Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here' thread

[Edited January 2 2019 -- to remove or replace dead visual-links]

Long ago Jonathan and I got some good traction out of a tangle of issues related to Global Warming slash Climate Change.  I think we are slated to renew or refresh our earlier exchanges.  I am going to poke in links to some he-said/he-saids from a few different threads at different times. One feature of the updated software is an automated 'sampling' of a link posted raw.  See below. 

So this blog entry will be kind of administrative-technical while being built and edited. I haven't figured out if Jonathan and I should impose some 'rules' going in, so your comment may be subject to arbitrary deletion before the field is ready for play. Fan notes included.

Study-links-Greenland-melting-with-Arctic-amplification.jpg

globalWarmingPEWpolarization.png

Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern;

[images updated January 2 2019; click and go images]

2018YaleClimateOpinionMaps.png

personalHarmYaleCC.png

[Deleted image-link]

Edited  by william.scherk

 

Plug my How To Get Where I Got book of books, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Insert link to Amazon, Library link, and to the intro chapter of Weart's companion website to the book. Make sure you include a link to Ellen's mention of a book review. 

Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?

On 6/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

CO2 does  slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red bandwith.  The question is to what degree  given that there are other systems that tend to diffuse and disperse heat (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino, along with convection and the Coriolis Effect that moves warm are to the polar regions).  The scientific fact is that CO2 tends to absorb radiated energy in the infra red range.  That is NOT fabricated.  That is a matter of experimental fact. 

Please see http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

The issue is to what extent is the CO2 load of the atmosphere is slowing down heat radiation into space, when such absorbing or radiation occurs along with other heat dispersing processes.   

No denies that putting a blanket on, when it is cold slows down the rate at which one's body radiates heat.  Air is a poor heat conductor and the blanket traps air.  Also the blanket is warmed and radiates half its heat back to the source.  This produces a net slowing down of heat loss.  Heat loss still occurs (Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation)  but the rate of loss is affected. 

Tyndol and Arhenius  established the heat absorbing properties of CO2  in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.  Subsequent work has show the absorbtion to be the case and has measured it even more accurately than Tyndol and Arhenius. 

 

 

arctic1.jpg



615 Comments


Recommended Comments



1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Questions?

Brad,

Yeah.

Relevance?

How is this relevant to the layman?

I hate to say it, but Al Gore did a much better job in just one minute of An Inconvenient Truth (even though much of that film has already been debunked) than this series of mathematical explanations around radiation you just gave.

Reread your post. Would an eight-year old understand it? Would he even care to understand it?

Al-baby knows, so gets the Oscar and changes the world (for the worse, but he still changed it). Your approach doesn't even get in the running.

This problem is called curse of knowledge and, if you are not familiar with it, it's a technical term. You keep talking about cognitive biases, so I believe you have to be familiar with it.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How is this relevant to the layman?

Because we have to start at the beginning. If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter.

 

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Reread your post. Would an eight-year old understand it? Would he even care to understand it?

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

 

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This problem is called curse of knowledge and, if you are not familiar with it, it's a technical term.

I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. 

 

Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? 

If effective temperature makes sense, why is it that the planet is about 33C warmer than the effective temperature?

Share this comment


Link to comment
26 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Because we have to start at the beginning. If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter.

 

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

 

I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. 

 

Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? 

If effective temperature makes sense, why is it that the planet is about 33C warmer than the effective temperature?

What Brad is saying is that he needs to try to impress and intimidate you with everything that he thinks he knows in order to distract you from asking about what he doesn't know. If you ask him a question to which he doesn't have an answer, his first inclination is to bluff. When you call the bluff, he plays victim, and whines that he's being "badgered." And then he goes right back to posing as professor grilling students to show them how little they know, and should therefore shut the fuck up.

Brad, we're not falling for it.

Do you have any answers to the questions yet?

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

What Brad is saying is that he needs to try to impress and intimidate

Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
20 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Bringing him here escalates what was simple bad faith into open hostility. Billy didn’t look for someone who could fill–in for his weakness in science, no he brought an intellectual Nazi attack dog.

Just when it is time to acknowledge the deflection and games and apologize, his instinct is to instead pollute his host’s site with this Nazi trash.

21 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

He’s a real charmer, came in like a Scaramucci. May even be Billy’s twin.

