Quote:
Originally Posted by parejkoj
Acolyte: I remember you barging into a few other threads, only to have people hand you large amounts of reading homework after telling you that you didn't understand the topic very well. In my post above, I linked to a few places you can go for more information: you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about climate science, and appear to be just repeating some of the "standard fallacies," much as you did for other topics in those earlier threads.
Maybe you should take some time to read the AGW "primers" from the third link I gave, browse some threads at realclimate.org, and look over some of the summaries at Nature Reports? Heck, the 4th IPCC report (2007) covers pretty much everything you've complained about, though it is a much longer read. |
And, as I remember, you have attitude. It's a discussion here, getting personal about other threads & deciding you know what I already know or don't know if both facile & irrelevant. Quoting an official political organisation as source shows how far removed from reality you have gone.
I have been around WAY too many government 'reports' & 'studies' to accept that those who are being paid to have a view will actually stand up & speak truth.
As you brought up other threads I will point out I also recall you from them. You make a habit of attacking the person rather than dealing with the data. The IPCC makes a point of Mann's graph as a basic - I grew up in the bush & I have actually cut down trees & seen the rings. And again I tell you, tree rings do NOT make a valid record of climate. And yet again I point out the Hockey stick fails to show events we have on record as having happened. When & if you find a reason why this might be so, then you can start to evaluate what i know or don't know.
Quoting those who are paid to have a view is nowhere near as effective as quoting those who, in spite of the danger to their careers, stand up & speak reality.