[useless wall of text removed]
Although I wonder why I bother with a defender of Lord Monckton..
And no, the fact that you want to avoid now the fact that you defended him when the evidence is clear that he misrepresent scientists is telling.
Yes, and as pointed out before the evidence shows that your falsification is not likely at all.
As the science was linked in the cite, what you offer here is no counter point whatsoever.
Uh hu,
Not a proud moment for an apologist of Monckton.
As this thread is still about easily understood statements, the channel of the Climate Crock of the week was already mentioned, but it is recommended also to the OP and others doubtful of this to go check Peter Hadfield’s Potholer54 channel, fun also for the ones looking to roast creationists too. (Yep, science writers also see a commonality of anti-science tactics from those groups)
One of the most related to the OP’s articles:
I wonder why I bother with a defender of Al Gore.
Of course the fact is that I have never defended Monkton. Once again, Gigobuster is being blatantly dishonest in his representation of me. Once again I ask him to quite wher I said such a thing. And once again he won’t do so.
So I ask Gigobuster simple question, and he weasels away from answering.
What does this tell us, people?
This is one of the many reasons why it’s impossible to actually debate alarmists. They refuse to actually engage in any sort of argument or state clearly what they mean. In GIGObuster’s case, all he can do is spam Alarmist websites.
Honestly GIGObuster. I am asking these questions one more time. If you still refuse to answer, I’m through with you. I’ll leave the peanut gallery to decide who won this debate. If you are not willing to engage me on the science or even answer questions to clarify your position, this can;t go anywhere except the usual GIGObuster Spamfest.
So for the final time, the issues oyu have repeatedly been unable to address:
Your claim that the temperature has been stable for the past 2, 000 years with an unprecedented recent upswing, and the contradiction of that in the recent peer reviewed literature?
Your claim that “unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.” Are you now admitting that natural processes are a good explanation for the current increase in warming?
If, after all that time, we still can’t explain “why are temperatures at night increasing faster than at daytime”? Do you think that we would still have to accept AGW, because the alternatives explanations can’t explain that observation?
3 very basic questions Gigobuster. Questions that I have asked multiple times. Issues that go to the heart of your argument and the science that underlies it. I don’t think it has escaped anyone’s notice that you utterly refused to address these questions, despite me asking multiple times.
This is your final chance. I am asking you one last time to address those issues that are at the heart of your argument. If you do not do so then I am simply going to dismiss you. there’s no point debating someone who refuses to engage with the science or clarify their position, and anyway I feel confident that I can leave the lurkers to make up their own mind on who won this debate and where the truth lies on global warming alarmism.
There is Global Climate Change. Which is a good thing, humans may not have evolved without it. It is silly to think humans have no effect on the global climate. We have had a tremendous impact on the landscape, seascape, and skyscape. It would be miraculous if that did not affect the climate. The rest of it is a lot of guesses. Climatologists are just overblown weather forecasters, who will be dead before their predictions can be proven or disproven.
Not defended here, I’m afraid you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for unwitty retorts.
[QUOTE]
Bolded to show where, and no, anyone that sees even one video and still says that Monkton does not misrepresent scientists is really not serious at all.
Give them enough rope…
That you can not check links and cites, I cited the science and why there is no good natural explanation for the nights heating faster other than warming due to recently added CO2 in the atmosphere.
And it is me who already dismissed you as irresponsible for thinking Monckton does not misrepresent what the scientists say, so, too late.
Here we go again, the debate against “generic denier” from “alarmist-in-chief”; you’re now countering absolutely imaginary cites.
Why could I “still say with a straight face”? That I’d love to sound pompous and dismissive of fools like Monkty does?
He might be abso-bloody-lutely wrong on every thing he says, but I was commenting on tone, accent and demeanour.
Peanut gallery means heckling the performer and, wait for it, wait for it, it’s your show.
Also, I get to define what I want as to who the performer is, or is there a skepticalscience link for that too? Or “generic activist on youtube” link?