”You saw the graph, now ACCEPT IT!” He carries a whip and his middle name is Heinrich.

Godwin's Law ... ?

GodwinsLawWiki.png

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
30 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say.

Then start answering questions instead of avoiding them. Prove me wrong. I think I've got you pegged. You're a poseur.

 

Quote

I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation.

No, what you're trying to do is impede and control the conversation. A true conversation would involve you answering questions rather than dodging them and playing professor.

 

Quote

No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.

So, you're assuming that there's ignorance.

And you need to take over the conversation, and guide the little babies, step by step, while avoiding answering their questions.

We can't cut to the chase, or get to the point, because you don't have answers to our questions. So, as a substitute, as a distraction, you're going to pose and preen, act superior, and dump pages and pages of information which has some relevance or connection to the point, but which never gets to the point.

Tasty steamed octopus.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Because we have to start at the beginning.

Brad,

That's incorrect. You have to start at the beginning, not we. And by doing it the way you are doing it, you have already lost the layman. Look at your next statement:

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter.

Relevance to whom and why? Matter to whom and why? I submit giving a person basic grounds (i.e., "the beginning" according to the arc of coherence you prefer) to understand the greenhouse effect at this juncture of the communication is only relevant to you and matters only within the context of the story image in your mind. You seem to be interested in engineering consent and agreement, so I can see where you would think the person in front of you needs indiscriminate elementary education according to a path that means something to you, but you haven't asked yourself, why would he care? Have you tried to look through his eyes?

You care because you want to teach him with your awesome wisdom and get him to comply. But he doesn't give a fuck at this point, so why does he need elementary education or even jargon-dropping? I know I asked for an explanation an eight-year old can understand, but from what I am seeing, you're not really interested in his understanding. You're only interested in getting him to jump though your hoops.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

Bullshit.

Have you never told a story to an eight year old without pictures?

Live near one for a time and you can't not do it.

This is Basic Living 101.

Besides, I said eight year old level. Not eight year olds. Don't forget, you are addressing adults. The eight year old level of language (and commonplace analogies for that matter) is to anchor the framing neurons of the neural networks involved in processing this information closer to the hippocampus. By their very nature, such framing neurons cannot be sophisticated. They just won't process. (It's a little more complicated than that, but that's good enough for this context.) Anyone who learns this way doesn't forget and he doesn't get confused no matter how complicated the jargon or facts or concepts get later.

Pictures are good, but you don't need them for laymen at this stage. You do need simple language and analogies. (To be more precise, analogies prompt the person to create images in his mind, so there are your images.)

(btw - You can post diagrams here. As long as they are standard images like jpg, png, etc., and so long as there is not a lot of javascript, ajax and so on involved. Simply paste the image URL in your post on OL and hit the Enter key. Just make sure there is no space between the cursor and the end of the URL at the time.)

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. 

Try this, click here.

Or do the Wikipedia thing: Curse of Knowledge.

Understanding this cognitive bias is quite basic if you are going to be the climate change guru to the rest of us ignorant masses. Without it, there is no information passed during communication and interactions.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? 

Well, here's one question, the most basic of all. Why should I care about effective temperature?

If I don't care about it, nothing you say will register.

(See how that works?)

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Godwin's Law ... ?

GodwinsLawWiki.png

It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly.

J

  • Thanks 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

I missed this earlier:

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here.

 

Um, why not???

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

By the way, Brad, when you post images and diagrams in the future, please identify their sources and provide links. That way we can verify easily. You've already told some untruths and demonstrated sloppy and/or biased thinking, so I don't trust you to be honest and diligent. You've shown that your stuff needs to be checked up on, so please cite sources.

J

Share this comment


Link to comment

Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). 

I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years.  My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion.

See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom.

Objectivist Living Guidelines:

Quote

Objectivist Living is a forum for Objectivists and their friends. All people are welcome, but we do have our own particular focus.

The view of Objectivism fostered here is that it is a set of philosophical principles created by Ayn Rand. The initial official version includes contributions by her and people she indicated (as she formally stated in The Objectivist).

We hold that Objectivism is a dynamic, not static, set of principles. These principles are integrated into one system, but this does not preclude future integrations, additions and corrections as the nature of human beings and the universe becomes understood in more depth.

