Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:



It is people like you, who imagine that they can calibrate the climate and set at some optimum, are the real climate change deniers. You deny that the climate changes due to forces much, much bigger than any human influence. You think you can control global climate - you are the real climate change deniers.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:


Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I intended to convey was that
I have yet to see an argument prepared and cut and pasted here by the minions of AGW denialist lobby that is even remotely logical or credible. Their only purpose is to misinform, confuse and delay action to protect the only accessible environment in the universe that is capable of supporting human life . 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:



You forgot trolls like you, in the pay of the green left. After all they spend the most money on climate change. What is the budget of Grrenpiss these days?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:



Probably the same as you. However I have learned to read and comprehend. Something which appears beyond your ken.

Do you really believe that these "socks" exist or is it that it makes a wonderful,non-provable assumption? Answer the question.

I'll make it easy for you, I receive no payment for my views. 

Why don't you answer those things in the IPCC reports, that others insist do not exist? You are a FRAUD.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:


The problem with ideological extremists like you is that you genuinely believe you are a critical thinker. Yet the minute you encounter anything that might challenge your extreme ideology, critical thinking goes out the window. To think that all those scientists that validate AGW have not considered the other natural options is the sign of an arrogant ideologist that is truly ignorant of the subject matter. To think those scientists would not have investigated the work of other scientists that dispute AGW to see if they have a credible cause for the current state of the planet is another example of that arrogant ignorance. If those disputing AGW had another credible cause, why haven't climate scientist after climate scientist after climate scientist backed them up. They haven't because nobody has come up with a credible alternative to AGW that explains what's happening globally. Any ideological extremist can cherry pick or mine any scientific report to cobble together support for their stance. We see it all the time with creationists and racial supremacists. Critical thinkers however,don't just look at a report, they check out its references and comparisons with alternative explanations, to see if that report's conclusions have merit. You wear your ignorance like a badge of honour as you insult thousands of scientists around the world that have contributed in one way or another to our growing knowledge of AGW and its impacts. Its clear that like your fellow ideological extremists you are so ecologically challenged that you lack the intelligence to comprehend a climate change scientific report, let alone critically assess it. Yet here you are arrogantly dismissing the combined evidence from the cryosphere, the oceans and the climate itself. That arrogance is what makes you a fundamental ideological extremist as dangerous as any follower of ISIS. Whilst they are prepared to erase other civilisations past and present, you are among the many that see mass extinctions as just more externalities to ignore and the degradation of science itself as nothing more than collateral damage. Before you accuse others of non-thinking, take a look in the mirror. What you are looking at is a perfect example of a waste of an education.

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 10:17pm:


You have no qualifications in the field, you have not compiled or even studied any of the data that has led the experts to conclude that AGW is happening and even if you did you couldn't understand it.  All you have is what you cut and paste from sites set up and paid for by people with a powerful motive to discredit the scientists. So that leaves you with two choices (1)Your a sock; deliberately stabbing your species in the back for a few pennies ; (2) Your so stupid and criminally irresponsible that despite the consequences that the scientists have said we face, you're prepared to take the risk and back your judgment over the 97% of the experts who have devoted their working life to the study of climate science.  Either way IMO your a contemptible "little" old man. What do you think. Which are you (1) or (2)? my Money's still on (1).      

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 11:21am:


Mr. lee you are a blatant liar with no skin left on your nose.

From your own reference the statistics are that the NOAA temperature is significant at the 0.1 confidence level.

Following is preamble to table S1 of lee's reference page 6.

The 90% confidence interval (derived from ݏ௧௥ 169 ) is
170 calculated using the IPCC methodology. In parentheses is a 90% confidence interval (derived
from ݏ௧௢௧ 171 ) which accounts for the uncertainty of trend estimation as well as additional error due
172 to the uncertainty of the underlying annual values in NOAA’s global temperature time series.
173 Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. An asterisk notes that
174 the trend is significant at the 0.10 level based on the uncertainty in the trend estimate using the
175 IPCC methodology only.

lee is using blatant deceit as a debating tactic.