Rutan on Global Warming

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.
Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

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

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

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.

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

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"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.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

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

You are referring, of course, to your claim the humidity was 99% during the
hottest part of the day in the in the Chicago heat wave. You pulled that
straight out of your ass, Matty, as you do most things you post. I showed
you back then how that was bull**** . You fled, after some lame remark
about the "heat index".

Now you're trying to claim you were talking about the *other* humidity?

Haw-haw-haw! You're an absolute laff riot, Matty.


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

*boggle* Do you imagine Google Groups has stopped working so you can lie
like this with impunity?

It was your Ol' Perfesser, some crank you found on one of your wingnut
hangouts, who was off.

Think back, hard, Matty; concentrate. We've had almost this exact
conversation before. You looked like a fool then and you look like a fool
now.

http://tinyurl.com/ns975r

And speaking of lies, how about the time you claimed you'd plonked Logajan
just so you could avoid answering him? But you hadn't, had you?


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

Uh, yes. It was in the 2001 report. There was a new IPCC report in 2007,
using newer research. March of science, right, Matty?

Not that, as it turns out, there was anything substantially wrong with
MBH98. Several subsequent NH temperature proxy studies by other scientists
have produced graphs shaped like...guess what?

I have cites. You know I do.


(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!

Mmm, no, Matty. What I've got is a few idle minutes to whack one of the
goofiest denier loons I've encountered.

(That would be you, Matty.)

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.

*yawn* Arm waving and spit blowing from Matty.

Do you know what the National Academy of Sciences is, Matty? Do you know
its accuracy record over 140 years of reporting to Congress on scientific
questions? Have you followed the progression of its reports on AGW over the
last two decades? Do you know what it is saying now?

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).


********. TSI has not risen in concert with temperature and CO2 over the
last 30+ years:

Plenty of cites for this, too. But you don't really don't care, do you?


That's why the AGW crowd is getting desperate.

You're just whistling past the graveyard, Matty. Hell, even Newt Gingrich
has given it up being a denier. You should, too.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4