Thursday, August 07, 2008

Krugman gets a smackdown

A few days ago in The Funny Paper, nationally syndicated columnist Paul Krugman wrote yet another alarmist screed about global warming.

Today, Dr. Martin Hertsberg - a retired meteoroligst with a PhD in physical chemistry - a lifelong liberal democrat - took him to task for it in an open letter. As the so-called Global Warming Consensus is revealed to be the outright lie it always was, the left is getting increasingly shrill.

Read the letter below:
Dear Prof Krugman:

I have generally found myself in strong agreement with most of the opinions expressed in your columns dealing with politics and the economy. I am a lifelong liberal Democrat, but I am also a scientist.

In your interview with Keith Obermann last night, there was an implication that somehow those of us who are human-caused global warming skeptics were all supported by big-oil money. In the 20 years that I have been studying this issue and expressing my skepticism, I have never received a cent from either big-oil or the government to study the problem. You failed to mention the 50 billion being spent by governments to finance research that supports the human-caused global warming theory.

In this morning’s article “Can This Planet Be Saved”, you simply regurgitated the typical fear-mongering hysteria that the Gore-IPCC-Hansen clique promulgate without any serious consideration of the fact that that hysteria is based on half-baked computer models that have never been verified and that are totally our of touch with reality. I am sure that as an Economist you have seen similar econometric models that are similarly out of touch with reality coming from the likes of “the Chicago boys” or the Heritage Foundation.

I have taken the liberty of attaching copies of Alexander Cockburn’s articles that appeared in the Nation Magazine last year. They are based, in part, on my studies of the issue. Also attached is a recent talk I gave on the subject. It has been published in the Australian web-site: http://www.carbon-sense.com. Also attached is a list of web-sites of global warming skeptics. I can only hope that you will read the attachments with an open mind and consider the possibility that you might need an informed and objective science adviser before making any further pronouncements on the subject.

I will also forward under separate cover, a letter I sent to the President of the American Physical Society about their treatment of a well known global warming sceptic, Lord Monckton. If you might recall, he had routinely advertized in the N. Y. Times, challenging Gore to a debate on the issue, which Gore ignored.

You can always tell the difference between a propagandist and a scientist. If a scientist has a theory, he looks diligently for facts that might contradict his theory so that he can test its validity or refine it. The propagandist on the other hand selects only those facts that agree with his theory and dutifully ignores those facts that contradict it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Martin Hertzberg
P. O. Box 3012
Copper Mountain, CO 80443

30 comments:

David Appell said...

It is completely untrue that climate models "have never been verified." Climate models back-predict 20th century climate, (and only if anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included):

IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703
(bottom three graphs)
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

Hansen's 1988 climate model (scenario C) pretty much predicted the next 20 years of climate change, and that was when climate science was in its relative infancy.

Mr. Hertzberg does not appear to know much about what he is talking about. Ipso facto, he's a natural witness for this blog to highlight.

OregonGuy said...

Afpel strikes.

"We seek him here,
we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere."

This self-styled Scarlett Pimpernel of Science strikes yet again, completely ignoring the context of the remarks of the referred to writer.

I am reminded of First Corinthians, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Hence, Mr. Afpel is reduced to a trite observation, that since Mr. Hertzberg disagrees with the Afpel, the Hertzberg is ipso facto wrong.

A new standard of knowledge: the Afpel Test.

.

Anonymous said...

David,
Here you go again.

It is completely TRUE that the AGW climate models have never been verified. And not only your cherry picked version.

The so called back-predicting of 20th century climate not only includeds anthropogenic greenhouse gases but it also includes the half baked-convenient presumption of just enough Human CO2 increase in water vapor to cause the warming.
There has not been any scientific verifications of these assumptions.

You know it but choose to lie.

You are totally our of touch with reality.

But since you are too deep into it you feel you must continue lying.

David Appell said...

OregonGuy, I fail to see why you can't respond in a polite fashion, but that's really your problem.

I didn't say Hertzberg was wrong just because I said so. I gave the evidence showing he was wrong -- that climate models have, indeed, been verified.

Do you have rational evidence that refutes this claim, or would you rather just call each other names?

David Appell said...