"Check your premises" is one of the basic attitudes that is encouraged here and no premise is so sacred that it cannot be periodically checked. There are no Objectivism commandments defining heresy and blasphemy around here. Intelligent and sincere examination, however, is the standard.

Objectivist Living is devoted to the creation of new works in all areas. Both fiction and nonfiction in literature are encouraged, but fiction is given special attention, as are other creative arts. Objectivism started out as wonderful novels by Ayn Rand. More works need to be written and published, but this cannot happen in a vacuum. Thus Objectivist Living is a place for creators and producers to hang out with each other and with their friends - and hopefully get some work done.

For the detractors of the Brandens, please be advised that Objectivist Living is a haven for them. People can get a positive image of them here. They can learn about the Brandens and learn from them. The Brandens were fundamental to the creation of Objectivism and we feel lucky to be able to interact with them. Disagreements with them on specific issues are OK, but Branden bashing is not tolerated. Instead, we wish to honor them.

Also, flame wars will be extinguised the moment they erupt. We will try to be as diplomatic as possible about this but gratuitous insults are not tolerated. We hold good manners as a value in exchanging ideas.

On an emotional level, we nurture positive emotions like love, admiration, curiosity, etc., and not negative ones like hatred, contempt, rage, etc. This is not an exclusive policy, since some things must be condemned, but predominance is on the positive side.

Objectivist Living is not a movement, merely a place to discuss important ideas in peace with highly intelligent people and create works. We are a place for Ayn Rand's "silent contingency" to appear, should such individuals care to do so, or they can simply read. These are people who admire Rand's works but do not admire the behavior of the Objectivists they have encountered, so they stay home. We aim to be an oasis from the bickering for them.

We wish to extend a hearty welcome to all who come in goodwill and peace.

Michael & Kat

Spoiler

Comments

The purpose of the comment section is to promote informed debate, share pertinent information and news items, and encourage constructive criticism and analysis. Although we avoid censorship, it is sometimes necessary. The comment section is monitored. The purpose of moderation is to promote healthy dialogue, not to suppress any voice.

There is a tragic war taking place in Syria that claims lives on a daily basis. Many sides have suffered and perceive the nature of the conflict differently. This forum is a place to discuss and observe, but not to engage in the war. Many users are understandably emotional and may have lost friends and relatives in the conflict. All voices and opinions are welcome, as well as open discussion about the injustices, but sensitivity is essential, as well as respect for differences in opinion. Anger must be expressed without dehumanizing the other. If you’re going to meet here and sit across from your enemy and engage in communication with him/her, please bring your white flag and prepare yourself internally to use it.

Messages containing any of the following will not be tolerated:

  • Personal attacks and insults against other users;
  • Racist, sexist, obscene, or otherwise discriminatory or hateful language;
  • Provocations designed to derail discussions away from substantive debate into dead-end arguments;
  • Threats of death or violence;
  • Language or terms that dehumanize groups;
  • Sectarian attacks and calls for violence against political opponents;
  • Expressions of glee or delight at the deaths or suffering of others;
  • Links to commercial sites or posting of commercial messages.

Also, as a participant in a discussion community, you bear responsibility to fairly represent yourself and your views. Posting with multiple identities will not be tolerated. This is a place to engage in discussion, not to spread propaganda by over-representing one’s position with multiple names.

Some considerations about moderation:

1)  If you have a problem with a user or feel that a posted comment was inappropriate, don’t post a comment complaining to the moderator; send the moderator an email at the moderation email address: SCModeration@mail.com. The current moderator is Matthew Barber.
2)  Moderation will not be perfect. The moderator will endeavor to enforce rules, but may not penalize every instance that you consider a violation (or personal slight). Moderation will resemble quality-control “spot checking.”
3)  Moderation is a combination of automated and human processes. Occasionally a perfectly normal comment (even from a regular user) is quarantined for moderation for unknown reasons; these comments will always be approved, but sometimes by the time they are seen, a new post has been created and discussion is no longer taking place on that thread. This means that a comment enters the conversation after everyone has moved on. This can be inconvenient, but there’s nothing that can be done about it. Bottom line: it’s never a conspiracy against you; comments are never deleted for the viewpoint they contain, but only for being inappropriate in some way.
4)  Requests for the deletion of a comment you’ve posted will usually be honored, but not necessarily in a timely fashion. Please be aware that requests for comment deletion represent a loss of time on the part of the moderator.
5)  This forum should be friendly for new users. You have a responsibility to welcome those who post comments for the first time and encourage their participation.

