On Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:26:49 UTC, Paul Garvey wrote:
Larry now trying to say that 'natural forcings' (undefined, of course; he has no idea what these might be, but it's a good denier crock phrase that sounds as if it means something) are causing GW, not, of course, anthropogenic CO2. He's been reading Watts again.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Maybe he should take note of what Spencer has been saying, but Spencer has been saying something he doesn't want to hear, so he doesn't listen to Spencer, either.

I don't believe the Milankovitch cycles are not with out doubters either , in other woods we should not be so cocky as to thing we know everything or at least the prime drivers of climate change. I believe it was the fifties when William Hapgood prosed catastrophic Pole Shift as a means for crust displacement and of course so many Poles have now shifted to the England that some may say he was spot on. However I jest. No the point is that Hapgood's theory got displaced instead and almost immediately by Tectonic Plate Theory. Yet one of Hapgood's greatest champions was also one of the greatest minds ever, Einstein.



"Support for this theory was given in a forward by Albert Einstein to one of Hagood’s books in 1953:

In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth’s crust over the rest of the earth’s body... (Hapgood, 1958, p. 1) "



So the moral of this story is oh cocky bleeder . That we've only just started using electricity, only had a hundred years of powered flight and even in the fifties the science of understanding the movement of the earths crust was still in dispute. So called idiots like you who think grasping and looking good at a topic for vanities sake is to look at the current best scientific odds and then go with it claiming you agree with that particular science because you are a supreme intellectual and grasp the subject matter beyond all doubt. So I have no doubt that you would have backed the Hapgood/Einstein ticket for explanation of evidence of crust movement.

Me. I don't claim to be a scientist or intellectual but I do know that humans understanding of the planet has accelerated like that old Mann Hockey stick, the last 300 years , which inconveniently coincides with the harnessing of fossil fuel, but in that acceleration of knowledge scientific theories like the primary cause of duodenal and stomach ulceration can be turned totally on its head within decades.