Anonymous wrote:
> The so called back-predicting of
> 20th century climate not only
> includeds anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases but it
> also includes the half
> baked-convenient presumption of
> just enough Human CO2 increase in
> water vapor to cause the warming.

How so? How much CO2/water vapor feedback did they assume? What was the scientific basis of their assumption? Why is that the incorrect amount? What is the "correct" amount? What do climate models show if you do included the "correct" amount?

Jim Karklock said...

JK: Hey David!
We are all still waiting (for over a month now) for your proof, in the form of a few peer-reviewed papers, that prove that CO2 really is a dangerous gas at today’s levels. Absent that proof you have no case that man is causing any harm what so ever and no excuse to hurt millions of people with your grand scheme to destroy the middle class.

Please quit wasting our time with your scheme to help Al Gore get rich on the backs of the poor.

Thanks
JK

David Appell said...

Jim, please at least try to be original. I have pointed multiple times to the IPCC 4AR WG1, which contains the case for AGW in exhaustive detail, with reference to all the relevant studies.

Have you read it?

It also contains the IPCC's prediction: BAU: 3.6 - 8.1 F.

It also contains the evidence for the veracity of its model predictions.

--

Question: What do *you* predict for an increase of 35% in CO2 levels. Please show your work.

Jim Karklock said...

David Appell: It is completely untrue that climate models "have never been verified." Climate models back-predict 20th century climate,
JK: Back prediction prove nothing. Back predictions DO NOT VERIFY a model. Only forwards testing can do that and so far they are miserable failures.

Do you recall alarmist Hansen’s testimony to congress 20 years ago? He presented a forwards projection showing 3 cases: Do notihng about CO2 an get a lot of warming, cuts and still get a lot of warming, big time cuts and get just a little warming. We did nothing and 20 years later, the temperature record Hansen himself maintains (considered the best in the world) shows today as cooler than when he gave the scarey presentation.

Model DISPROVED.

David Appell: (and only if anthropogenic greenhouse gases are included)
JK: Simply not true. (like most of what you say.)

PS: Still wating for those peer reviewed papers proving that CO2 is actually dangerous in the real world (as opposed to a lab jar.)

Thanks
JK

Jim Karklock said...

David Appell: OregonGuy, I fail to see why you can't respond in a polite fashion, but that's really your problem.
JK: David, how soon you forget that you told me to “shut your f**ing mouth” (except you left out the **). Hypocrite.

Thanks
JK

David Appell said...

JK wrote:
> Do you recall alarmist
> Hansen’s testimony to congress 20 > years ago? He presented a
> forwards projection showing 3
> cases: Do notihng about CO2 an
> get a lot of warming, cuts and
> still get a lot of warming, big
> time cuts and get just a little
> warming. We did nothing and 20
> years later, the temperature
> record Hansen himself maintains
> (considered the best in the
> world) shows today as cooler than > when he gave the scarey
> presentation.

Jim, you're incorrect. In Hansen's own paper, he writes that "scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases" (Hansen et al., "Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model," JGR v93 n D8, August 20, 1988, p. 9345). http://tinyurl.com/27vzh8

Scenario B has, indeed, been the most accurate. It predicted a 2005 temperature anomaly of 0.6C, exactly what the data shows. See Mann & Kump, "Dire Predictions," 2008, p. 67.

It also predicts a decline in the rate of warming in the later half of this decade.

In any case, computer models and climate science have progressed considerably since 1988. By Moore's Law (which postulates a doubling of computer power every 18 months), computers have increased in computational power by a factor of about 10,000 since 1988. Hansen's model was, we now know, really quite a dinosaur -- and yet even it did a pretty good job of predicting the future. That's because very basic physics says that more CO2 will lead to more warming, to first order.

David Appell said...

> David Appell: (and only if
> anthropogenic greenhouse
> gases are included)
> JK: Simply not true. (like most
> of what you say.)

The figure I referred to is quite clear -- only with AGHGs can models replicate last century's climate. And with them, they do a pretty good job.

You can put your fingers in your ears and jump up and down and yell "No, no, no" if you want, but do you have any logic to accompany your reaction?

David Appell said...

> JK: David, how soon you forget that > you told me to “shut your f**ing
> mouth” (except you left out the
> **). Hypocrite.

Jim, I have never said such as thing, as a simple Google search shows: http://tinyurl.com/6lwa3u

Prove it or retract it.

