gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

You were asked to explain why you claimed that the Met announced:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

You were asked to show the quote.

Instead of apologising for telling lies - you posted a news article and pretended it was from the Met.

But even your news article did not say, as you claimed that the Met said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

And  - besides this lie - you have now been caught multiple times telling other outright lies.

You claimed glaciers are not receding.
You claimed there is an underwater volcano melting the arctic ice cap
You claimed that the Doran 2009 survey was sent to 10,000 scientists but only 79 responded - when in fact 3146 responded.
you claimed that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

True - you did attempt once to explain that last one - you linked to a blog referring to a paper (with no reference to the paper) which seemed to indicate at one point in Antarctica, temperatures may have been 1 degree warmer than today at some point in the last 1000 years.  But you have still produced no evidence to support your claim that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today.

Now - instead of you whining about people not addressing the detail of your arguments - perhaps you should ask yourself why anyone would bother addressing any details put forward by someone who continually tells lies, but is too pathetic to own up to it.  And also ask yourself why anyone would bother addressing any details put forward by someone who is so clearly ignorant of the subject being discussed.

If you had any idea what you were talking about - you would not need to lie so often

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:


part of debating is actually responding to comments and questions by the opponent. This is something you appear totally unaware of.

Ive now asked you umpteen times to respond to the emminent list of critics and you decline to do so.

A proper critical thinker - which you claim to be but never demonstrate - would ask the serious question as to why so many, so eminent and so qualified people express the opposite opinion. Now how about you actually answer the question with some actual thinking?

Dont ask - yet again - about their peer-reviewd papers. That gets old and a little pitiful. Seeing as these are actual professors of climatology, atmospheric physics and related disciplines, how about we stipulate that yes, they have published in these fields? fiar enough?

Now over to you...

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:



You really don't understand what a hypothesis is, do you?

A hypothesis doesn't have to have an opposing argument for it to be a hypothesis.

Your scientific knowledge is lacking somewhat my friend.

If you and Bunny Boy are the best that the AGW alarmists can come up with ... 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:23am:


Whatever, greggery. Rather than playing semantics, how about you come up with a real argument.

You are yet to produce an argument that rejects the AGW hypothesis.

By the way, the IPCC, based on the body of scientific literarture available to them, are now virtually certain that it's warming and that we are responsible.

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:


and guess how that happens.... a lead author is chosen from the list of pro-ACC crowd and that actively and unashamedly gate-keep the anti-ACC papers away. IPCC peer-reviewers have also been told to toe the line (McKitrick 2007) and not allowed to criticise the process. And best of all IPCC releases a Summary to Policy Makers well ahead of the report. not the publication of the report but well ahead of the WRITING of the report. and then the authors have to make the report line up with the summary.  does that sound like a good process to you?

MOTR wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:02am:


It's up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to provide the evidence and argument to back their hypothesis

Maqqa wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:


exactly. the prevailing and default position is logically that climate change and warming/cooling are all natural and NON-athropogenic. it is up to the proponents of the ACC hypothesis to prove their point, not the other way around. and to date, the proof has not been supplied and the evidence remains increasinly sparse.