So, You still say the science is settled?

[jakee 1,595]

rushmc

Not claiming anything

Yes you did.

Quote

I am only saying there is more to the story than you post

Where's the bit that lends any support whatsoever to this statement "10 years later he stated he was wrong and the CO2 have very little impact as a greenhouse gas "? Source?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,116]

>Not claiming anything

The old Rush two-step. "See? This proves that almarists are idiots." Followed by a post showing the claim to be false. Followed by "I just posted it, not claiming anything."

>I am only saying there is more to the story than you post

Absolutely. There are decades of science behind this particular story.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

Absolutely. There are decades of science behind this particular story.

Yes there are
and the last two have not supported your claims

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>and the last two have not supported your claims

You don't even know what my claims are.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***
You gonna rebuke Barbara Boxer and the Huffington Post for this utter piece of tripe?


..

Where did Sen. Boxer receive her degree in climate science, meteorology, physics or chemistry?

She didn't. That's why I'm asking not just whether you will, but whether the climate scientists will rebuke her and say it's hogwash?

It's easy for alarmists to jump on the lack of science knowledge of climate deniers. It's a lot more difficult to jump on the lay bs of another alarmist. And the lack of rebuke from the alarmist community means they care more about the politics than the science.

They are what they claim to despise.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>You gonna rebuke Barbara Boxer and the Huffington Post for this utter piece of tripe?

He will probably do that around the same time you attack John Coleman (and his employer, FOX News) for this latest bit of right-wing, well paid propadanda:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

No? You're not going to do that? Interesting.

[lawrocket 3]

From the link:

>>> The ocean is not rising significantly. - think this is true. The evidence supports that sea level rise is occurring, but not at a pace to be worrisome (and where it is worrisome is when land is subsiding)


>>>"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. - half truth and spin. Evidence suggests it's in stasis (though Northern Hemisphere snow cover is at an October record)

>>> Polar Bears are increasing in number. - in some places. Expecially the locations that are getting warmer.

>>> "Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. - uncertain abouyt this

>>> There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). - hurricanes and tornadoes, yes, they are.

>>> "I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item - I agree wholeheartedly.

>>> but the science is not valid." - disagree wholeheartedly. The science is what it is. It's what the alarmists and deniers do with the science that it problematic. Anyone who refers to science as a result instead of a process is selling bs.

>>> Man made climate change is a myth according to Coleman - I'll attack him for that. He's wrong.

>> He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. - I don't like him stating things to theeffects that he's proven a negative. It's ridiculous. How to take valid points and make me think he's an asshole because he took it too far.

>>> "Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. - l'll agree with him. Weather effects are all over the place. It SHOULD decrease hurricanes. It should also inccrease tornadoes.

>>> "There has been no warming over 18 years." - according to at least two major records, he's correct. But this is debateable. Again, he took a valid point and expanded tooo far.

>>> "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. - l'll disagree. There are worse reputations for some things. But CO2's bad reputation is worse than deserved. And yes, it has been subject to demonization. Anyone who disagrees is a real BSer. The issue is whether the demonization is deserved.

>>>"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science." - for many of them, yes. But he put this badly. Instead of saying, "post hoc attribution of so many events to CO2 increase is not a valid scientific approach" would work. He took it too far.

>>> It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof. - agreed with part 1. Disagree with second half.

There, Bill. I'll attack both people. They are assholes. Because they take valid points that speak for themselves and turn them into extreme opinions.

Saying thing like "no evidence" or "no reason" is being a hack. They are hacks. I don't give a shit about them.

I care about hacks who say they want to tax more money because walruses are gathered on a beach.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

rushmc

You are always looking for experts

Quote

Climate change is happening – but not because of human activity, Daniel Botkin, professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology

So he's an expert in some things unrelated to climate science.

Next.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***You are always looking for experts

Quote

Climate change is happening – but not because of human activity, Daniel Botkin, professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology

So he's an expert in some things unrelated to climate science.

Next.

Yes. Because Ecology and Marine Biologiy has nothing at all to do with climate, the carbon cycle, etc. (Like phytoplankton would do things like convert CO2 to oxygen and carbohydrate).

I hate to break it to you, but a climate scientist better have a marine biologist as part of an interdisciplinary team...

Next...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Been here. Bait someone else

Sign #7 that you might be a climate change denier - you can no longer answer even basic yes/no questions because you are afraid it will trap you into an unsupportable position.

That comment describes one poster's MO on anything.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun