Ability to reason: <What qualifies you to give scientific facts about anything?> Plus substantial knowledge about a wide range of scientific things including having worked in environmental science at the coal face, but that's irrelevant to the qualification as anyone who has knowledge and can reason is qualified.
When you start off with a call to authority, it shows you are unable to reason as false argument is included in the list. don-lindsay-archive.org
Quite right: <we can't accept your word on anything however honorable you may be.> I live in hope that people have brains and can use them. I depend on other people to find the faults in what I think as I can't find them all myself. When I point out faults in what they think, it's surprising when they are not persuaded. My interest is being correct and matching my thinking to reality. There is no value to me in being wrong as that will lead me to disaster and I do not like to be involved in disaster. Unfortunately, most people think in Sieg Heil terms. They love to form big crowds baying at the moon or whatever group therapy it is. That's why history shows such proclivity to form into tribal warrior groups - since chimpanzee times, big powerful groups have been the way for people to survive. Believing in the group is more important than anything. Subordinating thinking to the group is a prerequisite - or the group will indulge in human sacrifice of you.
I'm not quite sure why, but I have always, from infancy, been separate from the group and not prone to Sieg Heil thinking. As Wharfie would say, I prefer to sit on the tv and look at the crowd on the couch.
You can do it all easily, so if you want to do so, you can. But you don't. So you won't. There's no point me repeating it: <You say you have 15 years....put it in the context of maybe the last several hundred years....compare it to sea ice coverage and CO2 content of the atmosphere... I can do all that easily, but since you are the contrarian the onus is on you.... > I don't have to do anything. I can leave it to reality to do the job, which it is doing. I made my 2020 foresight predictions back in October 2007 and so far I am right on the money with the sunspot peak and the cold weather the following 3 years. Now the "experts" are catching up with me. You might too. But you don't have to. Believe anything you like.
<You say you have 15 years....put it in the context of maybe the last several hundred years...> We don't need that long. The theory is that increasing CO2 causes air to get warmer. CO2 went zooming over those 15 years. Air temperature did not. In fact, we need only a year to show the problem, not 15, because CO2 is not like weather in different places, CO2 is forcing, which means ipso facto there is extra heat retained, which ipso facto causes a temperature rise EVERY YEAR. Because their temperature measurements are not very precise, they might not detect the heat increase over one year, but after several years, it's a travesty [as one of them said] and after 15 years it's a joke. We don't need hundreds of years.
Even though they are supposed to be the climatologists, one of them compared the problem with British weather [which people know is notoriously glitchy and nasty], which was naughty of him as he should know that weather is different from climate. When we see such dishonesty, it's quite a good guide to their general lack of truth. If it's not dishonesty, it's stupidity, which is not good either.
If you can do all this easily, then why don't you explain the travesty to me? I'm all ears. I will especially be watching for "Oh, it's just natural variation" which I guess you can understand falsifies the CO2 Global Warming theory which specifically says climate is NOT natural variation. We Denialists say climate is nearly all natural variation and human CO2 is trivial in its effect. Hawkmoon says it's iron deficiency, some say gamma rays and clouds, some same planets aligned, some say volcanic variation.
Mqurice |
