Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On 23/04/2018 01:24, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:03:51 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

How can one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed
to support AGW and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW?
That kind of baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

While you are correctly referring to a valid scientific principle, you
should know better, then, to apply it in this way. Cooler temperatures,
by themselves, don't support AGW. Cooler temperatures that can be traced
back to the Gulf Stream weakening - due to *warmer* temperatures in the
far North, causing water from glaciers to make the Atlantic Ocean less
salty, on the other hand, *could* well be confirming evidence of AGW.

The operative word is "could." That's not a quantitative relationship.

The point here is that in a world where the global average temperature
is higher there could still be some places like northern Europe that
have paritcularly favourable warm maritime climates that end up colder
if the Gulf stream weakens substanially.

Deliberately omitting important facts when making an argument is an
indication of dishonesty,

But "could" doesn't represent FACT.

Facts that deniers like to parrot are that in Roman times there were
vineyards in Britain. Back then they were making crude gut rot plonk for
homesick Centurions but now they are making internationally recognised
fine wines. For a long time Renishaw Hall in Derbyshire was the most
northerly vineyard in the world by some margin but not any more.

http://www.renishaw-hall.co.uk/vineyard/

The record is now held by Lerkekasa in Norway which is almost at 60N

https://lerkekasa.no/english/

and oil companies have a sufficiently large financial interest involved
here that it would not be surprising if attempts were being made by
them to introduce misleading arguments into the climate debate.

I think that's a canard. The big oil companies have embraced efforts to
reduce emissions and are doing research into green processes.

Exxon and Kock brothers have been fighting tooth and nail against AGW
and to spread disinformation and doubts using big tobacco tactics to
bamboozle the general public and denigrate climate scientists.

Interestingly when Koch brothers paid to have sceptical researchers look
into climate change and they came back with an answer that wasn't in the
script. Their scientific integrity won out over their allegiance to
their paymasters and also extended the temperature record back to 1750
(albeit with rising uncertainties):

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

I'm being charitable in assuming you may just be parroting dishonest
arguments someone else made up, but you appear to be determined to
refute that hypothesis.

John Savard

I'm a concerned watcher. That means I believe in taking measured steps
to reduce CO2 not only because of possible AGW effects but also because
of other possible effects increased CO2 may have which are presently
unknown, but I am vehemently against Chicken Little propagandists who
demand immediate action regardless of the cost and denigrate those who
hold more measured views.

I only consider no regrets actions worthy of consideration at present
since there is too much cheating. It will take major climate disasters
directly affecting large US cities and/or agriculture before the USA
takes it seriously. Even then deniers for hire will continue to peddle
their lies just as they still do to keep the suckers smoking tobacco.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown