Posted by: graemebird | January 6, 2007

What Sorts Of Posts Does The Most Malign Of All Michelin Men Wipe?

This sort of thing is just a little bit too much for one of the most harmful propagandists on the planet.

“Ah. So a positive slope on a temp depiction doesn’t mean warming in your ideology. Got it. Best,”

No no. You don’t be a complete idiot. Is it too much to ask for you not to be a complete idiot? I don’t think its too much to ask? How about you? Do you think its too much to ask? I didn’t say what you are now claiming I said.

Here is what I DID say. Now that the most malign of all Michelin Men has decided to wipe what I did say.

It getting in the way of his propagandising:

Post 1:

The fraudster-science-CULT has reversed the direction of PRUDENCE since we live on a planet that has a tendency for catastrophic global cooling. And has no tendency for catastrophic global warming at all.

Its a one-way bias. Its quite unlikely that we could overcome this one-way bias no matter what we did, even if we devoted all our resources to the task, with the current continental configuration.

This is the worst-case of wrong-way Corriganism in the history of science. And likely only made possible by socialist financing of science. Its just a never-ending dance of unbelievable stupidity.

Post 2.

Its a reversal of PRUDENCE since we live on a planet that has a tendency for catastrophic global cooling. And has no tendency for catastrophic global warming at all.

Its a one-way bias. Its quite unlikely that we could overcome this one-way bias no matter what we did, even if we devoted all our resources to the task, with the current continental configuration.

This is the worst-case of wrong-way Corriganism in the history of science. And likely only made possible by socialist financing of science.

Its just a never-ending dance of unbelievable stupidity.

Further comments:
You see Dano you dope! (Dude are you about 12 years old?) Nowhere does it imply that
“………a positive slope on a temp depiction doesn’t mean warming in your ideology….”

This level of sustained idiocy is only possible due to Lamberts relentless manipulation of this propaganda site.

Now we get to Chris O’Neil.

“…Sounds like someone has learned that there is a positive feedback effect at temperatures lower than the present but no observed positive feedback at temperatures above the present……..”

No it doesn’t sound like that at all. And I don’t assume such a thing. In fact the positive feedback might be stronger if we got to the stage where sea temperatures at the poles never got below 0 degrees Celsius in the winter.

” Well that’s nice, trouble is, we can generate plenty of warming all on our own with ZERO positive feedback…..”

Not a great deal.

Not a great deal and not anytime soon.

” A world with 3 degrees C of warming will be an “interesting” place.”
Bullshit.

It would be a better world.

Better for land-based nature as well as humans if it were CO2-based warming.

But it might mean less marine life.

Three degrees extra is just so benign its not funny.

This is not 3 degrees extra in the hot places at the heat of the day.

Rather it is a reduction in heat differentials.

Easier for man and beast.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: