Sunday, March 12, 2017

Then, There’s Anthony’s Parrot - A dance with hopelessness.

As it turns out I’m not ready for John Bates just yet.  Still wrestling with Fyfe 2016, I realize I need to write a summary, sort of an elevator pitch for very busy scientists. 

For now I thought I’d share this recent and all too typical “dialogue” with a Republican sort of climate science “skeptic” as an example of what climate science communicators are up against.  This comes from a single YouTube comments thread and is intended for the curious student of the rhetorical tactics of denial - here's a case study in stonewalling. 
AFA Dr. Willie Soon - Are CO2 Levels and Climate Change Related? 
Astroturfed by the co-called American Freedom Alliance
The thread starts with Martha Ball hocking her hubby's book
{The fun doesn't really start till Zoe shows up ;- ). }
I would like to tell you of my latest book, “Human Caused Global Warming”.
Available on ‘’ and 'Indigo/Chapters'.
Dale writes: Perhaps you need to stop trying to hijack this thread to sell your own book. That's totally unethical.

It's not near as unethical as Soon is -  Although should add that Tim Ball is as contrarian a fool as Soon and every bit as dishonest in his presentation of the issues. -
Dale writes: Are you suggesting that all those involved in the CAGW agenda are not receiving money from someone, organizations,, or governments pushing an agenda? Take the IPCC for example.

What about IPCC for example?   What's your gripe with them?

The only thing I'm suggesting is that people need to stop lying about what the scientists are actually say.  Soon has a habit of grossly misrepresenting what the actual science is, so it's easy for him to destroy his own straw men in front of his fawning uncritical under-educated audience.

Unidirectional Skepticism equals Denial 
is another thing you could say I'm suggesting.
Dale writes: citizenschallengeYT,  Perhaps, rather than taking the time to list the dozens (maybe hundreds) of problems with the solely political IPCC, which has as its mandate to demonstrate how mankind affects climate, to the exclusion of all others (natural processes), you simply need to read the expose, The Delinquent Teenager, by Donna Framboise.

"IPCC... to the exclusion of all others (natural processes)" - You can't actually believe the cow pies you're selling.  Oh I forgot your type seems driven by ideology, fear and anger. Oh yeah, tons and tons of resentment too.  

Laframboise (I'm curious have you actually read her book, or are you going on some else's headlines?) Delinquent Teenager is an excellent example of that malicious science by rhetoric and slander. - it's more projection and fanaticizing than anything constructive you could learn anything useful out of.

Rather than self-certain vague arm waving, void of all healthy skepticism, find something she wrote that you really really believe.  Let's give it a sober looking over.  Are you up for it?  Got any substance behind the bluster???

Oh, Dale, honesty in advertising.  Been There Done That: - “The Donna LaFramboise Files... an index+"  I'd be willing to revisit the pathetic topic of Donna Lala and her twisted but creative (though, oh so childish) slander. 
For this post I’ve included links: 
February 18, 2013
An Audit of LaFramboise's IPCC Citation Audit.

January 24, 2013
Donna Laframboise's Blind Spot... and the Manhattan Project

February 3, 2013
(2) D.Laframboise's Blind Spot... a peek at
~ ~ ~ 
February 4, 2013
{#1}Updated-LaFramboise Delinquent Author - A Closer Look

February 4, 2013
{#2} D. LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - praise worthy?

February 5, 2013
{#3} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Best Experts

February 5, 2013
{#4} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - 20-somethings

February 8, 2013
{#5} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Gender"

February 8, 2013
{#6} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Activists"

February 9, 2013
{#7} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - "Modelers"

February 9, 2013
{#8} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Clear as Mud

February 10, 2013
{#9} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Immense Edifice

February 13, 2013
{#10} D.LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Shield'n Sword

February 27, 2013
{#11a} D. LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Peer Review

March 4, 2013
{#11b}LaFramboise The Delinquent Author - Dr. Tol

March 8, 2013
{#11c}LaFramboise - peer review / citations -The Delinquent Author
~ ~ ~ 

February 11, 2013
Dear Ms.LaFramboise, re: Greenpeace | environmentalists

March 3, 2013
Pearls of Wisdom From Donna Laframboise Pt1: IPCC Authorship
~ ~ ~

February 14, 2013
New Anthropocene: "donna laframboise and cloud screaming"

February 13, 2013

February 15, 2013
Why Climate Science Deniers Have No Credibility - In One Pie Chart


Dale, a last thought.  This "CAGW" you speak of - can you explain it.  I know what the words mean, I want to understand what the concept means to you.  I'm also curious if you can justify, or at least explain,  your apparent contempt for the notion?
Dale writes: Although not unexpected, I'm still amazed how most of those pushing the political catastrophic anthropogenic global warming agenda, feel they have to resort to wild and unsupported statements and accusations while claiming that everyone who disagrees with them is lying. 
Disappointingly, you've apparently felt the need to follow this obtuse mantra. 
{CC: Notice that Dale ignores that I have written over an dozen papers detailing LaFramboise deception, chapter by chapter offering specific supporting evidence for my claims.   
The stuff of serious effort, in that I recorded my thoughtful arguments and evidence.  If I am stupid or mislead then why not show me the errors of my ways - by disputing the facts and arguments I presented, instead of deriding me for being a high school graduate.  My whole life has been about learning and allowing new and better information to correct or modify assumptions that turned out flawed. } 
Once again, my type (my real type) only states/writes climate points which can be supported with actual data and scientific research.
You obviously have no idea how the IPCC functions and obviously haven't read Donna's book (I have, by the way - it's part of my library). 
As I have no further use for you or anyone who makes up their "own" facts,
{CC: Donna LaFramboise’s adolescent tattle piece, says more about Donna's insecurities and resentments than anything else.  It is no guide to how the “IPCC functions”.  What the hell can ya do with such bubble?} 
For what it's worth, about the IPCC 

IPCC History

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process. For its first task, the IPCC was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. 
The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since then, the IPCC has remained the most important source for the Convention’s scientific, technical and socio-economic information. The relationship between the UNFCCC and the IPCC has become a model for interaction between science and decision makers. Several attempts have been made to establish a similar assessment process for other environmental issues.
While those may be problematic, a definitely harmless way of killing time for an individual is browsing online sports betting websites which surely minimizes one's ecological footprint.

What unique features help the IPCC succeed in its mission? 

  • Its reports are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
  • The IPCC emphasizes scientific integrity, objectivity, openness and transparency
  • Reports go through a rigorous review process that involves many experts around the world, and is open to all member governments.
  • The success of the IPCC also depends on the enthusiasm and cooperation of thousands of experts from all regions of the world that have contributed over the years to the preparation of IPCC reports as authors and reviewers.
For more information, visit: 
Back to Dale:  I will leave you with this one point which you obviously "again" have missed.
Under the heading, 1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment, it states, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding "human-induced climate change" (quotes mine), its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.” 
IPCC. IPCC Reports.
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, 2001.
Perhaps before shooting your mouth off further concerning your great (lack of) knowledge about our ongoing climate change, you should do some research to save making such a fool of yourself.
Feel free to have the last word... to somebody…

Lighten up on that hostility.  Try sticking to the facts of the matter.  Now what is it about that IPCC statement that you find offense, or threatening?  And what does paragraph long summation - have to do with a review of Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, 2001.

After all climate scientists have been striving (and succeeding!!!) to study, document and understand the pageant of natural climate changes that helped create this world of ours.    What I'm trying to explain is that it's a lie to say the IPCC or climate scientists ignore natural climate changes and what drives them.

In fact it's sort of backward to think there is anything un-natural to today's climate change.  After all, CO2 is a major regulator of the atmosphere's amount of insulation.  In the past volcanoes have ejected massive amounts of CO2 and with sulfur and soot and such.  (Only difference is this time it's humans doing it and humans who 'control' it.)  Back to those early volcanoes, the other stuff washed out of the atmosphere fairly rapidly, while the Greenhouse Gases lingered and cause global warming.

As for current observations, show me something that indicates a stable healthy biosphere or weather system.  You are blind to the significant changes in the character of extreme weather events - but it's still happening.  

Remaining blinded by fear and hostility and rage as you are my pal Dale, doesn't make it go away.  I can also be rude, but I try not to.  After all, the fearful evidence supports my perspective and I can support that with rational facts and pointers to where you can learn about it.

World Weather & Climate Extremes Archive
Popular Tech chines in: Dale, here is background information on citizenchallenge...populartechnology-net. 2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et

Oh yeah, the echo chamber gang shows up - But will they stand up to a honest constructive debate??? 
Steele Saga-intro: Miesler Helps Expose Insanity Illusions

And hey, I can support my opinions with rational fact based arguments
INDEX Landscapesandcycles / Mr. Jim Steele

Step right up Mr. Steele, let the debate begin.

Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

Jim Steele watts up with your venomous self-indignation?

Zoe shows up and here we go: citizenschallengeYT , You're quite a pretentious fool.  Why don't you dig a hole in the bottom of the ocean, and save us all from flooding. You'd make a better hero than a thinker.

Interesting how you gotta start with self-created assumptions and idiot name calling. >>  If I were really that much of an fool you could easily put me in my place by sticking to the facts.  Have you looked at my blog.  Notice I take time to stick to facts and offer resources so the interested can do a little learning for themselves.  What do you have - name calling,...  great what a champ you are Zoe.  I'm sure pophead appreciates your support.
Stick to facts and show me where I'm making mistakes.

Perhaps it is you who are the pretentious fool - have you tried a little self-skepticism and introspection?
Zoe writes: Have you started digging that hole? How much corporate sponsorship do you receive for your role in monetizing atmospheric gases? Tell me, greedy shill, which atmospheric gas comes after co2?

Zoe, I sense much hostility.  I'm afraid you don't even know what you are lashing out at.  Attacking things you make up in your head is no way to figure out the dynamic world that surrounds you. ~ I am not who you imagine.  And I'm certainly not your enemy, that's all in your own head.  sweet dreams, cc
Zoe writes: Ah, a crank who lacks self-awareness of his role. Everyone's got you figured out, except you yourself.

Zoe, it's always interesting hearing folks who seem only capable of infantile insults and character assassination - act like they are intellectual superiors.  In any event, you just bought yourself two more links, offered with a sincere wish that you give learning a try sometime. - "On building stairs, integrity and malicious slander."
"Lord of the Flies (#8 Poptech's Truth)"

Zoe, if you ever want to give an intelligent constructive dialogue a try come on down.    Have a Wonderful Day, cc
Zoe writes: You attack people and then play the victim. No intelligent dialogue can be had with a pathetic crybully like yourself.

Zoe writes: You're kidding, right? You just recycle rumors and propaganda.
Explain how your oil conspiracy theory works. Do you also believe big oil pays gasoline taxes?
Have you read Soon's paper? No, you didn't.
Have you read Schmidt's et al. papers? No, you didn't.
Does Schmidt et al use strawman arguments? Yes they do.
Does Schmidt et al use phony data that Soon doesn't, in order to make Soon look like a fool?(strawman data) Yes they do.
Schmidt's paper was intended for imbeciles who don't read science. He may as well have written a skit for SNL.
How about you read some science, and not rumors from climate cranks.

Zoe - -The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results. ~~~

You linked me to "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints"
I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, G.A. Kovaltsov - it's not even a Soon paper.
What's it got to do with current manmade global warming?

PS.  As for current global warming here let Emily explain it to you: 
The Science Behind Global Warming (Documentary) -  Emily Blegvad 

Of course there is always Potholer54's very good series 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

Zoe, I see you edited that since my response.  For a dialogue you must go beyond insults, make some real statements.  Here:  If you know anything about which you speak, it should be very easy for you to list these supposed straw men of Schmidt.  Here start with that link up there.  Pride in your intellectual awareness would demand you make the effort to rationally spell out your charges.

