Jotapay wrote:No, what I've done is post article after article after article that shows how many climate scientists are frauds and their research is fraudulent.
Is that what Glen Beck told you to think. Well if it makes you feel better I will pretend to agree with what you have posted.There there now, havent you done well.
Jotapay wrote:You haven't responded to any of these reports which literally damn the entire AGW position across the board.
You see this is where your degree is so much better than everyone elses. Is it on really shiny paper with a big big pretty logo on it? That would prove it to be worth so much more than anything anyone else was awarded from their university (although I have to say I strongly suspect you are not the only person with a degree, but then others degrees, masters or PHDs may not be printed on shiney paper)
The entire AGW position is damned by what, glaciers not melting quite as fast as the IPCC claims?
Grow the f**k up kid. When you can post an articulate distillation of Lindzens positive feedback hypotheses or Pielke Snrs views on the impacts of land use chages I might, just might start treeting you like a grown up, till then keep cutting and pasting from the Glen Beck sites.
Jotapay wrote:I've also parsed the communications and notes in the CRU documentation which shows that not only did the analysts fabricate temperature data, they stated that it was common practice at CRU to fake data. Again, you are completely mute about the CRU fraud examples as well.
That is because you are regurgitating what you have been trained to repeat by US talk radio and its ilk.
Jotapay wrote:You never responded to ANY of these facts, except to use ad hominems like the "children" reference above.
Oh I am sorry, news stories are not my forte, I assume that people who substitute their own analysis for cutting and pasting news stories are lacking in an understanding of the basic principles under discussion. As I have never seen you so much as address those I leap too conclusions.
Accept my apology.
Jotapay wrote:Please respond to the UN report above which caused the Dutch environmental minister to re-examine ALL global warming reports for their accuracy, as so many have been found to be complete fantasy.
Yes, the IPCC made a mistake. A stupid one. But you now seem to beleive because one mistake was made everything you believe is real.
I have not yet seen anything to suggest atmospheric physics needs to be rewritten. Certainly I have never seen you post anything suggesting you have any grasp of atmospheric physics, or for that matter mechanical physics, nuclear physics or anything other than cut and paste from blogs physics.
You are convinced you are right, but you are convinced you are more intellegent than AGW-tard Stephen Hawkings.
The University of Texas has the fifth best Geology program in the country and is #1 in funding. I interned with Geologists who invented
many of the principles that you read in an intro Geology textbook. If you don't want any gorilla chest-beating from me, then watch where you're ignorantly slinging the word "child" after I slaved 4 years over this exact material.[/quality]Thats so nice. It was worth the money then. You working actively in climate research?
Anything other than IT?
I am sure you think yourself clever than everyone else on this forum. So much so you dont feel the need to present any arguments about the actual physics under discussion, merely wave your degree and declare all of the worlds major scientific institutions AGW-tards
Me I have tried to engage with people, but alas I have failed. This is 'on me B' as they say in the US. Tempus fugit as they say, time passes, those depending on the UAH satellite data got a god awfull shock this month, those depending on the University of Illinois sea ice extent have also had there fingers burnt over the past two years.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are adding it to the atmosphere.
Chalange that scussfully and you win yourself a nobel prize.
I know crap work when I see it. You either don't have the ability or refuse to analyze these faulty reports and methods. That is what I call an AGW-tard.