Finally.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Disingenuous. A 10 year old with a laptop could in ten minutes locate the enough evidence for AGW to keep you reading for a month. IMO you are more interested in playing juvenile games than you are in an honest discussion of the evidence. I'm not playing.

Well in that case - as you're an expert, given my inability to find any evidence at all, you could furnish me with some in a matter of seconds.

Given that you have a record of talking confidently about publications which, it later transpires, you've never actually read, I don't think anyone would blame me for assuming the fault is with you, rather than my lack of google-fu.

 

[pjclarke]

Wrong again. I read the first 200 pages of 'Atlas Shrugged' and found it an appallingly-written manifesto for shallow, selfish people to validate their selfishness. Does it turn into Tolstoy on page 201?

I am no expert climatologist, people who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff have nearly unanimously come to a broadly similar conclusion. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary I will assume good faith, so, here is a no-models, admirably clear exposition of the basic thesis.

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps « RealClimate

 

[SueEllen]

Gosh this dull thread is now on page 14....

 

[SpontaneousOrder]

Wrong again. I read the first 200 pages of 'Atlas Shrugged' and found it an appallingly-written manifesto for shallow, selfish people to validate their selfishness. Does it turn into Tolstoy on page 201?

Even if I believed that, 200 pages is barely enough to set the scene.
You read about 15% of a novel, and conclude from that you know all about Ayn Rand and her work.
In fact, from what I remember, at that point none of the heroes of the book have presented themselves, and what you have seen is general scene setting of incompetence, and some of the psychology of some of the characters who will participate later in the story.

That alone tells me you're lying. You probably lifted that straight from [Ir]RationalWiki having never even opened the book.


Can I presume also that you only read the abstract of the papers which you're presenting as evidence? It would make sense in that case.

 

[pjclarke]

Life is too short for bad prose. I gave you the benefit of the doubt however my presumption of good faith was clearly misplaced. You have no interest in an open exchange, no interest in the science, not even mentioning or taking issue with the step-by-step exposition of the basic case I linked, just the same old infantile cat and mouse.

You're off-topic. Feel free to start a thread on Rand and her doorstop fiction, and I'll feel free to ignore it, but just to be clear, a historic thing just happened in Paris, every country in the world signed up to a treaty that engages pretty much the whole of humanity in taking collective (and altruistic, sorry but there it is) action to preserve a habitable planet. My guess is that Rand would have hated it. Good. There now exists a scientific and a political consensus. A nonsensical call for 'scientific proof' and then evidence when we're drowning in the stuff seems to me to indicate somebody who has kinda missed the boat.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[DodgyAgent]

Life is too short for bad prose. I gave you the benefit of the doubt however my presumption of good faith was clearly misplaced. You have no interest in an open exchange, no interest in the science, not even mentioning or taking issue with the step-by-step exposition of the basic case I linked, just the same old infantile cat and mouse.

You're off-topic. Feel free to start a thread on Rand and her doorstop fiction, and I'll feel free to ignore it, but just to be clear, a historic thing just happened in Paris, every country in the world signed up to a treaty that engages pretty much the whole of humanity in taking collective (and altruistic, sorry but there it is) action to preserve a habitable planet. My guess is that Rand would have hated it. Good. There now exists a scientific and a political consensus. A nonsensical call for 'scientific proof' and then evidence when we're drowning in the stuff seems to me to indicate somebody who has kinda missed the boat.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Aren't we the lucky ones . I have given you the solution which you have chosen to ignore thus undermining everything that you have said.

 

[oracleslave]

Gosh this dull thread is now on page 14....

PJ is doing a sterling job in an extended #cretinwatch effort.

 

[pjclarke]

PJ is doing a sterling job in an extended #cretinwatch effort.

I am a total arse.

Climate change sceptic is fine with all other science

 

[SpontaneousOrder]

Life is too short for bad prose. I gave you the benefit of the doubt however my presumption of good faith was clearly misplaced. You have no interest in an open exchange, no interest in the science, not even mentioning or taking issue with the step-by-step exposition of the basic case I linked, just the same old infantile cat and mouse.

You're off-topic. Feel free to start a thread on Rand and her doorstop fiction, and I'll feel free to ignore it, but just to be clear, a historic thing just happened in Paris, every country in the world signed up to a treaty that engages pretty much the whole of humanity in taking collective (and altruistic, sorry but there it is) action to preserve a habitable planet. My guess is that Rand would have hated it. Good. There now exists a scientific and a political consensus. A nonsensical call for 'scientific proof' and then evidence when we're drowning in the stuff seems to me to indicate somebody who has kinda missed the boat.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You gotta give me a chance to read it first, moron.

 

[EternalOptimist]

Gosh this dull thread is now on page 14....

maybe it's a little dull

but did you ever see three sovereigns for Sarah ?
It was only a few hundred years ago, people were crushed with stones, drowned , burned or hung
for being witches. Mostly based on emotion, lies and zero evidence.
Most people think if they had been there they would speak out against the obvious stupidity and nonsense
They can't believe they would stand idly by, while emotional idiots with false evidence get their way and destroy.