Comment by Alejandro M on August 26, 2011 at 10:47am

And one more from you from the right-wing, Tea Partiers from CERN: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E....

showing that the actual vapor in the Earth has been only now proven to be affected much less by man and much more by the Sun than was previously thought... prompting the phrase that the models will have to be revised (read the pdf in the attached link).

I am sorry to disappoint you, my friend, but it seems that the "consensus" is working on a flawed model (which of course, was given from the beginning; how stupid to pretend that we can predict what will happen in 100 years WHEN WE CAN'T PREDICT WHERE THE HURRICANE WILL GO TO TOMORROW!).

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 26, 2011 at 10:11pm

There's no point continuing. I've already listed a large number of topics of which the following are true:

1. You make points about whose evidence you are wilfully ignorant.

2. You don't cite any even vaguely respectable sources or data.

3. You don't return to topics to which I reply when it's been shown you are ignorant and wrong.

Instead, the pattern continues: you pretend I didn't say the 100 million claim is wrong. It's immaterial; you have provided no evidence regarding the claim - standard from you.  

You've ignored everything all of my replies TO TOPIC YOU RAISED: volcanoes, polar bears, 1970s Time magazine alarmism and the source of "climate change" as a phrase, as well as all the other bullshit you love regurgitating.  Not to mention my repeated invitation for you to consider why Fox and others (e.g. CEI) twist college science to "disprove" AGW if there's a real argument against it. Not a peep from you on that, because we both know the answer. 

Each and every one of your points has been debunked - not by me, but long before and you should be massively embarrassed that you don't check your facts to any extent before spreading falsehoods in public.

I'll end by saying that your comments about EAU and "climategate" are as ignorant as on everything else: 6 independent inquiries, one completed just a few days ago, have found no evidence of any scientific misconduct (clearly a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people! Just like 9-11!!!), no evidence of wrongfully manipulated data.

The whole controversy arose from climate deniers who cherry-picked three or four quotes, utterly out of context, from hacked emails. Emails which, despite their being in the open domain for nearly two years, we both know you never bothered reading. Not even the relevant ones.

 

Your reference to the recent CLOUD experiments at CERN are equally deluded. The pdf to which you refer says:

it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.

Yet again you are arguing from the lack of evidence. Just like in all your previous emails. It takes considerable dedication to twist the contents of a document that doesn't support your conclusion the way you have.

 

Finally... and I really mean finally...

Your comments about the hurricane versus what will happen 100 years from now clearly shows you don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Which are not the same thing. You can look it up here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models...

... and a million other places. REALLY BASIC STUFF. Only you can really know why you don't look up a thing about what you are saying in public forums.

 

 

Don't bother looking up more fallacies to parrot here, accusing me of not providing data, arguing from authority or anything else. Knuckle d

Comment by Luke Scientiae on August 26, 2011 at 10:18pm

Don't bother looking up more fallacies to parrot here, accusing me of not providing data, arguing from authority or anything else.

None of that holds water.

Instead, why don't you knuckle down, put your brain in and try to learn some science behind the subjects you're addressing. And stop claiming scientists are manipulating data when you've neither inspected it, nor understand it, nor have any other reliable evidence for the claim.There is more material about climate behind the links in my comments than you've clearly read in your life.

I'm not going to waste my time on discussions with you any more, whether you choose to have the "final word" or not, it doesn't matter. There's nothing you'll put in a comment that will reverse the tide of ignorance you've already poured over this discussion.

I hope one day, sooner rather than later, you'll shake off your fanatical dedication to ideology and adjust your beliefs to evidence.

Your comments show me that's going to be pretty hard for you. Good luck.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page