It takes the better part of a month, but he’ll do it eventually.
I recommend that you go back, do a search, and re-read all the prior threads on the subject before you start shooting your mouth off about this ‘ad hominem’ bullcrap again. [And note the forum this thread is in, too.] You might also want to make a clear distinction between a skeptic and a denier, if you have the intellectual honesty to do so (which I doubt). And go see a shrink about your projection complex while you’re at it.
Actually the link to the video has the sources that support it, it is a very good reply to what he is saying, but it seems that you are reverting to the old “I do not like the answer” so well spend a month ignoring the citations that were in the end a proper and quick answer.
Pardon? I was replying to brazil84 stating that he no longer engages with you because of your “persistent failure to respond to reasonable questions”. He’s asked you no questions here – yes, presumably because he anticipates you’d fail to respond, but you’re glossing over that he’s not asking you a question at this point.
Allow me to rephrase, if it helps: I’m sticking up for you by saying that – if brazil84 ever decides to ask you a question – he shouldn’t assume you won’t respond; I’ve never seen you take longer than a matter of weeks of hemming and hawing before supplying the requested answer.
(And I’m certainly not going to spend a month ignoring the citations; why would I? I adore your all-new all-different benchmark; it was worth the wait.)
I usually only give people a couple chances before disengaging.
Can’t say I blame you.
And here I go for the Feynman example, Feynman looked at the letters or cites to check if there were any 10:20:30 Items in it and then it would be safe to ignore, sure enough this was already dealt with, even on the video linked early by the Professor talking about the tree of science metaphor: the professor does make the point that the Himalayan glacier issue was not an error that affected the science at all, for an article that deals with confirmation bias he trows it up with gusto (and he is ignoring that most of the items were corrected, once again, the bad twigs are removed, the tree stands)
It is when noticing those basic errors of ignoring what was done with the issue and continue to talking about it like if nothing was done to correct them that then one looks at how reliable this writer is, as it turns out not very.
Lets be clear here Waldo, Brazil84 does not ever acknowledges any contradictory information, you are hundreds of times better than he is.
First some hard science data:
Greenhouse gases rise by record amount
“The world pumped about 564m more tons (512m metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries, China, the US and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.”
And then some sociology:
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
“Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults.” [my emphasis]
Never is a very long time-good luck with that.
Now, lets be fair, it’s not just white conservatives, black conservatives swallow the propaganda of the deniers also.
[His problem is that:]
[A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm)
[/QUOTE]
And this was established several times even before the BEST results were revealed showing that the accusations claiming that the scientists misinterpreted , or worse, faked the data, were false accusations.
And this is one of the leading candidates for the Republicans!
One would think that this would disqualify him in the eyes of many and lead to less support, but this is not the past were corporations were limited on their political efforts, thanks to the idiotic recent decision of the supreme court people like the Koch brothers via outfits like Americans for Prosperity have the organization and funding that in the past would had stopped a less able candidate, many critics did point out how feeble Cain’s efforts in the primary states are, but they are forgetting about groups like AFP that have the organization ready, so if in the past we heard about astroturf movements, get ready for an astroturf presidential run as the oil and coal men will support a candidate that is saying what they want, and will do what they want in the form of inaction regarding regulations of carbon emissions.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142006513/cain-has-long-ties-to-koch-brothers-linked-group?ft=1&f=1014
You may be cutting off that quote right before the most interesting part.
“Results showed, for instance, that 29.6 percent of conservative white males believe the effects of global warming will never happen, versus 7.4 percent of other adults. In holding for “confident” conservative white males, the study showed 48.4 percent believe global warming won’t happen, versus 8.6 percent of other adults.”
So I take it you concede that the Kyoto Protocols have failed to accomplish anything?
If the warmistas are simply predicting that global surface temperatures will go up a lot some time in the next 10 billion years, they need to make it clear.
If you had bothered to go and actually read the cite (which in your smug assurance you obviously did not), you might have noticed this little tidbit:
“But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels. The US did not ratify the agreement.”
So, then, you are in favor of the US and other industrialized countries signing off on Kyoto? 
Of course I didn’t read the article. Why should I? I accept your claim that greenhouse gas emissions are up.
(my bolding). So what?
No, of course not. Why should I be?
Yep, brazil84 is a proud member of the coward brigade.
Future solutions will be implemented then by the ones he and others are maligning now.
You also intentionally ask questions that are designed to provoke, and then use the fact that people get upset as a reason not to reply. And then you rub it in their faces repeatedly, just as you did in this thread.
And remember, if you reply to me, you’re breaking your own rules. You can’t engage with me because I engaged in an ad hominem attack. Despite the fact that you did so in this very thread.
That’s not true. My questions are either to make a point or to get clarification of a person’s position or both. It’s true that people sometimes get upset at my questioning, but I think it’s more a result of their own cognitive dissonance from being forced to confront a hole in their argument.
Please identify the poster and the numbers of two posts in this thread where I rubbed “it in their faces.”
As best I can recall, I don’t have a rule against ad homenim attacks per se. I do have a rule about personal insults:
Can you show me where I did so?
Ah, brazil’s rules from his blog, a blog that is just catching cobwebs BTW.
As pointed on other threads, he is incapable of looking at the evidence of the water vapor feedback and how idiotic his arguments are against using models in science, he is just a nowhere man as pointed before, being mostly useless as time passes by.
Can you provide a reference for these basic thermodynamic calculations? As far as I know, thermodynamics predicts modest warming. Dangerous warming is predicted only by computer simulations which have not been subjected to (and passed) bona fide tests.