You can check out some of my links above if you need examples of how that works, my blog is full of them.  Here's a more recent one:
"BatesMotel#4 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected."
If that gets too overwhelming, do as all the other climate science contrarian do (Poppy head included) run back to your hermetically sealed echo chamber, where you can rant unopposed by rationality.

Or perhaps in the future you'll be more judicious in your empty trash talk.
Zoe writes:  citizenschallengeYT​​ Overwhelming? You're a cloud cuckoolander and smear artist. You have nothing to teach me. You can stay inside your hermetically sealed bubble and lash out at your betters.

Zoe,  your silliness keeps buying you new Educate Yourself Tokens:  Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

Now my dear Zoe, what is your deal.  You got a lotta potty mouth going, but never offer any substance.  Either in defense of this fraud machine Willie Soon or specifically countering anything I've said or shared.  Nor in support of your insults about Schmidt's paper (you never even mention which paper.).

Climate Science is big and complicated - but not that big or that complicated - Good faith study can teach you a bunch.  Doing this dog-chasing-tail routine, to show how much you despise me, is the stuff of know-nothings who remain interesting in nothing.

Are you ever going to come up with some substance or are we just going to keep playing ring around the rosie.  I know the Soon machine has pumped out unbelievable amounts of trash talk - but there's even more real science out there, for me to share.

Perhaps you can explain the double stand.  Why is Soon consider such an authority even though he's pocketed well over a million from sources dedicated not to understanding science but to denying it and from a close look at his garbage science (check above links) he's obviously a propaganda machine and no serious scientist.  Why is that okay in your book?

Bonus question - You won't be a creationists by any chance would you?

FYI.  (more learning opportunities for you or someone else)
Appreciating Earth's Climate
Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?
Zoe writes: citizenschallengeYT Have you read any science? If you did, you would know that the sun and oceans have a 96% correlation with recent warming, while co2 only 44%. It's really a no brainer, which explains why you're still struggling to understand. Soon is closer to the mark than your favorite climate cranks. Come back when you read some science.

Zoe, trash talking doesn't help your case:  
No there is no such correlation outside of a very protective and oh so self-certain contrarian echo-chamber.  

Why do you never acknowledge any of the information I share with you?  You act as though this were a religious war and no outside information is accepted.

As for all your put-downs, I understand how that works.  You have no substance, no actual understanding about what you talk, so burying your opponent in insults is your cover.

You have the self-certainty and passion of a Holy Warrior.  Your tribe vs. the hordes - and you don't need to hear one word from us because you are filled with self-certainty and don't need to learn anything or think about anything.

You really should look around at the world you take so for granted, soak it in, because times they are a changing and you don't know what you got till it's lost.  Some day you may even remember this prophetic  exchange.  You got bluster, I got substance.

The global climate 2011-2015: 
heat records and high impact weather
November 8, 2016 - World Meteorological Organization
Zoe writes: Wow, if you use the crappiest solar data compiled by climate cranks, it sure proves your case. Now use the real data that REAL scientists use, you pathetic sack of shit.

Wow 6 second response.  Amazing you are a speed reader.
Zoe writes: 2 min, retard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~  Stanford University, ~ World Meteorological Organization (It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established in 1950, WMO became the specialised agency of the United Nations for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences. ) ~ SkepticalScience. ~  Why do you call them "Climate Cranks" ?

Please explain.
Zoe writes: Anyone who uses fake solar data to disqualify the sun is obviously a crank.

Not according to what the computer told me.. ; - )

"fake solar data" please explain.
Zoe writes: What is there to explain? It's fake solar data.

Because you say it is? SOHO Satellite, what about that?  All that is fake?  Hmmm, so if I'm reading you correctly you are so certain there is no need to explain it to yourself or others.  Interesting.  If not please do explain.  
Explain about why you're sure the data is faked.

Zoe Phin are you by any chance a Creationist?
Zoe writes: Counting sunspots and scaling down TSI to the sunspots is fake data. Only cranks would use such data, and only charlatans would not be aware of anything else.

