you have mentioned.

      I do not mean to make an ad hominem attack, but I suspect you are about 13 years old, so give yourself a few years.

      Cheers

      Roger

  12. cmb Says:

    It does, of course, tell us exactly how CO2 will effect (sic) the atmosphere. You are dragging in additional substances here, which do not affect that property other than locally.

    H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas. When its vapor pressure increases above the dew point, it becomes rain and the vapor pressure equalizes, which makes it irrelevant. Denialists always ignore rain. However, CO2 just increases and increases.

    Mice and humans? Air is air. Earth is earth.

    Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times. Once you can account for all those, you can make some comparisons. But you can’t just look at CO2 and temps.

    What you “anything but carbon dioxide” folks need to do is find another variable that has changed alongside the new heating. The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant. H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that. That pretty much leaves plant life, which is a CO2 sink, and which we are rapidly reducing, and geologic factors, which man outdoes by around 50 to 1 nowadays.

    The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there, and has been identified as mostly fossil CO2. We have contributed about 37% of current atmospheric CO2. What other variable will you blame? Even Svensmark’s cosmic rays have been discredited.

    Since the warming is indisputable, I’ll be anxious to hear your explanation. Remember, sources previously caught lying about climate, such as Michaels and Mckittrick, are unacceptable.

    Also, blogs are not original sources and should not be cited as such. It’s like saying “it is so because I and my friends say it is so.”

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Thanks for your answer.

      I notice in your answer you make a number of far reaching statements without a reference or corresponding logical argument.
      “Examples from other geologic periods in history are not relevant, because other sources and sinks were active in different amounts during those times”
      “H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas. When its vapor pressure increases above the dew point, it becomes rain and the vapor pressure equalizes, which makes it irrelevant.”
      “The sun didn’t, it has been getting cooler and less radiant”
      “H2O didn’t, barometric pressure sees to that.”

      Some contradictory statements:
      “But you can’t just look at CO2 and temps.”
      “The heating is there. The CO2 rise is there”

      Please state your authority for the above sweeping statements and rethink your contradictions and then we can go from there.

      The graph I quoted has the following source:
      Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
      CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
      or you can check out the source of the whole project at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

      Had you read my other blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com you would have seen that immediately.

      I maintain there is no empirical evidence for the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis not in the least because it is completely obvious to any reasonable person that a laboratory test cannot prove what is happening in the atmosphere.
      History tells us that the world has been warmer than at present at times when CO2 is lower than now. Unless you can show definitive studies which show the reasons for the previous warmings and then prove that those reasons are NOT active now, you will get no closer to any reasonable proof that CO2 is the culprit.
      Cheers

      Roger

  13. cmb Says:

    The fact that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and reradiates infrared energy is empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, and that’s been known for over a century. Given that one fact it could do nothing else but contribute to it.* Anything that slows the escape if infrared to space contributes to it.

    *Unless you are claiming there are two kinds of CO2, which would be, well, kinda nuts.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      CMB,

      Although CO2, as you say, may be shown to have the properties you mention in the laboratory, this does not tell us how it will effect the atmosphere. Especially as H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas anyway.

      To assume that properties as observed in the laboratory will have the expected effect in the various interlinked systems of our atmosphere and planet is worse than assuming just because a drug has a certain effect in laboratory mice, it will have the same effect in humans.

      The theory that CO2 in isolation will heat the world is further disproved by history when during the Holocence Maximum for instance, it was warmer than at present, yet we know atmospheric CO2 was lower than at present.

      We also know between the above warm period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, there were cold periods such as the little ice age etc. which appear to have no relationship with atmospheric CO2 which was low during those times.

      Proxies also tell us that in pre historic times there appears to be little correlation between CO2 and temperature with periods of cool temperatures with high CO2 and vice versa.

      Cheers

      Roger

      PS. the full text of my conversation with Barry and his friends, including comments that were spammed can be read at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/anti-climate-change-extremism-in-utah-climate-consensus-a-cautionary-tale/

  14. JohnO Says:

    Rorer,

    Like so many visitors to this site I’ve done some carefull reading of it.
    I should have enough of a background (thermodynamics at Uni level etc) to understand a lot of what’s being said.
    I seems to me that Roger has many times been given clear reasons as to why CO2 looks to be the main contributer to GW. Doug Bostrom gave it a good try! – but he in the end found the normal rules of scientific debate could not penetrate Roger armour!
    I won’t bother to repeat them, because he has demonstrated so many times he will side-step any argument or data that goes against his beliefs.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      John,

      I have already invited you to enlarge on your comments.

      I will repeat my invitation again.

      Exactly where do I side step Doug’s arguments?

      If there are issues that you feel are on my part unsatisfactorily addressed, I am happy to discuss them with you.

      I am not afraid to discuss with you. Are you therefore afraid to discuss these issues with me?

      Of course I will ask for empirical proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis because that is the theory that the whole of AGW depends on.

      Seeing as how so much is at stake, how can that be unreasonable?

      Cheers

      Roger

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: