Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 03:48:21 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:05:11 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 6:59:39 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses. You should give
it a rest.

As a science denier,

Straw man argument: "caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"

I'm not attacking your position, any more than I would attack the
position of someone claiming the Earth is flat. There is no position
to attack. Your view is total nonsense, not accepted by any scientist.
It is ridiculous, and mockery is the proper response.

You are a garden variety Usenet troll.

Says the flat-earther! That's funny!

Did you smoke a reefer today?

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:17:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I'm not attacking your position,

Of COURSE you are. And you are attacking me personally.

You have no position to attack. But certainly I'm mocking you. Nothing
wrong with that. Your beliefs are mockable.

AGW is generated by agitprop, regardless of what the pinko liberal posters say.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:17:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I'm not attacking your position,

Of COURSE you are. And you are attacking me personally.

You have no position to attack. But certainly I'm mocking you. Nothing
wrong with that. Your beliefs are mockable.

AGW is generated by agitprop, regardless of what the pinko liberal posters say.

I suspect brain damage of some sort.

Gary Harnagel wrote in
:

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:05:11 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 6:59:39 PM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses.
You should give it a rest.

As a science denier,

Straw man argument: "caricaturing a position to make it
easier to attack"

I'm not attacking your position,

Of COURSE you are. And you are attacking me personally.

any more than I would attack the position of someone claiming
the Earth is flat. There is no position to attack. Your view is
total nonsense,

Why is it that you are completely oblivious to the fact that you
just DID attack my position there as well as me? Perhaps you
need counseling.

not accepted by any scientist.

Completely false. I know several scientists that have
reservations about AGW, just like I do. You're still plying the
dishonest straw man argument baloney.

It is ridiculous, and mockery is the proper response.

Your position (which seems to be "we gotta spend bazillions of
dollars RIGHT NOW and pass onerous legislation. It's my way or
the highway") is the one that is extreme and cannot be supported
by solid experimental evidence. As Scott said, you have become
an obnoxious troll.

"Have become"? Has there ever been a time when he wasn't? He's not
even a very *good* troll, though he's got you firmly on the hook.

(Not, mind you, that you're really any better.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:10:52 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:17:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I'm not attacking your position,

Of COURSE you are. And you are attacking me personally.

You have no position to attack. But certainly I'm mocking you. Nothing
wrong with that. Your beliefs are mockable.

AGW is generated by agitprop, regardless of what the pinko liberal posters say.

I suspect brain damage of some sort.

Go to a neurologist and get it checked.

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:17:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You have no position to attack. But certainly I'm mocking you. Nothing
wrong with that. Your beliefs are mockable.

Yes, there IS something wrong with that. You need PC counseling badly.

AGW is generated by agitprop, regardless of what the pinko liberal
posters say.

I suspect brain damage of some sort.

I suspect you're brain does indeed need rewiring.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased
cloud
cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:55:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 1:16:31 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact
that
the Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human
release
of fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily
imply
causation.

However, in the case of AGW, a very plausible mechanism of
causation
is known. Do you have another, more plausible, reason for the
correlation? If so, present it. If your argument is solid, you'll
definitely get a Nobel Prize for that.

I don't think there is any question that global temperatures have
risen:


https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...e/how-did-janu
ary-2018-rank-in-terms-of-global-temperatures/70004226

But I have a bit of concern for honesty here. They say, "The last
four
years rank among the five warmest Januarys on record."

That's true ... as far as it goes, but the chart shows the last two
years
in a downward trend, taking off a third of the temperature
increases over
the last 138 years!

Weather is VERY complex, and modeling is VERY difficult,
particularly when
certain factors are handled only indirectly (and, therefore, only
approxi-
mately) and other factors haven't been included.

We're not talking about weather here. Indeed we cannot predict the
weather even a month in advance. But in climatology thes no need
to predict the weather on individual days. In climatology we're
interested in long term averages, and that simplifies matters a lot.
Those individual eddies which are so hard to predict in weather
forecasting vanish in those long term averages which climatology
deals with.

Those long term averages also makes temperatures during one or a few
individual years quite insignificant. But if the trend continues over
decades, then it becomes climatologically significant. So instead of
focusing on the last two years, you should instead focus on the last
20-50 years. Don't throw away half a century of data just because of
temporary short term deviations recently.

Finally, you failed to propose another mechanism for GW more
plausible than radiation al warming due to IR absorption by
increasing amounts of CO2.

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:26:24 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased
cloud cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...

Did you even LOOK at the second chart in

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

that I posted April 22nd? It shows global temperatures dropping
significantly for the past two years.

We're not talking about weather here. Indeed we cannot predict the
weather even a month in advance. But in climatology thes no need
to predict the weather on individual days. In climatology we're
interested in long term averages

Not sure what you're smoking here, but the chart I referenced isn't
about monthly temperatures.

Those long term averages also makes temperatures during one or a few
individual years quite insignificant. But if the trend continues over
decades, then it becomes climatologically significant.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

So instead of focusing on the last two years, you should instead focus
on the last 20-50 years. Don't throw away half a century of data just
because of temporary short term deviations recently.

The short-term deviations ARE significant if a new factor is in play.
We may want a little extra greenhouse gas if we're heading toward another
another Little Ice Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

And more cloud cover implies more water vapor in the air, which is the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all. The takeaway from this is that the
LIA resulted in torrential rains that washed out crops in the summer which
was too short to grow abundant crops anyway. I think we may fare better
if this occurs again, but people would still starve. Many countries in
Europe lost 10% of their populations, a significant amount when you
consider that the Plague killed about 30%. And isn't it interesting that
the plague occurred after the Medieval Warm Period when global temperatures
were falling? Maybe some of those deaths could have been avoided if folks
had good food?

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that. But I also believe
in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too. And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned. One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...

On 23/04/2018 01:07, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:33:50 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW).

In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased cloud
cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

It is small enough correction that it isn't going to radically alter the
answers. The 0.1% change in solar output over an 11 year sunspot cycle
is barely noticeable in the climate record (but is detectable).

By comparison the 0.0167 ellipticity of the Earth's orbit represents a
~7% change in solar input from aphelion to perihelion every year.

It is known to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and is accepted by 99%
of climate scientists. A greater consensus than we have for nearly any
other area of scientific knowledge.

Do you mean consensus of those who haven't included the effects of cosmic
ray cloud nucleation in their climate models and who have reduced the
multiplication factor of CO2 effects in their models, to account for the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all, from 6 to 2? If 6 is wrong, what
confidence is there that 2 is the right number?

Time will tell. Your argument is essentially because every last possible
detail isn't tied down we should ignore the major factor we can control
which is altering the Earth's climate. The inexorable rise of CO2.

GW Bush did his damnedest to discontinue funding monitoring of CO2 by
Keeling et al but in the end was forced to give him a congressional
science medal. Science deniers are once again being promoted to
positions of real power in the Trump administration so we expect more
trash the planet for fun and profit policies going forward.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/t...medal-science/

Flat-earther.

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses. You should give
it a rest.

It is pretty much a good description of your position. Only the wilfully
ignorant and professional deniers for hire claim that AGW is not real
today. The latter usually have previous for claiming that smoking
tobacco doesn't cause cancer and that CFC's don't damage the ozone
layer. (it is quite a good litmus test for prostitute scientists)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown