Re: Global Warming, eh?
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:46 pm
Sadly, but expected, you entirely missed the point...again.
The point being that your source of information, the umbrella publisher, is "in cahoots" with that which you object to simply because they publish a scientific paper that attempts to sway doubters. Sorta like you view the work of the IPCC.
And you do not answer, but avoid questions put to you. Why don't you explain for all of us what Modeling is, how it works and why certain data are purposely excluded and for what reasons, you know to impress everyone here with your vast cut n paste knowledge?
Only an idiot would believe that transparent gases in our atmosphere force its heating more than that filled with black particulate matter, which our is, or worse, that it plays no part in its heating. Basic thermodynamics.
And once you've explained why all climate scientists need to use modeling and what it actually is, why don't you explain for us what a carbon tax is?
Hint: it affects the corporate polluters bottom line, (Costs them money).
Why don't you address the true conspirator Koch bros. and others of their ilk and why it is they fund so many denying front groups? Cui bono? I know it's easy for you to deny factual evidence... you've been abundantly clear in having done so repeatedly.
"I note that you have not been specific in where you think my understanding of the 1979 - 2010 temperature trend analysis was lacking so what can I say?"
Had you any understanding of this issue we would not be having this discussion. It's like trying to get an idiot to understand why he's an idiot. You can explain and explain, present to them all sorts of physical evidence, but understanding is simply beyond their reach. But out of kindness and urgency to answer their question why are they an idiot, still you try and only feel like an idiot yourself for all your futile efforts.
And please, just for little old ignorant me, explain what the C represents in CAGW, for I've not come across it before and your reference to it is the only I've encountered.
Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable. You are the real danger and your skewed view of reality will hurt us all. You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.
The point being that your source of information, the umbrella publisher, is "in cahoots" with that which you object to simply because they publish a scientific paper that attempts to sway doubters. Sorta like you view the work of the IPCC.
And you do not answer, but avoid questions put to you. Why don't you explain for all of us what Modeling is, how it works and why certain data are purposely excluded and for what reasons, you know to impress everyone here with your vast cut n paste knowledge?
Only an idiot would believe that transparent gases in our atmosphere force its heating more than that filled with black particulate matter, which our is, or worse, that it plays no part in its heating. Basic thermodynamics.
And once you've explained why all climate scientists need to use modeling and what it actually is, why don't you explain for us what a carbon tax is?
Hint: it affects the corporate polluters bottom line, (Costs them money).
Why don't you address the true conspirator Koch bros. and others of their ilk and why it is they fund so many denying front groups? Cui bono? I know it's easy for you to deny factual evidence... you've been abundantly clear in having done so repeatedly.
"I note that you have not been specific in where you think my understanding of the 1979 - 2010 temperature trend analysis was lacking so what can I say?"
Had you any understanding of this issue we would not be having this discussion. It's like trying to get an idiot to understand why he's an idiot. You can explain and explain, present to them all sorts of physical evidence, but understanding is simply beyond their reach. But out of kindness and urgency to answer their question why are they an idiot, still you try and only feel like an idiot yourself for all your futile efforts.
And please, just for little old ignorant me, explain what the C represents in CAGW, for I've not come across it before and your reference to it is the only I've encountered.
Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable. You are the real danger and your skewed view of reality will hurt us all. You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.