"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).


:Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
: errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
: villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
: to "shut up"?

Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?


:: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

:: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
:: any day of the week any month of the year.

Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
leading them?

Well, now: look who's back!

Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.

You've demonstrated nothing more than a capacity to barf back, and as with Mann,
it bit you on the ass.

Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

By you? Ha, you pompuos adolesant!.

Your recent listing of organizations, for example, was a classic example of
Argument from Authority. So, until you REALLY understand science and it's
methods, keep your stupid trap shut.


Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
rather than leading them.

That's not what you said earlier.

And why did CO2 rise AFTER warming in more recent periods OUTSIDE of glaciation.


That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
the current circumstances.

But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
*whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

Hey, Dan, have you ever figured out the difference between Humidity and Relative
Humidity.

Did you ever find out why your CO2 refutation was off by a foctor of 100?


And can you explain what happened to Mann's "Hockey Stick", why the IPCC dropped
it?

(Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

Whacking off again, Dan?

You're completely delusional. You and your goons, birds-of-a-feather are
finished, got it!

Well, Dan, Please explain the processes that kindle the initial
temperature rises and whether or not those same processes remain
operative.

You can also explain how the temperature drops while CO2 concentrations
remain elevated.

Only with logical fallicies and links to whackjobs that have been refuted or
shown to be blatently fraudulent.


Could it be that CO2 is NOT a significant cause of climate change?

It is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

The emerging data is showing warming to be something like 98% ocean currents and
solar activity (about a 99% correlation and a good explanation of causation).

That's why the AGW crowd is getting desperate.