Thanks, bonmot for confirming my statement that you have nothing to say pertinent to the issue.

Your repetition of my post with names replaced so that it is completely inapplicable, conveys a further clue to the state of your mind.

To what 150 years of science do you refer, bonmot?

Examine every year of it for any science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Same question, and since you have no answer to it, you will come up with another evasion, or just disappear, as is your wont when challenged to back up your insupportable nonsense.

Let us hope that your next evasion is not quite as puerile as your current effort.

“Seeing human emissions discharged into the atmosphere is not relevant unless it is measurable” should read

“Seeing human emissions discharged into the atmosphere is not relevant unless its effect is measurable”

You said you fixed the typos, beanbag.

Another misrepresentation, or show of incompetence, by our self styled hero.

Pericles2

I am well aware of the SRES, thank you – some scenarios are alarming, some are not.

.

“idiot” cohenite, your favourite flame.

.

Leo Lane

Repeating the same rant in every post, on every blog, on every other day, does not exactly inspire one to have meaningful dialogue with you, Leo. This is despite the fact that numerous people, numerous times, have given you the answers to your fatuous questions and your own bombastic assertions.

Just because you don’t understand the answers (or most likely, don’t want to understand the answers) does not make them wrong. Therefore, your repeated rants just add weight and more credence to your affliction … cognitive dissonance.

Leo, you have got your thumbs ensconced in your ears and your fingers stuck in your eyes, as you metaphorically shout to the world –> I ... C.A.N’.T ... H.E.A.R … Y.O.U..!

One more thing my dearest impudent and impertinent prat, no one is really listening to you anymore, get it?

Quite frankly, that might also explain why no one is answering you either (except maybe your fellow travellers). Perhaps that may also explain why you appear to becoming so much more shrill. Seek help, seriously.

.

Calling people; idiot, liar, beanbag, big fake froggy denier, whatever, and then linking to spin-spam ... is also not very persuasive, imho.

There was just one question bonmot, that I asked you to answer.

Where is the science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?

Just answer that one question or point me to where anyone, as you falsely allege, has answered me.

This diversion from the fact that you are able to give no answer is as puerile as your last effort.

I cannot recall a post of yours where you have not made a fool of yourself, in your failure to address the topic, and your pathetic evasions.

You have provided no basis for your support of the AGW myth.

Hi Leo,

Admire your persistence but daresay you're not going to get anywhere with bonmot

Have long suspected that --definitely in the case of Poirot --and likely also in the case of bonmot, commitment to AGW is symptomatic of a deeper pre-existing I-hate-capitalism malaise.

See R0bert's post above: some insightful comments but Poirot was to pre-occupied with her usual song and dance routine to take it in.

Saying it again SPQR, just like Leo?

Ok, me too:

Last paragraph: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12604#218282

Which part of "science is never settled and it is certainly not absolute" do you not understand?

Followed by:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513&page=0

Embedded comments in particular.

You could take a leaf out of RObert's book - you won't, and you don't.