Anonymous said...

The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective



News Flash: Twenty Year Cool-Down

Mainstream media ignores it



Five Major Arguments

1. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming.
Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much. (Heinz Hug)

2. Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium.
Equilibrium is rapid and total as indicated by many sources of evidence. One, the graph for CO2 in the air is an extremely precise line. If nothing were regulating, it would vary wildly. Two, if equilibrium were not established, oceans would be absorbing or losing CO2 at a high rate, yet no significant change occurs.

3. Water vapor would swamp any effects by CO2, if greenhouse gasses were really creating global warming.
Water vapor has three times as much bandwidth for absorption peaks, and there are about 33 times as many water vapor molecules in the atmosphere as CO2 molecules, which means 100 times as much of a supposed greenhouse effect. And water vaporizes and precipitates so rapidly that it would be creating billions of times as much change in temperature as CO2, if the same logic were applied to it. Water Vapor

4. The public is being misled through propaganda to assume CO2 is like a sheet of plastic holding in heat.
CO2 can only absorb 8% of radiation frequencies available (No one disputes this.), and only about 1% of the heat leaves the earth as radiation—the other 99% being conduction, convection and evaporation. NASA says its 41%, not 1%, but there is no agreement, and night vision equipment shows there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter.

5. The IPCC is a bunch of political hacks who railroad the process through force.
It's not what science consists of. They start at the end point which they want and then try to rationalize it through computer models which override the real science and evidence.

See How Did Science Go Wrong?



There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming.

There is a shortage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plant growth, because alkaline oceans absorb it and only release a small amount. The atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2.

When an ice age begins, global Warming occurs exactly as it is doing now. Heated oceans cause increased evaporation followed by precipitation. Eventually, increased snowfall will reflect away solar energy and trigger a cool-down.

etc etc etc

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

Here's a quantitative reason why carbon dioxide does not create global warming:

The sun's energy goes through the atmosphere and strikes the earth's surface.

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C

95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C

1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C

8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C

3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C

5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C

claimed global warming --- 0.6°C

Explanations — Crunching the Numbers

It's actually 220x10-12 °C

This means carbon dioxide cannot trap radiant energy near the surface of the earth. To get around this, an obfuscated mechanism is contrived for heat leaving the atmosphere. But it is a miniscule effect in the stratosphere, with little influence over the lower atmosphere.

The 41% Fraud
The 30% Fraud

OregonGuy said...

Friend Afpel--

I dealt with the absurdity of your position once at my place. It is noteworthy that you've avoided my place, since.

That you would posit a retrofit to data points out the fact that had you been one of my my students you would not have proceded to graduation.

We do not fit data back and then propose a thesis. You monkey!

Now, in terms of name calling, I dint name call. I did attempt to point out that you've become a latter day example of comedia. But, unlike Orczy's character, you've become much more Pythonesque in your dedication to Hansen.

With the recent highlighting of snowfall predictions in Washington, the strongest advocate of your position--Philip Mote--is under increasing pressure to recant. But, unlike Galileo Galilei, his recantation will be a refutation of religious belief.

A sly difference.

.

David Appell said...

OregonGuy:

Until you can be polite and resist calling someone funny names, as if this were 7th grade, I don't see any reason to take you seriously, or respond to anything you have to say.

Someday you'll know better.

David Appell said...

Anonymous wrote:
> 1. There is no scientifically
> valid mechanism for CO2 causing
> global warming.

So then, you don't believe that CO2 contributes to the planet's natural greenhouse effect of about 30 C?

This has been known scientifically since Fourier in 1824. No scientists I have ever heard of, even the skeptics, disagrees with this conclusion. What don't you find convincing about his argument?

Thanks.

Jim Karklock said...

David Appell said...

> JK: David, how soon you forget that > you told me to “shut your f**ing
> mouth” (except you left out the
> **). Hypocrite.

Jim, I have never said such as thing, as a simple Google search shows: http://tinyurl.com/6lwa3u

Prove it or retract it.

Thursday, August 0

JK: Here’s the complete EMAIL I received form you: (I added the **, David used the full form of that word. I Bolded the offending line & deleted my email address. I kept David’s to show it really is from him - go to the web site):
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:46:50 -0700
From: David Appell “appell@nasw.org”
Reply-To: appell@nasw.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
To: Jim karlock <@.com>
Subject: Re: hockey stick (revised)

> Further, the hockey stick HAS been destroyed, you just refuse to recognize the fact. See the NAS > > report, the Wegman report, the lack of prominence in AR4.

Being proved wrong (and many do not agree) is very, very different from "fraud." You charged fraud (though are trying to change the subject now.)

"Fraud" implies intentional misconduct to imply a result that is not true.

Where is your proof of intentional fraud??

Where???

I've asked repeatedly. You have never, ever provided such proof.

Otherwise, I think you should shut the f**k up and stop denigrating better men than you.

David

Jim Karklock said...

David Appell: JK wrote:
Do you recall alarmist Hansen’s testimony to congress 20 years ago? He presented a forwards projection showing 3 cases: Do notihng about CO2 and get a lot of warming, cuts and still get a lot of warming, big time cuts and get just a little warming. We did nothing and 20 years later, the temperature
record Hansen himself maintains (considered the best in the world) shows today as cooler than when he gave the scarey presentation.


Jim, you're incorrect. In Hansen's own paper, he writes that "scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases" (Hansen et al., "Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model," JGR v93 n D8, August 20, 1988, p. 9345). http://tinyurl.com/27vzh8

Scenario B has, indeed, been the most accurate. It predicted a 2005 temperature anomaly of 0.6C, exactly what the data shows. See Mann & Kump, "Dire Predictions," 2008, p. 67.
JK: Good move when you are wrong - change the subject. I clearly referred to his congressional testimony and projection (the graph he presented), not some paper. Further, I compared temperatures between 1988 and 2008, not 2005

My statement stands.

David Appell: In any case, computer models and climate science have progressed considerably since 1988. By Moore's Law (which postulates a doubling of computer power every 18 months), computers have increased in computational power by a factor of about 10,000 since 1988. Hansen's model was, we now know, really quite a dinosaur -- and yet even it did a pretty good job of predicting the future.
JK: It is not computing power it is the idiots doing the modeling who are so stupid as to think that back testing is sufficient. All that proves is that they did a good job of fudging the many variable to match the data.

David Appell: That's because very basic physics says that more CO2 will lead to more warming, to first order.
JK: The world is not a simplistic “first order” and you know that, so quit lying.

Quit wasting our time.

BTW, David we are still waiting for that peer-reviewed paper that proves CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.

Thanks
JK

MAX Redline said...

OregonGuy, I fail to see why you can't respond in a polite fashion, but that's really your problem

Well now, Davey, them's some pretty big words, considering that just yesterday, you were spouting off this:

You are exactly the kind of fool the Bush administration is counting on -- hardheaded, impervious to evidence, scared shitless that some terrorist is going to blow up your mailbox, and willing to grant the government any power if they will just protect you.

And yet you recoil in fear and anger that your electricity might be generated from the sun and not fossil fuels.


Gee, Davey - does that sound at all familiar to you? It should, because even as you lambaste OregonGuy for offending your delicate sensibilities, you made the above statement just yesterday evening.

I'll buy you a clue, Davey: You try to set rules for everybody but yourself. I have no idea why you can't respond in a polite fashion, but that's your problem. I have told you this on several occasions before, Davey, but evidently it takes a great deal of time for basic facts to sift through:

You don't get to set the rules.

Obviously, that's a really hard concept for you to grasp. That, too, is your problem - not ours.

Until you can be polite and resist calling someone funny names, as if this were 7th grade, I don't see any reason to take you seriously, or respond to anything you have to say.

You see? There you go again, Davey. You get to set the rules on your own blog, but the big problem you have is that nobody visits your blog - which is why you troll through other blogs in order to gain an audience for your hysterical AGW belief system. And that's not working really well for you, either.

You see, Davey, you've got yourself a reputation now - one that you, by your actions alone, have worked hard to earn. You are known as an AGW true believer, intolerant of any view that suggests flaws in your belief system, and when push comes to shove, you exhibit your true "progressive" nature:

Liberals are more than 12 times likely to use profanity than conservatives on the web.

Well, let's take a guess: conservatives tend to think things through, while libs tend to function essentially from emotion. Conservatives have little need for resorting to profanity, while in the case of "progressives", profanity and spittle are essentially the only tools they have.

