The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An important essay by Richard Lindzen > Comments

An important essay by Richard Lindzen : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 26/10/2018

Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. All
Another failure to put forward relevant facts, flea. You made an untrue assertion about what you say I asked people to believe, but you are unable to say where you assert this happened.
As I said, I never made any such request, so if you are not lying, please supply the information, which I am requesting for the second time. If you are lying, you will be unable to supply the information, because what you assert never happened
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 November 2018 11:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You try and despatch science with sophistry, and provide no references to uphold what you say.
You clearly have not watched the lectures from the University of Chicago, reference provided previously.

I notice you have not made any attempt to argue against references provided in relation to water vapour with anything substantive. You had previously stated "... The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour." You clearly do not understand the concept of "positive feedback".

You make accusations, but do not provide any facts, please do so.
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 November 2018 7:17:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You said , flea, “You claim to know that thousands upon thousands of climate scientists are wrong; “
I ask you again, flea, when and where did I claim that. You have no answer, because it is a lie.
What I have said, is that you have referenced no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, without which your assertions are invalid.
You seem to think that ignoring this complete bar to your credibility will cause it to go away.
It simply shows that your lack of upbringing makes you unfit for rational discourse.You have no concept of rational conduct.
You consider that you are entitled to ignore any question, the answer to which discloses the invalidity of your dishonest situation.
There is no science to support your situation, which is based on the lie of human caused climate change.
You have no science, just dishonesty
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 5 November 2018 1:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

Exactly what do you mean by "We have shown that we are stupid enough to accept such nonsense. Something must be done about global warming.
The actions of the fraud promoters must be criminalised"

The interpretation would seem to me to be that scientists and those who believe the science are acting in a fraudulent way. So, that is contingent with thousands upon thousands of scientists being wrong in your view.
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 November 2018 7:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say, flea:”would seem to me to be that scientists and those who believe the science are acting in a fraudulent way. So, that is contingent with thousands upon thousands of scientists being wrong in your view.
Posted by ant, Monday”
Who counted these alleged thousands of scientists, FLEA? You are aware, I hope, that the97% of scientists asserted to support the climate fraud, has been shown to be false. It was FROM A PAPER BY John Cook, the fraud promoter, who owns the deceptively named Skeptical Science siteand shown to be invalid.
Correct your calculations, and let us know how many fraudulent scientist there are. You have admitted you were lying about the assertion that I said any of the scientists were fraudulent. That is your own assertion.
The question I asked you was to be answered if you were not lying about what I said, and your not answering, I would take as confirmation that you were lying.
You have at least confirmed that you were lying when you made the false assertion that I asked people to believe that thousands of scientists were fraudulent
You have not answered any question about the science on which you rely for your support of the climate fraud.
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. If any of the links you have in your ignorance posted
show such science,please draw it to my attention. It appears to me that none of them do, so you have wasted our time through your incompetence.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 5 November 2018 10:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I asked you, flea, to state whether you were aware that all life on earth is carbon based.
Your deficient education, or lack of any manners has constrained you from replying. When you reply, please state your view on the use of the scurrilous and baseless term, “carbon pollution”.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 1:04:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy