World's "most-quoted" Climatologist says carbon-dioxide-based global warming is Bunk

[man]

two small things that come to my mind after the article.
first i could think that it could be that the man is not
too fond of computer modelling as such, no matter what
it is about. second is his comment that prediction over
decades is near to ridiculous since predicting five days
is already near to impossible. this logic is flawed. you
can claim identifying a bigger trend while being aware
of near to random walk in the short term. this kind of
argument takes away some credibility in my eyes.

 

[man]

Quote from maxpi:

... those nasty corporations, o, our intellectual elite, who need a nesaying that man is bad, bad, bad and is causing global warming.

...

Our SUV's must be one helluva pollutant too

american corporate power is a danger. call them nasty
or whatever. at least two presidents come to my mind
who publicly talked about that.
no one says man is bad, but some men are. or better to
say have their own agenda. man could run this planet
in a different way. and much of the american dreaming
is pure propaganda.
and, yes, you are right, SUVs are helluva in most every
respect.

 

[pattersb]

Quote from traderNik:

I notice you never comment when someone asks you whether you are actually an attorney... hmmm, I wonder why that is.

The evidence of reduction in ice mass has been piling up for years. That's why it's one of the biggest issues in every election campaign in the Western world.

No, wait... it's all a CONSPIRACY!!! Just like 9/11 was ALL A CONSPIRACY.

As for you, pattersb, your commenting on my education is like ZZZ commenting on ... anything. In a word, a joke.

I didn't want to engage any of you serial nutbags but got drawn into it by pattersb's childishness and toilet humour, which he then deleted. My mistake.

I made no comment on your education. It needed to be pointed out that in the same post in which you assail a fellow ET'er about his spelling, you spelled JUVENILE wrong. Ironic hey? The arrogance. Me deleting my "toliet humour" was not in response to you or your tripe. Take my advice, get over yourself, you are a simpleton.

I'm half inclined to start a poll on the issue, but you should be spared the humiliation of realizing what your "peers" really think, considering you've made it your missions to scold everyone on this site. Over and out ... NO MAS!

As for the topic of this Thread, the professor is beyond reproach, the idiot-left will choose to believe what they want to believe, as long as its premised on the idea that man is a plague.

Al Gore, will go down in history as a buffoon, Bush, has a far greater chance of being in the company of Lincoln.

 

[man]

Quote from pattersb:

As for the topic of this Thread, the professor is beyond reproach, the idiot-left will choose to believe what they want to believe, as long as its premised on the idea that man is a plague.

Al Gore, will go down in history as a buffoon, Bush, has a far greater chance of being in the company of Lincoln.

i guess i qualify for the idiot left. but no, man is no plague. and
- in case you have missed that part of recent history - al gore has
already entered the history books as the man who was ruled from
the white house by controversial supreme court decision. ironically
enough a decision ruled out by political opponents who find their
last justification for war in spreading democracy.

and the lincoln thing ... bush's hand at the moment shows another
set of odds, i'd say, but i guess everybody will "choose what they
want to believe" ...

comparing this person in the year 2007 to lincoln. wow. that is
something.

 

[FightTheFuture]

"The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes."

Not too far from where I live, environmentalists were protesting the construction of a 1+megawatt wind turbine because it was too loud at 40 decibels. The normal speaking voice is 60db.

Quote from Bitstream:......Reichholf: Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats, such as the rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical forests. Particularly as a conservationist, I believe that focusing on the greenhouse effect is very dangerous. The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes. A typical example is the misleading debate over catastrophic flooding, which is in fact caused by too much development along rivers and not by more extreme weather events, which we can't change anyway.....

.....To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species.....

.... Biodiversity reached its peak at the end of the tertiary age, a few million years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. The development went in a completely different direction when the ice ages came and temperatures dropped, causing a massive extinction of species, especially in the north. ...

....Reichholf: Then let me ask you in return: How did the polar bear survive the last warm period?....

...In warmer regions it takes far less effort to ensure survival....

 

[man]

Quote from FightTheFuture:

"The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes."

Not too far from where I live, environmentalists were protesting the construction of a 1+megawatt wind turbine because it was too loud at 40 decibels. The normal speaking voice is 60db.

you might define the term "environmentalists" a bit ... wide? sounds
like you want to discredit the movement as such. but then why not
say it clearly? "caring about our environment on this planet in a
way to prevent it from harm so that our children find a place worth
living in is stupid." that is what you are saying.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from man:

you might define the term "environmentalists" a bit ... wide? sounds
like you want to discredit the movement as such. but then why not
say it clearly? "caring about our environment on this planet in a
way to prevent it from harm so that our children find a place worth
living in is stupid." that is what you are saying.

Yes, protesting a 40 db wind turbine that will produce clean energy is a perfectly reasonable way to protect our children...

 

[jem]

Quote from traderNik:

I notice you never comment when someone asks you whether you are actually an attorney... hmmm, I wonder why that is.

The evidence of reduction in ice mass has been piling up for years. That's why it's one of the biggest issues in every election campaign in the Western world.

No, wait... it's all a CONSPIRACY!!! Just like 9/11 was ALL A CONSPIRACY.

As for you, pattersb, your commenting on my education is like ZZZ commenting on ... anything. In a word, a joke.

I didn't want to engage any of you serial nutbags but got drawn into it by pattersb's childishness and toilet humour, which he then deleted. My mistake.

If it makes you happy - I am licensed as an attorney in two states. In one of them since the early 90s.

You seem to have a problem understanding circumstantial evidence - conclusions- and the confidence level you may have in them.

 

[FightTheFuture]

Quote from man:

you might define the term "environmentalists" a bit ... wide? sounds
like you want to discredit the movement as such. but then why not
say it clearly? "caring about our environment on this planet in a
way to prevent it from harm so that our children find a place worth
living in is stupid." that is what you are saying.

Fact: I am pro environment. Toxic chemicals are killing and sickening animals and humans. The unwise, inefficient land use and destruction of habitat is going on now. That is what is happening now in the real world, not computer models forecasting temperature a thousand years from now. I have what is called Environmental Illness from chemical exposure. It has ruined my life. That is the real world. GW is a pop culture diversion as to what you humans are really doing to the environment. CO2 is not a toxic chemical, it is the major plant nutrient.

Fact: The man-made destruction of nature is not caused and will not be caused by an increase in temperature. With an increase in temperature, there is an increase in biodiversity. We are not going to burn up or whatever the radicals envision. The arctic used to be tropical until the ice age began. We are still within the ice age. This is now another cyclical warm period within the ice age.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from pattersb:

I'm half inclined to start a poll on the issue

LMAO. This would occur to you. What a joke. Like Grade 11 all over again. Usually people who start polls like that end up getting skewered themselves, even if they start polls on uberTrolls like Z.

How womanly of you. Threatening and hysterical. But then it was very womanly of you to make that post then retract it. Women usually lash out emotionally and then think about it later. That's what happened when you were forced to aplogize to me over a post last year. You lashed out and then thought better of it, like a woman would do.

If you create a poll and 80% of respondents of your ilk said that I'm an asshole, I would take it as a compliment.

As I said, for you to suggest that I don't know how to spell is indicative of your overall dishonesty. My pointing out that jem has consistent spelling issues goes to his claims that he is an attorney. His problems in this regard are well know and have been seen in other threads as well.

You've apologized to me personally in the past for your hasty posts. I'm sure you've been forced to apologize to others as well. I'll accept your apology in this matter. Forgiveness, right?