 

Syria Comment’s Fair-Use Policy

Fair-use concerns copyright. Most works available on the internet are subject to copyright. There are no hard and fast rules for all situations, but we suggest using only limited portions of material that is originally published elsewhere. A good rule of thumb is to observe these DOs and DON’Ts:

  • Do not reproduce offsite material in its entirety (a couple paragraphs, rather an entire page of text, is sufficient).
  • Do identify the source of the material (with a URL if possible).
  • Embedded videos can slow down the loading of a post, particularly problematic for readers using their mobiles or for readers in places lacking a fast internet connection. We ask that you only occasionally post comments containing embedded videos, and certainly not more than one per discussion thread.

 

Comments that violate these rules and guidelines may be edited or deleted at the discretion of the moderating team. Furthermore, commentators who repeatedly violate the site regulations may be warned, temporarily suspended from posting, limited to a set quantity of daily posts, or permanently banned. The moderators reserve the right to ban anyone who annoys or badgers them excessively.

Finally, we ask that commentators bear in mind that even well-intentioned humor or sarcasm can be “lost in translation” on an online discussion forum. As such, commentators should maintain a respectful tone with others and be tolerant of opinions that may differ from their own.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

The first sentence says OL is not for you, so go suck it, schoolmarm. Your intellectual Nazi is a dud, he’s your clone, and bringing him here was a hostile act. Hauling out the rules of the place to distract from your attempted enflaming of the place isn’t working. You are toxic and stupid.

Share this comment


Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation.

Brant,

Godwin's Law was funny when it came out, but these days it's merely a rhetorical device used to try to shut down disagreement.

Saying, "Godwin's Law, nyah nyah nyah," has the same rhetorical weight these days as alluding to Hitler. That is, none at all.

I don't mind these things since it looks like OL is getting some new members who probably don't know who Ayn Rand is, but who most likely support the crony establishment party line in the climate change crisis panic.

In other words, more gaming the system to win some something-or-other for some someone's someness rather than discussing an issue with reason and goodwill...

So if anyone wants to let loose with Hitler or Godwin or even Mickey Mouse, hell, it won't make any difference in this context.

Just for the record, in my case, I'm more partial to the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. :) 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, you don't have answers to the questions. It was bluff.

J

 

4 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I scrolled back up, he did say the conflict is political, so perhaps you are right. He went onto say it (CC) has nothing to do with science. This is wrong on his part, however maybe i read into it too much that the implication was the CC is political.

 

CC is political if it's used as a substitute for AGW. Per se climate change as all physical phenomena is legitimately a scientific subject. 

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment

I guess William did invite Brad here. They're both data dumpers. But when it comes to climatology there are no climatologists on site. At least none so self identified.

--Brant

Share this comment


Link to comment
13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I asked a simple question: Where is the repeatable science?

And I am genuinely interested in the answer.

I can check if that's the case by seeing how you answer some questions on the science (by the way, I know william.scherk and brad from Twitter; the former from around the time of Scott Adams' climate challenge, and the latter for longer than that).

I don't have much patience for ideologically-motivated evasions of science. So what I'm going to do is ask direct questions and then cite you the information needed for answering them. I'm not interested in tangents about me being a Nazi, or other red herrings. The questions I will to ask will help keep things focused on the topic at hand. You don't need to address all of the questions at once; you can pick which ones to address [here's a hint: the right answer to all of them is "yes"]. And I'm not interested in evasions of the questions:

 

Question 1: In the 1960s and 1970s, did scientists predict that increased CO2 would warm the lower atmosphere and cool the middle atmosphere? Or to put this another way: did they predict increased CO2, with tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that increased with increasing stratospheric height?

Question 2: In the 1970s, did scientists predict that ozone depletion would cause stratospheric cooling that was pronounced in the lower stratosphere and didn't significantly increase with increasing stratospheric height, such that mitigation of ozone depletion (ex: by limiting CFCs) would mitigate lower stratospheric cooling?

Question 3: During the 1970s, did scientists predict that increasing total solar irradiance (TSI) would warm the troposphere, but not significantly cool the stratosphere, instead warming the stratosphere?

Question 4: Was there a post-1950s and post-1970s multi-decadal tropospheric warming trend and stratospheric cooling trend, with stratospheric cooling increasing with increasing height?

Question 5: Did the Montreal Protocol help successfully mitigate human release of ozone depletion substances, resulting in post-1990s mitigation of lower stratospheric cooling, while cooling continuing higher in the stratosphere?

 

Sources for answering the questions (if you have trouble finding some of the sources, then paste their titles into https://scholar.google.com/ or https://sci-hub.tw/ ) :

 

Question 1

Figure 16: "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity"

Figure 4b: "The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model"

Figure 3: https://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/climate/02_technological-forecast-on-co2-greenhouse-effect-1980.pdf

Question 2:

Figure 12: "Sensitivity of surface-temperature and atmospheric-temperature to perturbations in stratospheric concentration of ozone and nitrogen-dioxide"

Figure 18: "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity"

Question 3:

Page 2048: "The effects of changing the solar constant on the climate of a general circulation model"

Question 4:

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

"Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC): A new data set of large-area anomaly time series"

"Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)"

Question 5:

"Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol"

"Evidence for the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer"

"Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer"

"Postmillennium changes in stratospheric temperature consistently resolved by GPS radio occultation and AMSU observations"

"Radiosondes show that after decades of cooling the lower stratosphere is now warming"

"Stratospheric temperature climate data record from merged SSU and AMSU-A observations"

"Isolating the roles of different forcing agents in global stratospheric temperature changes using model integrations with incrementally added single forcings"

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

I can check if that's the case by seeing how you answer...

I don't have much patience...

I'm not interested in tangents...

You don't need to address all of the questions at once...

And I'm not interested in evasions of the questions...

Atomsk,

This is easy.

I'm not interested in you or your post.

You mean nothing to me.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Atomsk,

This is easy.

I'm not interested in you or your post.

You mean nothing to me.

Michael

And there we have it. You ask for repeatable, falsifiable science on climate change. And when the relevant evidence is cited to you, you're only response is to say you're not interested, while making sure to quote-mine in a way that avoids any of the evidence cited to you. Thank you for showing you're not actually interested in  scientific evidence.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Atomsk,

You're here to bicker.

Not interested.

I asked a question. You answered with several questions.

That's the way Jesus Christ used to do.

And I'm not doing religion right now.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Atomsk,

You're here to bicker.

Not interested.

I asked a question. You answered with several questions.

That's the way Jesus Christ used to do.

And I'm not doing religion right now.

Michael

I'm here to discuss scientific evidence. You're clearly not.

You were cited evidence addressing answering your question, and the answer was explained to you at a layman's level. You responded by showing no interest in the evidence or the answers.

You were asked questions to help you make it clear which piece of evidence you didn't accept. You responded by willfully ignoring the questions. 

And you wrapped it up by doing the standard contrarian tactic of acting as if the science you don't accept is on par with religion, while not bothering to actually address the evidence

None of your claims display the response of someone actually interested in scientific evidence that addresses their questions. But your lack of a cogent response was a useful object lesson, nonetheless.

Share this comment


Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

And when the relevant evidence is cited to you, you're only response is to say you're not interested, while making sure to quote-mine in a way that avoids any of the evidence cited to you. Thank you for showing you're not actually interested in  scientific evidence.

Here is a perfect example of why I am not going to engage much with this person.

I said I was not interested in him. I don't like his bullshit bullying manner of showing up out of nowhere, bossing people around and giving out homework. I refuse to talk to people like that. I never show up anywhere the way he did.

He interprets my objection to him as not showing interest in science.

Legend in his own mind and so on.

It's just bullshit.

No wonder these people are losing the climate change moral panic.

(btw - I vote. Millions of people like me do, too. If we have any say about it, these jokers will never compel us to do or fund anything. There's an object lesson there, too, but I doubt it will be learned by these kinds of folks.)

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You're here to bicker.

 

5 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

I'm here to discuss scientific evidence. You're clearly not.

See what I mean?

That's obviously bickering to anyone except this genius here.

For any reader interested in changing the minds of people, this is a perfect example of how not to do it.

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...