On May 27, 10:10*pm, z wrote:
On May 20, 12:42*am, "ozonb" wrote:

The climate scientist Tyndall and his successors upon whom so many now rely was concerned
only about human produced CO2 which is but a tiny bit of the natural CO2 which is but a
tiny bit of the air which is but a tiny bit of the entire effect. He ignored the oceans
completely as do all climate change alarmists to this day.

He is 100% right about that tiny, tiny, tiny bit but 100% wrong about the significance of
that tiny, tiny, tiny bit for the equilibrium temperature of the planet..

That is why all attempts to date at modelling the climate have failed and they will
continue to fail for the foreseeable future until we know a great deal more about the
oceans.

That's the clearest and simplest way I can put it.

And that's why anybody with even a half-serious layman's knowledge of
the field and enough integrity to spend a couple of hours checking the
claims on both sides about who says what and who ignores what and what
has failed consider your posts to be 100% in error. Which tends to
generate serious doubt about your opinions regarding the dangers of
AGW.

••*That is why you have no clue about the dangers
of AGW.
First: AGW does not exist and never has.

Second: Neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided
one iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

Third: The major danger comes from people like you
that fail to properly prepare for the ensuing climate
hazards.

[. . .]

- -
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html

On May 27, 11:54*pm, Last Post wrote:
On May 27, 10:10*pm, z wrote:





On May 20, 12:42*am, "ozonb" wrote:

The climate scientist Tyndall and his successors upon whom so many now rely was concerned
only about human produced CO2 which is but a tiny bit of the natural CO2 which is but a
tiny bit of the air which is but a tiny bit of the entire effect. He ignored the oceans
completely as do all climate change alarmists to this day.

He is 100% right about that tiny, tiny, tiny bit but 100% wrong about the significance of
that tiny, tiny, tiny bit for the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

That is why all attempts to date at modelling the climate have failed and they will
continue to fail for the foreseeable future until we know a great deal more about the
oceans.

That's the clearest and simplest way I can put it.

And that's why anybody with even a half-serious layman's knowledge of
the field and enough integrity to spend a couple of hours checking the
claims on both sides about who says what and who ignores what and what
has failed consider your posts to be 100% in error. Which tends to
generate serious doubt about your opinions regarding the dangers of
AGW.

••*That is why you have no clue about the dangers
* * of AGW.
* * First: AGW does not exist and never has.

* * Second: Neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided
* * one iota of valid data for global warming nor have
* * they provided data that climate change is being
* * effected by commerce and industry, and not by
* * natural phenomena.

* * Third: The major danger comes from people like you
* * *that fail to properly prepare for the ensuing climate
* * *hazards.

* * [. . .]

- -
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.

* * *Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so you're going to hang your hat with boozno, that the climate change
theory "ignores the oceans completely"? go right ahead, this seems to
be the day for denialists to go all the way, and deny things which can
easily be checked.

On May 28, 2:03*am, z wrote:
On May 27, 11:54*pm, Last Post wrote:



On May 27, 10:10*pm, z wrote:

On May 20, 12:42*am, "ozonb" wrote:

The climate scientist Tyndall and his successors upon whom so many now rely was concerned
only about human produced CO2 which is but a tiny bit of the natural CO2 which is but a
tiny bit of the air which is but a tiny bit of the entire effect. He ignored the oceans
completely as do all climate change alarmists to this day.

He is 100% right about that tiny, tiny, tiny bit but 100% wrong about the significance of
that tiny, tiny, tiny bit for the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

That is why all attempts to date at modelling the climate have failed and they will
continue to fail for the foreseeable future until we know a great deal more about the
oceans.

That's the clearest and simplest way I can put it.

And that's why anybody with even a half-serious layman's knowledge of
the field and enough integrity to spend a couple of hours checking the
claims on both sides about who says what and who ignores what and what
has failed consider your posts to be 100% in error. Which tends to
generate serious doubt about your opinions regarding the dangers of
AGW.

••*That is why you have no clue about the dangers
* * of AGW.
* * First: AGW does not exist and never has.

* * Second: Neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided
* * one iota of valid data for global warming nor have
* * they provided data that climate change is being
* * effected by commerce and industry, and not by
* * natural phenomena.

* * Third: The major danger comes from people like you
* * *that fail to properly prepare for the ensuing climate
* * *hazards.

* * [. . .]

- -
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.

* * *Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

so you're going to hang your hat with boozno, that the climate change
theory "ignores the oceans completely"? go right ahead, this seems to
be the day for denialists to go all the way, and deny things which can
easily be checked.

•• You can't even check your hat!!

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor has anyone else provide one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.