I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[westwall]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

So, you have this Phd in Geology, and so do all the people that I study under. And they are say that AGW is very real and causing us trouble already. As do the statements of the American Geophyical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorlogical Society.

Now who to believe, an anonymous poster on the internet, or real scientists that I can call by name, and all the Scientific Societies on this planet?

I don't care what you say. Your own posts have exposed you for the liar that you are. You claim to be older than I am yet you claimed in a post that your first job was minimum wage paying 2.18 an hour. That would put you younger than me by almost 20 years. There are MANY posts you have made that conflict with your "history". The one thing I do believe about you. You do work for EVRAZ, and you are maybe 50 years old. You aren't going to college, and if you do have any college in your background it was a AA degree, maybe.

As far as who to believe? I don't care about that either. Appeals to authority are logic fails, so feel free to trot them out anytime you wish. All it does is show the world that you have nothing.

LOL. No, I have never said that my first job was a minimum wage job. It was 2.18 an hour, however. I have never worked at a minimum wage job in my life. And I am 71 years old, still working full time as a millwright in a steel mill, and attending a university. And the highest class I have attended was a 470/570 Eng. Geo. class, that required special permission, which I obtained because I was working on a project that involved that subject at the time.

And, Walleyes, it is not me that is calling all the other Geologists and Geo-physicists frauds, it is you. If you really had evidence for what you state here, you would present it at the meeting of one of the Scientific Societies that you claim membership in. In fact, not mere membership, but even claiming to be a Fellow in the Royal Society.

So, what is you excuse for not presenting such evidence where it would count, instead of an internet board, with few qualified to counter your bullshit?

Sure you are. You've been stuck at 71 for quite a while now.

 

[westwall]

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

 

[westwall]

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

if you are serious about being open minded about the science of global warming/climate change then the first thing you must do is realize that the claimed certainty of AGW is massively exaggerated. many climate scientists (especially the highly recognisable ones) act more like defense attorneys than bend over backwards to be honest scientists (see Feynman's Caltech Commencement speech 'Cargo Cult').

Pick an area, any area, and the reality is different than you read in the headlines and much less 'certain'. be careful to examine answers to difficult questions because they are often speeches to questions never asked. make sure you expose yourself to both viewpoints, otherwise you will not know if you are missing out important pieces of the puzzle.

be careful not to caricaturize either the skeptics or the warmists. both sides agree on the basics. warming since the LIA, CO2 must cause at least some warming, mankind has increased CO2. the squabbles arise over the catastrophic predictions and what constitutes good science.

So, if I am serious about being open minded, the first thing I need to do is change my mind? You do realize that particular statement is nuts, don't you? How about you giving me some reason to believe your point of view? Neither you, nor I are qualified to evaluate the scientific evidence with the same accuracy as an expert, so charts, and graphs, and yearly measurements are nothing more than pretending to be smarter than we are. Why don't you explain to me why so many experts would believe it exists if it doesn't?

If your mind is truly open then just look at the arguments from ALL sides. Look at websites from both camps. READ what they all say. You are smart enough that you can figure out what makes sense. Anyone who claims you have to be a climatologist to understand what they produce is lying to you. Climatology is a soft science. I don't know what level of education you have, but if you are even mildly conversant with scientific matters you can understand everything they have to say.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

 

[westwall]

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

Ignore the scientific organizations. If you want to learn something you have to first abandon the appeals to authority. The authorities also told us the world was flat, that the world was the center of the universe, that plate tectonics didn't exist etc. The authorities are almost always wrong. Science is SCEPTICISM! It is sceptics who shift the paradigm thinking of the experts that moves the world forward.

Lets' start with the basics. I will first address the fundamental theory of AGW. Namely CO2 "traps" heat in the atmosphere and backradiates it to the ground. Longwave IR (which is what we're talking about) is the supposed instrument of this "effect". The theory states that IR radiation bounces back down to the Earth and rewarms it. Your homework is to read how the planet is warmed in the first place. Does the dirt keep the planet warm, or do the oceans? Which is the primary heat sink?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

Ignore the scientific organizations. If you want to learn something you have to first abandon the appeals to authority. The authorities also told us the world was flat, that the world was the center of the universe, that plate tectonics didn't exist etc. The authorities are almost always wrong. Science is SCEPTICISM! It is sceptics who shift the paradigm thinking of the experts that moves the world forward.

Lets' start with the basics. I will first address the fundamental theory of AGW. Namely CO2 "traps" heat in the atmosphere and backradiates it to the ground. Longwave IR (which is what we're talking about) is the supposed instrument of this "effect". The theory states that IR radiation bounces back down to the Earth and rewarms it. Your homework is to read how the planet is warmed in the first place. Does the dirt keep the planet warm, or do the oceans? Which is the primary heat sink?

I already had a junior high school Earth Science class, but there is no way you can give me a credible education on climate science in a little discussion board. As I said, I will rely on the majority of credible scientists in the field. There are many thousands of those around the world, and the vast majority seam to broadly agree on this one subject. Why should I doubt their credibility?

 

[jc456]

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

 

[westwall]

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

Ignore the scientific organizations. If you want to learn something you have to first abandon the appeals to authority. The authorities also told us the world was flat, that the world was the center of the universe, that plate tectonics didn't exist etc. The authorities are almost always wrong. Science is SCEPTICISM! It is sceptics who shift the paradigm thinking of the experts that moves the world forward.

Lets' start with the basics. I will first address the fundamental theory of AGW. Namely CO2 "traps" heat in the atmosphere and backradiates it to the ground. Longwave IR (which is what we're talking about) is the supposed instrument of this "effect". The theory states that IR radiation bounces back down to the Earth and rewarms it. Your homework is to read how the planet is warmed in the first place. Does the dirt keep the planet warm, or do the oceans? Which is the primary heat sink?

I already had a junior high school Earth Science class, but there is no way you can give me a credible education on climate science in a little discussion board. As I said, I will rely on the majority of credible scientists in the field. There are many thousands of those around the world, and the vast majority seam to broadly agree on this one subject. Why should I doubt their credibility?

The field itself lacks credibility thanks to the ethical failings of those involved. That's the point. Once again, if you are going to thoughtlessly appeal to authority, then you truly have no interest in the learning about the subject and I can do naught but wish you well and enjoy your day.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

 

[westwall]

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

 

[BULLDOG]

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

Ignore the scientific organizations. If you want to learn something you have to first abandon the appeals to authority. The authorities also told us the world was flat, that the world was the center of the universe, that plate tectonics didn't exist etc. The authorities are almost always wrong. Science is SCEPTICISM! It is sceptics who shift the paradigm thinking of the experts that moves the world forward.

Lets' start with the basics. I will first address the fundamental theory of AGW. Namely CO2 "traps" heat in the atmosphere and backradiates it to the ground. Longwave IR (which is what we're talking about) is the supposed instrument of this "effect". The theory states that IR radiation bounces back down to the Earth and rewarms it. Your homework is to read how the planet is warmed in the first place. Does the dirt keep the planet warm, or do the oceans? Which is the primary heat sink?

I already had a junior high school Earth Science class, but there is no way you can give me a credible education on climate science in a little discussion board. As I said, I will rely on the majority of credible scientists in the field. There are many thousands of those around the world, and the vast majority seam to broadly agree on this one subject. Why should I doubt their credibility?

The field itself lacks credibility thanks to the ethical failings of those involved. That's the point. Once again, if you are going to thoughtlessly appeal to authority, then you truly have no interest in the learning about the subject and I can do naught but wish you well and enjoy your day.

You are correct. I have no interest in spending the time and effort required to become an expert in the field. I will also point out that the vast majority of climate change deniers have yet to do that either. Obviously, the majority of deniers aren't any more capable than I of an informed disagreement with the general consensus in the climate change community. You can't, or won't answer why I should not believe the vast recognized majority in the field. The only reasonable conclusion is that Hannity said not to believe in man made climate change, so you don't.

 

[BULLDOG]

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

 

[westwall]

You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated. Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn. It's truly as simple as that. That was what changed my mind. I follow the scientific method as my code. Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

 

[elektra]

No, we understand its a fraud simply because the IPCC was caught playing politics and falsifying data in order to make the AGW theories work.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

 

[westwall]

well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis. Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures. You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch. he proved it didn't. Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today? ahhhhh, no, they haven't. In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models. Really!!!

For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.

 

[Wyld Kard]

I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?

RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.

republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam.

Really? The ONLY ones, huh? That's a load of bullshit!

Someone doesn't have to be a RW to know and understand that AGW is a scam, dumbass.

 

[Kosh]

Climate Change is something that is natural and has happened for millions of years. Long before Human have been on this planet.

AGW is a hoax designed and hijacked by the far left to subjugate the people to the government.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.

No, they haven't. They have presented OPINION and computer generated fiction. There are precious few facts in anything they present.