Certainly, that seems to fit you like a glove.

You routinely run down people such as David Evans, who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data.


David, you're nothing but a lower-level writer, yet your response to Evans is: No, David Evans "explanation" for the correlation between AGHGs and 20th century temperatures is not credible

At the same time, you praise Hansen, who slightly over 30 years ago was testifying before Congress regarding anthropogenic global cooling.

I really think, David, that as you have zero credibility - which, as note, you've earned entirely by virtue of your own hypocrisy - you might want to consider finding yourself a new religion.

David Appell said...

MRL wrote:
> You routinely run down people
> such as David Evans, who wrote
> the carbon accounting model
> (FullCAM) that measures Australia's > compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, > in the land use change and forestry > sector.

I'm not running David Evans down. I have no idea what kind of man he is. I'm saying his "explanation" is unscientific and laughable. You have yet to defend it, and only yammer on and on that I dare criticize someone. People who are wrong and use insufficient logic deserve criticism....

MAX Redline said...

David,

He, unlike you, wrote the carbon accounting model for Australia.

While you call his arguments "unscientific and laughable", the plain fact of the matter is that he has far more scientific credibility than you.

You have yet to say anything more substantive than "unscientific and laughable".

So it appears that the induhvidual doing tha "yammering" here would be you.

As I've noted, you don't have a whole lot of credibility.

You resort to spittle and expletives when your pathetic attempts to belittle others don't work. In general, that's what many of us see as a hallmark characteristic of the tolerant progressive.

You see, David, I don't "yammer", and your proclivity for such put-downs does nothing to elevate you in the eyes of the online community.

Nearly every time you troll along a blog, you manage to further debase yourself.

David,

I posted a number of things that you've put up of late, even as you attempted to chastise others for their lack of respect in regard to your most honorable person.

Do you have no understanding of the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

If you are, as you claim to be, a writer, then you should understand the term.

I don't "yammer", David. Unlike you, I deal in fact rather than pseudo-religion.

David Appell said...

Max:

I see that you are still unable to defend Evan's intellectual reasoning, and are relying on some vague reference to his former position and supposed expertise.

Hogwash. This kind of thing never passes for a valid scientific argument. Lots of people have PhDs. Lots of people have done some kind of science. That matters for nothing -- the only road to scientific truth is proof, not reputation.

If you are going to defend Evans, defend his claim that the models where just "lucky" to predict the rise in temperatures in the last third of last century.

Tell me why is it true. Define "lucky." Show that the models fall in this category.

You can't. Your only defense of Evans is to try and denigrate me. Very transparent and hardly scientific.

MAX Redline said...

Sorry, David:

You can dodge and weave all you want, but I don't have to defend anything. Evans wrote the carbon accounting method for Australia.

You dismiss and denigrate his work at every turn, yet you have no similar body of work to substantiate your position. Instead, you call upon me to defend the work of Evans, which is a completely backward approach, and generally typical of the True Believers in the new religion of AGW.

No, David - if you actually know anything about science, then you should know that it is not incumbent upon me to defend the work of a respected scientist; it is up to you, having chosen to denigrate his work, to demonstrate the shortcomings in his challenges to your belief system.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you are a writer at all. What credible writer would publish a phrase such as this: Your only defense of Evans is to try and denigrate me.?

Try and?

No wonder that it's apparently so hard for you to find work as a writer. Presumably, you believe that grammar is married to grampar.

I have no reason to "try and denigrate" you, David.

You do a fine job of it all by yourself, virtually every time you show up on somebody's blog.

David Appell said...

Max: sad, very sad.

You are completely transparent.

You are completely and utterly unable to defend Evan's ideas.

You keep referring to his accounting job, as if that matters. It does not. All that means is that he was good with numbers. Real climate scientists disagree with his conclusion, and have published this in the peer-reviewed scientific literature a decade ago.

You must defend ideas. Those are all that matters.

-=-=-

By the way, you keep trying to denigrate me personally (a weak tactic) as if you know something about me and my writing business. In fact, I am as busy as I can possibly be writing for books and for some of the finest scientific magazines in the world. I'm proud of that.

What are you doing that's so special?

Jim Karklock said...

*JK:* Hey, David, I’m still waiting for all those peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 increases from the present can cause dangerous warming.

Thanks
JK

MAX Redline said...

David,

You are completely and utterly unable to defend Evan's ideas.

I have no reason to "defend" him. You've never responded to his views, beyond calling them laughable. That's hardly a reason to "defend" anybody.

Papers published a decade ago are out-of-date and have been supplanted by more extensive material - and the comments that I posted by Evans are recent.

In any case, as I've noted before - when you're on somebody else's blog, you don't get to set the rules. For a brilliant scientific mind, you seem singularly unable to grasp this basic concept.

By the way, you keep trying to denigrate me personally (a weak tactic) as if you know something about me and my writing business. In fact, I am as busy as I can possibly be writing for books and for some of the finest scientific magazines in the world. I'm proud of that.

Whatever makes you think something like that, David?

I have posted comments by Evans, whom you have denigrated and then called upon me to defend him.

As I've noted before, David, when it comes to denigration, you're one of the leaders. You may not be much good at science, but by golly, you know how to denigrate.

I'll be happy to post some of your verbatim comments, should your memory require refreshment.

Just give me a reply; I'll be happy to do so.

Now if, by some chance, you regard statements of fact - such as the fact that you have zero credibility - as somehow "denigrating", well, that's your problem.

Sometimes the truth hurts, but when it happens to be the truth, then it's kind of silly to blame others. You do it all by yourself.

Anonymous said...

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

"All of the models agree — for sound theoretical reasons — that warming from a greenhouse effect must be 2–3 times greater in the lower atmosphere than at the earth's surface. This is not happening. Both satellites and weather balloons show slightly greater warming at the surface. These atmospheric temperature measurements furnish direct, unequivocal evidence that whatever warming has occurred is not from the greenhouse effect."

Anonymous said...

This fresh piece pretty much covers all of the many crucial points and specific components displaying the AGW hoax.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

Watch how Daviod avoids them all with his liberal games.

Anonymous said...

The only way for David to save any shred of intellectual honesty and credibility is to confess he has been misguided and join the rational.
The expert disintegration of the IPCC campaign nears completion.

The ships are returning from the horizon, David, having never sailed off the edge of the flat earth.

MAX Redline said...

David's left the house. It's his usual mode of operation. He won't be back unless Rob dares to post another AGW piece.

Then, he'll adhere to his usual pattern:

First comment: It's just that I am for accurate and complete reporting, as you fail to realize the size and scope of the climate change problem. Every time some scientific result comes along that is favorable to your side, you highlight it as some kind of as proof against AGW. (Funny how you never mention the papers that come out weekly in journals all across the world -- including J Climate, where this paper has been submitted -- in agreement with AGW.

Then he'll run through some other junk: Yes, CO2 on Earth has reached as high as 7000 ppmv 500 Ma ago. It's very difficult to see the relevance -- the continents were a lumped together back then. It was, literally, an entirely different planet. The mean surface temperature was ~+7C higher than today (=13F). Today's man, nonhuman animals, ecosystems, agriculture, and means of production could never survive in such a climate.

As he gets played out, he'll post something like this: You are exactly the kind of rube they are counting on.

Sure, I could lay this all out for you, if I took 2 or 3 hours and crossed every t and dotted every i. But, you're just not worth it. I have better things to do with my time, and esp with someone who has shown they will stoop to asking the stupidest question without taking even 10 minutes to read the existing literature on a problem.


Eventually, he'll cut to the chase, and then leave:

I fail to see why you can't respond in a polite fashion, but that's really your problem.

You can put your fingers in your ears and jump up and down and yell "No, no, no" if you want, but do you have any logic to accompany your reaction?

Until you can be polite and resist calling someone funny names, as if this were 7th grade, I don't see any reason to take you seriously, or respond to anything you have to say.

Someday you'll know better.


Otherwise, I think you should shut the f**k up and stop denigrating better men than you.

That pretty much sums up little Davey, the wanna-be "science expert" and his whole AGW system of belief.

You'll likely not hear from him again - unless, as I noted, Rob has the audacity to post something that disagrees with AGW.

Like this one: As one story notes, "Arctic Ice Refuses To Melt As Ordered".

You can bet that'd bring Davey back.