Grifter,

Kindly point out the posts from which you excerpted the first two quotations which you attribute to me. To the best of my recollection I NEVER wrote them. Did you make a mistake or just make them up?

The balance of your post is essentially another long, boring and adolescent spray-and-pray character assassination. Credit where credit is due, though - you certainly have the party-line chant down pat.

Blutarski

Prior to getting involved in this thread, I was under the impression that there was still a debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change. Having seen your 'evidence', and the weight of scientific evidence presented against you, I have come to two conclusions:

(a) There IS no significant debate within those who actually know the field.

(b) You are so utterly convinced that your ludicrous arguments have any worth, that nothing whatsoever would convince you that you might be wrong. You clearly wish to remain in your state of blissful ignorance, but surely even you can see that your attempts to convert others to your ludicrous cause is backfiring. Why don't you either find some other topic to discuss, or find a website where more gullible suckers might fall for your "long, boring and adolescent" hogwash?

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Blutarski

Prior to getting involved in this thread, I was under the impression that there was still a debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change. Having seen your 'evidence', and the weight of scientific evidence presented against you, I have come to two conclusions:

(a) There IS no significant debate within those who actually know the field.

(b) You are so utterly convinced that your ludicrous arguments have any worth, that nothing whatsoever would convince you that you might be wrong. You clearly wish to remain in your state of blissful ignorance, but surely even you can see that your attempts to convert others to your ludicrous cause is backfiring. Why don't you either find some other topic to discuss, or find a website where more gullible suckers might fall for your "long, boring and adolescent" hogwash?

..... Have a nice day, Andy.

If you aren't capable of debating your opponent, bash him?

Well done AJW, well done indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by HayateAce:
If you aren't capable of debating your opponent, bash him?

Well done AJW, well done indeed.

Actually scientific debate involves using numerous peer reviewed journals to back cohesive arguments up.

So he's just debating with you at your own level.

Growing_Glaciers


Richard S. Lindzen--MIT

"Modelling and Societal Instability

The existence of modern computing power has led to innumerable modelling efforts in many fields. Not surprisingly, there are many problems involved in modelling climate. For example, even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations.

While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish.

Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us.

There's no "consensus" on global warming.

On the Scientific Basis for Global Warming Scenarios

fron Environmental Science & Technology Vol.24, pp.424-427

Nice job on your Avatar Box-weasel. Well within the guidelines too.

Very aptly put together Grifter and thanks for the link to the NASA site
it surely shows that the Arctic ice mass is shrinking at an alarming rate
(only short term 'benefit' will be the ability to sail around northern Canada, Greenland an CIS states -- but at what cost!)

quote:

Originally posted by blairgowrie:
Nice job on your Avatar Box-weasel. Well within the guidelines too.

Thanks, Bud