geronimo

BBD give up you're not in rhoda's league and you're making an ass of yourself. Again.

Sayin' it don't make it so ;-)

I don't think we are reading the same thread.

Here's Mike admitting that he's can't be bothered to understand the GHE while trying to pretend that it's all my fault. It's actually almost funny:

Unfortunately I really cannot be bothered ploughing all the way through the Discussion threads to find the precise quotes where he tried to persuade us that CO2 was the cause of back radiation, just at about the time that MyDog was starting his crusade to convince us it doesn't exist at all.
That's the trouble when you hold yourself out as a fount of all wisdom — sometimes you forget what you said last time round!

Get off you intellectual backside!!

Here's the inimitable shub at Aug 22, 2012 at 3:19 AM demonstrating that he hasn't understood the point:

What a nutcase.

:-)

Aug 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM | BBD>>>>Has global warming affected your mental processes? - all you've done lately is produce a stream of incoherent babble.

MIke

I'm just saying that you were telling us that CO2 caused back radiation and now you seem to be telling us that that's too simple.

I've already responded to this. If you are going to attempt to build this particular molehill into a mountain, you need to provide quotes. If you are implying that I misled you, you are going to have to demonstrate it.

As for the other stuff - cherry-picked, out of context, misunderstood or just wrong - who cares? I've got a bit past the point where a contrarian waving a handful of (non-linked!) papers gets a reaction (other than weariness).

As I've mentioned before, there is no coherent, evidentially supported and accepted scientific argument that explains why increased CO2 forcing will not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. It is astonishing that you and your fellow sceptics don't seem to recognise that without this, you have absolutely nothing except emotion and politics. Science ain't in it.

matthu

Not about the theoretical possibility that energy may or may not be accumulating in the climate system. Theory is all good and well - but you simply don't appreciate the importance of evidence, do you?

I think you need to read the thread ;-)

I suppose this needs nailing or you will go on and on:

But it seems 97% of 'scientists' are still happy to accept that at face value. At least we have a measure of the strength of your/their argument.

The '97% of scientists' (ie just about all of them) endorse the scientific consensus that CO2 forcing is warming the climate. Not some demo on Gore's film. That's crude, self-serving false equivalence. You can stop now.

matthu

I've never seen AIT, so I don't know what Gore's demo involved. Nor would I agree that understanding the GHE is exactly 'high school' physics. It is fundamental physics though, which is perhaps what AG meant.

But I repeat: AG's demo has nothing to do with the evidence from which the scientific consensus on AGW has emerged over the last several decades. AG's demo is at best, an irrelevance. At worst, it serves as a hook on which to hang misleading arguments.

As for the whole 'experimental evidence' meme, I have already suggested that you read the whole thread since there's no point in going over the whole discussion again.

matthu

And not one 'scientist' of note calls him out on it. You even would have us believe you have not seen demo. Well now's your chance: have a look.

Why would they bother? AG isn't a climate scientist. I repeat: AG's demo has nothing to do with the evidence from which the scientific consensus on AGW has emerged over the last several decades. AG's demo is at best, an irrelevance.

Mike

And, as I've mentioned before, there is no coherent, evidentially supported and accepted scientific argument that explains why increased CO2 forcing will not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. Assertion, guesswork, handwaving — all those. Empirical evidence? Nah!

Of course there's a solid scientific basis for the consensus. I try not to use emotive terms like 'ridiculous' but I'm struggling for what else to say to this.

If you're so obsessed that you can't even bear to look at papers by reputable scientists (oh, I forgot! Only the ones that you agree with are reputable, right?) that take a contrarian (to use your doubtless deliberately offensive term) view of the causes of global warming then RKS is right. Why do we bother with you?

Of course I looked - I was a lukewarmer once, was I not? The problem is that these very few papers don't stand up to scrutiny.

matthu

Let me simplify:

'Al Gore = climate science' is a *false equivalence*. You cannot build an argument on a logical fallacy. Or at least not one worth engaging with beyond pointing out that it is based on a logical fallacy.

BBD. I doubt I'm reading a different thread. rhodha, as she has done consistently with you is playing the "i'm only an Oxfordshire housewife" card, and you, as usual, are assuming you've a greater intellect than those who doubt the CAGW prognostications especially housewives and can run rings around them with the superior intellect with which you blessed with. Your not, and nor would I, we're dealing with a true scientific mind, much more forensic than mine, and, certainly much more capable than you in honing the issues to a simple scientific point of understanding. Which you manifestly don't understand.

You should beware of humility, it usually hides sagacity. But then you've probably never met it before, it's a rare commodity.

geronimo

If you think rhoda ran rings around me, can you show how that happened on this thread? As for the editorialising, can we stop? It adds nothing substantive and sours the tone of the discussion.