Zoe, hmmm who's using sunspots to calculate TSI? TSI is measured directly - Or through proxies  -
Ionization chambers and neutron monitors have directly monitored the intensity of cosmic radiation since the 1930s (1). Prior to this time, no direct measurements exist, and cosmogenic radionuclides, which can be considered as a kind of a “natural neutron monitor,” can be used as a proxy for cosmic radiation (2). In this context the two most commonly used radionuclides are 10Be and 14C. 10Be and 14C are produced in the Earth’s atmosphere by nuclear reactions of cosmic ray particles with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen (3) (Fig. 1). Thus, the production rates of these nuclides are directly related to the flux of the incoming cosmic ray particles.
Going by WUWT headlines is not any way to conduct a 'sciencie' dialogue.
Zoe writes: Those are crappy proxy data. Why don't you use real data?
The various direct solar TSI data used by climate cranks was constructed to fit sunspot data.
They also like to tamper with it to disqualify the sun some more:
No doubt you will attack Watts for my use of google images. I wouldn't expect anything else from a triggered imbecile like yourself.
Basically, out of dozens of solar reconstructions, climate use the crappiest contrived data sets to disqualify the sun in an attempt to lend legitimacy to their hypothesis. However, even the crappy data sets have a higher correlation with temperature since 1700 than co2. 
Stupid warmists never learn.

Zoe, thank you for that edit and providing something to work with. That's a little background regarding your Anthony, very informative post that one, thanks for helping me find it.  As for your graphs, Zoe, do you really believe you have the objectivity or knowledge to interpret those graphs?  What do you think they tell you?  Have you spent any time at that 2nd link I shared.  That's the source of those graphs.

Why do think anything in there disputes the reality of how greenhouse gases regulate our atmosphere's insulation ability?  You are forgetting the First Order Physical Reality of Earth.  It's the atmosphere that protects us from the black of frigid space.  CO2 is the major regular for a variety of reasons, but certainly not the only player.  

I like referring to CO2 as our Atmosphere's Insulation Regulator.  
At 180 Earth has ice ages at 280 Earth has wonderful temperate times, like the one that enabled complex society to evolve.  With our fossil fuels burning we have increased that atmospheric regulator up past 400 and climbing.  

This is simple physical reality, all of your arm waving about things you don't have the first clue about does not change any of that reality as the recent years are showing us.

Of course, the sun's fluctuations impact climate, but the fact is nothing the sun has been doing can explain the increasing temperatures.

It's been interesting, but I think I'm going to have to sign off for the evening.
Zoe writes: It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.

Zoe, well good morning to you too.  What's with the hostility?  What have I done to you?  Don't you realize your incessant need to build yourself up by tearing me down in your imagination, reveals profound insecurity?  If I'm "meta levels below you" (Hey what are a 'meta levels' anyways - are they related to 'meta studies' by any chance  ; ). Why don't you help me out.  I obvious am very interested in your knowledge and keep asking you to impart some of it.

Also I'm not as stupid as you would like to imagine.  I knew enough to figure out where's Anthony's graph came from and to visit the site  and to see that it's part of the fully incorporated body of knowledge.  No secrets or surprises there.  I do know other people manipulate that data and say some very crazy things about it, but then some people say crazy things about Earth being created 6,000 years ago and they actually believe themselves.  Yea kinda insane ain't it, but I digress.

So again what about those graphs convinces you climate scientists are not to be trusted.

SkepticalScience (Or are they on your enemies list?  Honestly, you can tell me.  I can handle it.) does a very nice job of explaining the climate science behind the headlines, including sharing links as opposed to Anthony unsourced stuff..  They've done a number of write-ups on the topic.
or here's a quote from the next link.

"There is no denying there's a strong link between solar activity and climate - both with the short term (eg - the 11 year cycle) and long term (eg - decadal changes in solar activity). In fact, the close correlation between sun and temperature is what tells us the sun can't be causing recent global warming as solar activity has been steady since the 50's. So what do studies into precipitation tell us?

Solar cycles and South African water levels..."

You must understand Zoe that simply waving a graph around, a graph one doesn't even understand, does nothing to erase all the evidence for AGW.  No matter how hard one wishes, or how well they guard their minds from conflicting information.