So you defend his trolling, interesting.
Not really, as mentioned before I go for what Peter Hadfiel says:
As cited already, Peter Hadfield is not a generic activist, so there you go again ignoring cites.
OK, that’s it. Gigobuster is unable to engage with the science, and he refsues to clarify his position. I’m no longer going to enegage with hi him. No, I can’t engage with him. He refuses to engage. All he doe sis weasel away from his own statements, post alarmist spam and introduce red herrings to avoid the problems with AGW that he simply cannot address.
Like I said Gigobuster, when you are engaged on the science and can’t simply find Alarmist websites to spam in response to questions, you just can’t perform. This sort of ignorance and misrepresentation of the science and scientistic cheerleading is the norm for global warming alarmists. I;m just glad to see it displayed so openly in this thread. It makes it so much easier to refer back to it in future.
I’ll leave it to others to decide who won this debate, and where the truth lies on the issue of global warming.
I think the answer is pretty obvious.
As it is very important to educate others, we should have a conversation with the real stars of the show, the scientists.
Just replace Australia with the USA and what they say here applies for virtually all climate scientists in the USA.
Tell yourself that Blake, No worries over here from me, you are only having a beef with a bloke on the internet that is really just a messenger and is learning also. Your beef should be with the climate scientists.
Gee, a post from Gigobuster consisting of nothing but spam from an alarmist website.
Well, I guess we’re all convinced now. 
Guess he forgot to scroll down:
… Followed by dozens more scientists that in Blake’s world are alarmists.
Better go back to apologizing for Monckton.
Gee, a post from Gigobuster consisting of nothing but spam from an alarmist website.
Now with added “science by consensus”.
Well, I guess we’re all doubly convinced now.
Where on Amenothep’s minivan did I mention anything other than his tone. I like his completely anachronistic tone of voice and self-importance. Of course, in GIgoland this means I want to have his children.
Please, please, respond by saying that wikipedia is a warmist site and link to skepticalscience.
If there is no point in disagreeing with him, I’m sure there is no point in agreeing with him. He has, and I’m looking only at the cite you yourself posted, no opinion.
Since you brought Petey to the party you have to vouch for him. I was talking about greenman3610.
BTW, if anybody wants to actually *debate *this subject, I’m up for it. And by debate I mean actually present arguments, rather than just posting Spam and claiming that the argument and answers to all questions are hidden in there somewhere.
Meh,
Lets he make those papers for no one..
I recommend the OP and others to also check NASA’s site on climate.
And apparently NASA is spam to Blake, not that I’m surprised.
I would like to hear what you think is going on, instead of just responding to GIGO. I’d love to debate you, but I think we’re on the same side. IMHO, we just don’t know exactly what’s going on.
What is important is that you check what he really is, why do you think he is not be commended?
Reading comprehension trouble, I’m not dealing with the peanut gallery but what Hadfield did say.
And educated opinion is the best one, demanding then that that I should have a different one from the ones that I choose to cite is really silly.
As it is the subject of the thread, the only item it is needed here is just to check what NASA and other science places report and the information they provide to educate others, accusing them of being alarmists is not helpful.
I didn’t accuse anyone of being an alarmist in this thread. There are alarmists out there, and there is, as always, bad science as well. Blake has been pointing out the ways that the findings do not lead to the conclusions you claim, and I think some of the scientists claim. But IMHO, where there is fact, there is logic, and I don’t see it here. Read my earlier post. There is no doubt that humans affect the global climate. So do cows. So do termites. So what? If you have some real science instead of ‘scientists’ taking political action, you can cite it, and I’ll read it.
Well, you have to take into account that besides attempting to deny what he said about Monckton he raised the accusation of me using Alarmist sites or scientists twice before I said anything about any denialist cites from him.
But getting to the subject, of course Nature is affecting the climate, the problem is that the excess CO2 released by humans is affecting the balance of the CO2 that was there in nature before.