Post by marchesarosa on Jan 30, 2011 11:17:33 GMT 1
It's all grist to the mill, isn't it, with warmists, sim? Hot/cold, drought/flood, 20 years/40 years, speculation/ prediction/scenario, blog/peer review - just move the goalposts if the facts don't fit.
Sooo, by 2020 Manhattan's West Side Highway will be flooded (just a "speculation", mind you, from the IPCC's most famous climate activitist). So we have a decade to go before we can resurrect this failed Hansen scenario AGAIN. Tee hee. What will be the excuse of Louise/Havelock/Lazarus/Enquirer for Hansen's MORE than stupid gaff then, I wonder?
They are just NEVER WRONG, are they? Not the slightest room for doublt from these cadres and footsoldiers of AGW - unlike reputable SCIENTISTS who are full of doubt and uncertainty.
Louise et al just plough on regardless with the same old fanzine mentality for their superheroes who are going to save the world regardless of the actual facts, the actual OBSERVATIONS.
Do remember the context of the quote "if CO2 doubles..."
I try not to 'just plough on...', I try to be objective and to look at the evidence for and against.
I have posted links to articles that do not universally support AGW such as can be found in many skeptic blogs, e.g. the ice data site at WUWT, the discussion of Ravetz at Climate Etc and at WUWT.
I have said that I do not think that manmade CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the only reason the climate is changing but you have stated that is my opinion - you are wrong.
I have said that all known possible natural reasons have been investigated (note - all known, not all) yet you claimed that scientists hadn't even considered natural reasons. You are wrong.
I believe that land use change (e.g. cutting down forests to farm cattle) also has an impact on our climate but this could actuially be considered part of the CO2 equation (of which there is much more than just burning fossil fuels).
You constantly state that you know what I think and what my motives for posting here are. You are wrong.
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 30, 2011 12:22:03 GMT 1
I don't give a toss for you personally or your motives, Louise.
But YOU never cease to personalise conversations which are actually about facts and figures. Even on highly informative, highly regarded blogs like WUWT, Climate Audit and Climate Etc you lower the tone to the merely personal whenever you post there. This is a tactic common to all warmists. When the facts don't support the hypothesis, attack the critics in personal terms.
We have already see you try to do the dirty on Graham Stringer here with the snide comment you obviously picked up from some warmist crib sheet.
I am amazed you think it is worthwhile to honour this blog with your presence. Is it the magic acronym "BBC" in the title that has misled you? Do you think this is actually more than a very small private talking shop between people who have known eachother a long time? It's not.
It is merely a group of old adversaries and you are an "also ran" just like your clone predecessors - Lazarus/Havelock/Enquirer.