Poirot,

Your last response was quite frankly, awful.

It was awful because your self composure and your confidence in your science have simply evaporated. It was replaced by vicious, vindictive, personal attacks and name calling, not the mark of the “scientific” Poirot we have previously seen on OLO.

On the other hand it has been impossible for you to find any handy links to the issues I raised, because these represent the world of reality without which your precious scientific links are irrelevant. The information that refutes your assertions is called reality. It has just broken into your delusional world.

I was concerned at your transition because your last response was so out of character. Without links to your science you have become isolated, dysfunctional and thrashing as the reality that you have been “had” breaks into your “Walter Mitty” world.

I note that SPQR refers to you as “she”. Forgive me; I have been referring to you as Monsieur Poirot. Looking back though the responses it seems I have missed the fact that you are actually a “Madame Poirot”. At the risk of being called “sexist”, your response was both the reaction of a woman scorned and the reaction of a person that suddenly realizes her isolation.

I don’t know how you can move forward; I don’t know how you can continue to post on OLO knowing that you have failed miserably to respond to the logic of reality.

Why are my questions “disingenuous”? Is it is because you cannot answer them? Is it because you failed to research the reality of where the world is at? Is it because you are so self indoctrinated that you refuse to even look at the real world?

I don’t know the answers to these questions however; I do know that of the five questions you were asked, you know absolutely nothing. For a person who “purports” to represent an intelligent expert opinion, you are woefully short on facts and clearly myopic. You are interested only in promoting that which supports you adopted ideology.

Cont.

Cont.

The reality of CAGW is implicit in the five questions asked, you cannot answer these because you cannot even understand why they have even been asked, all you know is that they disturb you and require you to abuse the messenger.

Many on OLO must be asking the question, why is Poirot not answering these simple questions, why are such simple statements of fact that can be obtained by anyone with an internet connection, being converted into an ideological hissy fit?

Poirot, you have become an emblem of the surreal world of CAGW, you can’t even understand what it is you don’t understand. Your answer to everything is more links to your science.

What you have failed to recognize is that it is your science that has failed you and all the institutions that were built around it and everything in which you had faith.

Let me give you one example of your diversionary tactics.

You ask me, “Are you suggesting that a country, say like Canada, is thumbing its nose at Kyoto and emissions control because there is no scientific basis for AGW. On the contrary, Canada is executing the complete denialist routine because it wishes to continue its dirty energy emissions - of which tar sands is the major player”.

Allow me to answer, NO!

What I have said it that not one of the original (?) signatories of Kyoto, after 15 years of trying, is willing to subject their electorates to the head on collision between green ideology and austerity. To your example I might add USA, Canada, Russia, Japan, China, India, UK, Germany, NZ, Poland, Czech Republic, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The Kyoto Protocol renewal failed after 15 years of trying. You cannot reasonably cite Canada as the only guilty party, the other 195 Nations also refused to sign.

So the entire 195 nations are all guilty of “complete denialist routines because they wish to continue their dirty energy emissions”.

For pities sake Poirot, get a freaking’ life.

spindoc,

"Your last response was quite frankly awful.....vicious, vindictive, personal attack and name calling..."

Gawd!...Really?....did I?

I believe I referred to you as "spin" doc....should I apologise for the grievous insult there?

And of course, I referred to My Lord Monckton - of the Brenchley Moncktons (of vaudeville fame) as "Promote Thyself".

Now I realise that you're a precious petal, but if you think my last effort was vicious, vindictive personal name-calling, then its obvious you've led a sheltered life (No wonder in your naivete you've hitched your wagon to a bunch of sham "skeptics":)

My advice is for you to study your denialist manifesto with a bit more gusto and due diligence (I'm sure there's an addendum which advises one on further procedure when your "question asking stunt" fails to receive the attention it so surely deserves - good luck with that)

Here's some added inspiration - Lord Monckton in full denialist flight - replete with fancy dress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBVdbCGNilI

What a joke!

(I can't believe after all this time that you've just noticed I'm a she:)

@SPQR

"Apropos of your established fact No. 4, what percentage of atmospheric CO2 --does THE SCIENCE tell us-- is derived from human activities?"

The level of co2 prior to the industrial revolution was about 280 PPm. The current level of co2 is 395 PPm. The increase of 115 PPm is almost certainly entirely due to human activities. Therefore the answer to your question is 29%.
http://co2now.org

Of the other greenhouse gases the level of methane has doubled, but has plateaued over the last decade, the nitrogen dioxide level has also substantially increased, and we have added potent new man made greenhouse gases in the form of CFCs to the atmosphere. The total effect is the equivalent to increasing the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 50%. The best estimates we have tell us that doubling the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to increase temperatures by about 3 Deg C. As we know the effect of greenhouse gases is broadly logarithmic, then it is probable that a 50 % increase in GHGs equivalent should lead to a global increase of temperature of about 1.5 deg C. The actual temperature increase we see in the atmosphere is so far around 0.75 deg C. The excess heat at present is going into warming the oceans which due to its huge thermal mass will take much longer to reach equilibrium with altered heat flows, than the atmosphere.

Irrespective of whether one wants to believe in global warming or not the fact is that the human race is destroying the environment and overpopulating the planet at a phenomenal rate.

The damage is done and cannot be undone.

I think recent films such as "The Road" provide an insight into the type of world we will have in the near future if governments do not bite the bullet and start putting plans into effect that will allow them to control what is left.

its been mentioned a few times by various people that qanda appears to be a climate scientist and certainly he pushes that idea with comments suggesting others don't get it because they aren't scientists (the implication being that he gets it cos he is). I was prepared to go along with that...then we saw this howler:

" the miniscule amount of 0.03% [of CO2] prevents the planet from turning into a snowball planet"

That is hopelessly wrong. GHGs in total combine to make the earth's temp what it is today. But CO2 is just one of those GHG and by no means the most important. This honour goes to water vapour. No one knows what would happen to temps if there was suddenly no CO2 but the earth becoming a snowball isn't on. Apart from anything else, well over half the light wave lengths 'caught' by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapour.

He then goes on to make the amateur error of talking about a 30% increase in CO2 increasing it efficacy by 30%. But that is also hopelessly wrong.

So I think we have to assume that qanda is merely an interested observe who, hiding behind a nickname, likes to pretend that he is more than he is. There's a lot of that on the WWW.

Just some facts for qanda to help in his understanding:

* the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG is logarithmic ie it decreases with concentration. each new tonne or whatever of CO2 is less efficent at trapping heat than the previous one.

* its estimated that a doubling of CO2 (to around 600ppm) would increase temps by 1c if nothing else changed.

* the whole CAGW theory depends on the postulated positive feedbacks ie a temp increase caused by CO2 would cause other changes that would amplify that increase. But to date the evidence for positive feedbacks is very questionable to the extent that some IPCC related scientists are prepared to admit that they don't know the extent of feedbacks or even if they are positive feedbacks or negative feedbacks.