To me the great believers in the climate debate are those think a 50% increase in CO2 levels will have no effect on temperature or the climate.

Some of those I have had personal conversation with include university Geology and Maths lecturers.

I generally ask what mechanism allows them to ignore the physics inherent in that mass of CO2, its affect on both temperature and energy in the atmosphere. I say prove to me it just doesn't matter. They almost never try.

This is an important point, the burden of proof lies with the sceptics since they are the true believers. It is like there is an elephant in the room sitting in the corner asleep but they treat it like it isn't there, or deserving of the merest acknowledgement before they get back to their haranguing of the rest of us.

This article at least puts a lampshade on the elephant's head to give it some utility but the premise is the thing will stay asleep, never awaken, never fart, or stretch out,or go berserk, or look for food, or take a dump, all things that would play havoc in a small room.

The field guide says these things are possible, indeed some are probable, but since it hasn't really stirred since we got here why spoil the party. In fact lets turn the music up.

The modern flatearthers?

cohenite,

Your links seem to lead back to the Heartland Institute...ho hum...

http://heartland.org/anthony-watts

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

I'm curious about the penchant for climate change skeptics to resort to name-calling....is there a special course one does to hone one's skills in this area? If so, it's a dismal failure if the best you can come up with is "idiot" and "stupid".

Merry Christmas all!

Here you are bonmot; discuss this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650

Poirot, I insult to the level of understanding of the target audience.

I see the hysteria continues with csteele asserting that sceptics have the burden of proof of DISPROVING AGW; legally that is wrong; people asserting things have to prove what they are asserting; more generally this person should google falsifiability, Popper and the impossibility of disproving something which has no contradictory position such as global warming which was described by greenpeace as "global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." How do you disprove that; everything proves it!

AGW is a scam; people supporting it are impossible to talk to since they are irrational; in my last post I gave links to cogently argued evidence about sea levels being exggerated by AGW authority; not one meaningful response, just dismissed with the usual ad hom and deference to authority which says unless it supports AGW it must be wrong.

Hopeless.

Dear cohenite,

Once you have finished with the blustering the CO2 is still there my friend and you are the one asserting it will have zero effect. Deal with it and we have a conversation, don't and you are just like any other flat earther or creationist, just like them you want to suspend the laws of physics for an ideology.

Come on big fella, show us whatcha got!

Oh dear, so it's really a case of Anthony Cox closing his eyes, clasping his ears, and yelling:

'LOOK AT ME!, LOOK AT ME!, LOOK AT ME!'

http://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/0907.1650

and

http://arxiv.org/help/not-registered.html

Oops :(

Nope, doesn't cut it spinner, except in your mind perhaps ... unsurprising.

What was your thesis, again, Anthony?

Wait, don't bother.

Have a Merry Christmas, really.

Bye

cohenite,

It's interesting that you label people who reference NASA sites as "idiots".

But then you link to Anthony Watts' site.

Anthony Watts is apparently a weatherman....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts