Dear MHAZE 2,

Your rebuttal to Marcutt is just retarded, and your praise of KNOWN CLIMATE DENIERS is equally retarded. You're condemning yourself with your own keyboard. I'm quoting Nature, you're quoting outright liars that have obviously misread or manipulated the data, or like so many before them, are telling a half truth. It's too retarded to bother with. You blab so many meaningless words!

I'll refer any readers that have made it this far back to this Nature piece now that you're promoting anti-science lies.

Everyone rational, with an ounce of self-respect and a desire to know what the science really says? This is a peer-reviewed journal, unlike ALL Mhaze's links apparently. Don't go down his rabbit hole. He's just an attention seeking little pissant. He's not worth it.

The journal Nature is!
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355

Hi Max Green,

What do you hope to gain by engaging with the denialists? By doing that you are doing exactly what they want you to do. They keep you busy running after their red herrings so that you don't pay any attention to how greedy and self-interested they are.

They represent the people who are to blame for our climate crisis. And that's what it now is, a climate crisis! Or as I like to call the bad things that these sorts of people give us - a Berejiklian. Our climate crisis is a Berejiklian; the massive fires currently sweeping across Australia are a Berejiklian; our dwindling fresh water supplies are another Berejiklian. So from now on when you want to call something crap, just call it a Berejiklian.

"This next ABC summary isn't much fun..."

Well I thought it was quite fun...not to mention funny. Funny how many people will believe it.

Let's check the veracity of this we're-all-gunna-die piece of malarkey. It says "If we continue to use fossil fuels the way we currently do, modelling from the IPCC shows we will be on track for a 4-degree increase in temperatures this century." and it links to an IPCC report which says no such thing. I guess they assumed (knew?) that most of their cultist followers wouldn't bother themselves with the actual facts.

All these scary scenarios are based on RCP8.5 . Of course Max and most of the ABC cultists understand the concept of RCP the same way my goldfish understand quantum physics. Needless to say RCP8.5 has been thoroughly debunked but continues to be used by alarmists because it yields the answers they want.

Still, the report was educational in showing how the clueless can so easily be led down the garden path.

Belly asked why people would lie about AGW. I give a reason. Max screams that the reason isn't true. I provide examples. Max agrees that the examples are valid. Somehow that proves that I where a tin-foil hat!! It seems Max must have missed school when they taught logic...it was probably too hot that day. Bozo.

He then launches in some tirade about some movie and Monckton. I didn't mention either but somehow he's decided that these represent my views. There's that logic thingy again...or lack thereof.

Actually it pretty funny. Max comes here armed with all these denier slaying factoids and desperately wants to use them whether they apply or not. Then he finds someone to whom the term denier doesn't apply. But he still wants/needs to use those inappropriate arguments because that's all he's got. Rather sad really.

/cont

/cont
"Your rebuttal to Marcutt (sic) is just retarded"
Well I just paraphrased what Marcott said about the data himself. But any data that doesn't support the one true faith is retarded to the clueless faithful.

"your praise of KNOWN CLIMATE DENIERS is equally retarded. "
Well he was a fraudster before. So Max is capable of learning, sometimes.

"you're quoting outright liars "
Well I referred to an article by someone who tells Max things he doesn't want to be true.
One of the many papers mentioned in that article was Ge et al. (2004) which found evidence of the MWP and RWP in China. Is that paper wrong because someone Max doesn't like wrote about it?

Max needs to find a way to ignore this unwanted data. That the reasons for doing do are bogus doesn't matter. Just ignore the facts.

This, to some, is called 'following the science'

Hi Max Green,

Above, another example of red herringism from one of the classic denialists, mhaze itself.

Hi Max Green,

The good thing is that none of the denialists have the capacity to complete a science degree which means that none of them will ever be in a position to conduct any work in science. It's better they be seen as a laughing stock by the scientific community than have them doing damage out in the field.