Another post by bigmouth, full of words, and, as usual, no substance. He again posts no reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, while claiming, untruthfully that such science exists, when it clearly does not.
From the nonsense paper that bigmouth references:” there was a 97 percent consensus among scientists that climate change was caused by humans.”
That was taken from the peer reviewed paper of the failed cartoonisr, John Cook, who runs the laughable fraud promotion at the deceptively named web-site “Skeptical Science.”
Cook’s paper was shown to be self-evident nonsense:” -" Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
While having no genuine science to which he can refer, bigmouth refers us to fraud-promoting rubbish like this.

Dan

What parts of Physics or Chemistry fit into your YECS?

An interesting piece of history found by a Christian Climate Scientist:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/

Leo

As quoted before:

"The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”."

Only a fool dismisses studies such as the one you have dismissed, Leo (OLO 10/9/16 11.53 pm):

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Leo Lane,

Its futile to go through these processes with Tommy. Its standard operating procedure for people like him to make unsupported claims about a special understanding and expertise and then decline to demonstrate it on the basis that's beneath them. We all know that he's just trying to salve low self-esteem by creating a fantasy-world where he knows something but you won't get anywhere trying to demonstrate it because, even if you did so so to the satisfaction of others, it'd probably go over his head.

He asserts that he fully understands " every page of every IPCC Report". But when I make an observation about AR5 noting that AR4 had overstated various climate extreme issues, he's suddenly becomes incredulous and asks for the evidence. Perhaps he read AR5 ...but understood it,ummmm?

And if you do ever corner him in an error (see above) he just throws a tantrum and goes full ad hom like calling others Mr R Sole - which is the height of sophistication among 3rd graders - and seeks to elicit support by creating new nicks - whatever happened to Jane P?

In the same way as you can't rationalise with an 8 yr old you can't rationalise with these types. All you can do is ignore them and tell them that the adults want to talk now.

What you say about bigmouth is valid, mhaze, but he has aleady made such a fool of himself that he has no effect. No one takes him seriously.
His rat cunning has misled him into believing he has more than the very ordinary intellect he possesses. His attempts to talk down to people who have left him fo dead, show him to be the fool he is. The only support he attracted, JeanP, did him more harm than good.
bigmouth will dissipate like a bad smell.

Leo

Some psychological projection going on here:

"What you say about bigmouth is valid, mhaze, but he has aleady made such a fool of himself that he has no effect. No one takes him seriously."

You are the fool who dismisses a truly International paper; involving 80 researchers from 12 countries; with hundreds of peer reviewed papers to support the views expressed.

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

Hundreds of peer reviewed science papers are not science according to you Leo, what a doozy of a notion.

Aaaarrrgh, stretch, moaaaaaaaaannn, shaking head, craking my knucles, and YAAAAWWWWWWNNNNING .... did I hear someone mention my name?

Nah, must be dreaming.

Sorry, please do carry on.