Zoe, making insults is easy, making claims is easy, coming up with the substance to support your claims that gets more challenging.  OH, and NO,  NAME CALLING DOES NOT OUT WEIGH VALID INFORMATION.  

You mighty want to keep to the topic in your response (should you decide to respond.).

Have a good day, cc
Zoe writes: It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.
Zoe writes: Where Anthony's graph came from? His site has an archived image showing how your data is fraudulently constructed. You get it, imbecile? That graph is not proof of sun's warming, but a refutation of climate cranks' methodology. 
Skepticalscience uses the same crappy data that all cranks use to disqualify the sun. It is strawman data.
You deserve all the insults that all fanatical retards deserve. Learn science, you stupid crank.

Zoe you write: "It is strawman data."  But can you explain who the straw man is???  Claims are easy, substance is challenging.
 Climate Cranks Methodology, do you appreciate you are calling the people who designed and built that (those) satellites cranks.  Do you really mean that?  If it comes from the US government do you consider it crank stuff?  If it comes from the World Meteorological Organization, people who have coordinated global weather studies longer than anyone,  do you consider it crank stuff?

Zoe writes:Again, every single site you link uses the same fraudulent data. I have already explained this to you, you tedious retard.

But can you explain what "meta levels" are?  Can you explain these supposed straw men?  Why do you believe Anthony Watts { } you know he decided to hate climate science because they wanted to make his taxes go up.  That's pretty impressive.  Is that your reasoning also?  Politics?  I suppose you hate tree huggers and stuff like that.  Is that why you hate climate science?
Zoe writes: It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.

Zoe, more of that nasty name calling, Here's your token >>>   Guess your mama never washed your mouth out with soap or taught you any manners.  It's a shame. ~  
Zoe you keep telling me it's all fraudulent data, but you have not given the slightest hint, how it's fraudulent - except that Anthony Watts told you it was fraudulent.  You show a graph that apparently mixes TSI with sunspots and think that's how TSI is achieved by combining those two numbers or something like that.  Very confusing that's why I'm asking, and being very nice about it,( I was taught manners, though I don't always obey, I do try.).  Please clarify what you think the fraud is.

Oh and I happen to know Anthony Watts is a for real fraud (he's been caught red handed many times but as it is with frauds he'll never cop to it), now can you come up with any more authoritative source than a conspiracy theorists?

Or can you explain what convinced you to believe TSI is fraudulent except that you believe universities are bogus, governments are bogus, NASA is bogus,  the international community of experts who study weather and climate full time are bogus.  Who does that leave to trust.  Oil Company Think Tanks?

Please explain, keep in mind this conversation is recorded, so make it convincing.

I sincerely am interesting you understand in what you believe and why.  
Please help me understand.

Best Wishes, later, cc
Zoe writes: It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.

But, Zoe, you haven't tried to explain a thing.  You've ignored my questions.  You've ignored links to a world full of objective scientific sources, each of which you dismiss with a self-certain flick of your regal pinky.  Though you can't explain a thing about what you actually think.  

These sorts of discussion are supposed to be about exchanging ideas and challenges perhaps even learning a few things - but you never get past the tossing insults parts.

So sad that your insults makes you feel so superior.  
As for how attempting to dialogue with you makes me feel, it's like having a stare-down with hopelessness.
Zoe writes: citizenschallengeYT, You're delusional and don't understand the scientific method.

Doesn't that make it all so easy for you - everyone you don't like is delusional.  While Anthony is a straight shooting genius and arbiter of all that is.  Is that how it is?  But Zoe, you've made no attempt to respond to any of my questions.

Worse you simply dismiss, without ever considering, some pretty substantive sources I've shared.

As for the Scientific Method.   I know it's about learning and constructive challenges and all around healthy skepticism,  not dog-chasing-tail rhetorical games.


1 comment:

citizenschallenge said...

I corrected some formatting issues, etc. and added the information about the IPCC this evening.
Those typos and such are a pain, excuse me . . . simply not enough hours in the day.