I wouldn’t normally bother with this sort of thing but I’m bored and in the mood for a bit of light entertainment. On Geoffrey Brown’s official Climate Sceptic Party blog site he posted some of his usual garbage to which I blogged about here. I also posted a response on his blog site and attracted the attention of one of his idiotic followers. The exchange can be found here. Go and look if you like but I’ll pull out the main points below.
My response to Geoffrey’s post was one where I highlighted some important information from a paper he was misrepresenting that directly disputed what he was claiming and suggested that one should read the entire paper rather than just the abstract to get the whole picture. The response came from someone calling themself “moresensethanu” which was clearly a play on the pseudonym I have given myself. My initial thought was, “Okay, this person is obviously pretty childish if they think that’s clever.” So I responded as such.
”Nice wordplay on the monika. A little juvenile but still clever. As for the rest, I prefer to read the entire paper. You should try it sometime. Helps you get the whole picture.”
Uh oh! Did you see it? My spelling mistake? Shocking I know. It was just begging for someone to point it out to me. Fortunately, I wasn’t let down as “moresensethanu” decided to take his juvenility to a new level and make it a good old one-two as he replied….
“mon·i·ker or mon·ick·er. n. Slang. A personal name or nickname.
monika. n. a presidential desk accessory.”
When I read this I thought to myself that since I was clearly dealing with an intellectual lightweight I’d leave it at that and anyone could make what they like of it. I was confident that anyone reading it would agree that this clown clearly had nothing valuable to add. But lo and behold, little did I know that the clown would take my non-reply as a sign that his endless wit and grammatical superiority had made him ever victorious so he then posted the following gem.
“Obviously my moniker (not MONIKA) has moresensethan your moniker. You had no come-back. It is a pity that you have no come-back on the science data. There has not been EVEN ONE paper to show that increased (MAN-MADE) CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming. We can show that the hypothesis has been falsified. Can you produce ANY data that shows CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming? I will pre-empt your answer…. NO!”
Nice little pile of straw here. Let’s break it down. First, the reiteration that I had made a spelling mistake. Good job. He really got me there, but I should thank him for picking me up on it. I can guarantee that I will never make such an appalling mistake with that word again and he is right, I had no comeback to that. On such an important issue as the spelling of a word too. I should probably have devoted at least a couple of minutes to such a devastating blow to my argument.
Next, a pity I have no comeback on the science data? What data? He didn’t present any data? But it beggars the question. Why would I have a come-back to any data on AGW? From what I have read, all the data is supporting the hypothesis that human’s are affecting the climate through our burning of fossil fuels and land use. That’s why I accept it. Perhaps if this clown offered some data that is in direct opposition to the overwhelming evidence for AGW and human-induced climate change I would have something to offer a come-back to?
Next, this business of stating that there is has not “been EVEN ONE paper to show that increased (MAN-MADE) CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming,” and then asking for data that shows it is as silly as it is transparent. No-one is saying that CO2 emissions are doing that. What they are saying is that if we don’t curb CO2 emissions we run the risk of passing tipping points where the positive feedback loops will take over and accelerate global warming. What the eventual endpoint of that scenario isn’t known and there are any number of possibilities ranging from snowball Earth to Venus, both of which are worst case scenarios. The vast majority of climate specialists agree that whatever happens, it is going to be catastrophic for many of the earth’s ecosystems if we don’t do something. What they also acknowledge is that CO2 on its own is not responsible but that it acts as a forcing agent on a number of feedback loops which in turn affect other climate systems. CO2 is only part of the picture. This is typical denier strawman building and everyone knows it….or do they? I’m confident that there are great many deniers who think it is a legitimate question and blindly repeat it through sheer ignorance… not just of what scientists are actually saying but of science in general.
Finally, “we can show that the hypothesis has been falsified.” Really? I must have missed those peer-reviewed papers appearing in reputable journals falsifying the hypothesis supported by 97% of climate experts. This is the point at which deniers like “moresensethanu” start bleating on about peer review being corrupt.
Note: because Geoffrey’s blog doesn’t offer email notification of follow-up comments I have asked “moresensethenu” to come over here and have a chat. I guess time will tell if he’s up for it. I hope so… I’m feeling bored and up for a bit of fun.
sometime later………
It seems Geoffrey has decided to have a dig at me over at his blog after my statement that I wouldn’t be coming back. I guess he thought I wasn’t coming back. Its quite a cowardly and somewhat childish act that. Anyway, below is a screenshot of his childish cowardice as well as my reply. It will be interesting to see if he allows it. Further, I will be informing him of my response over here because I am honest.
What I find amazing is the brazen attitude he displays by throwing up the same strawman question. It seems his recalcitrance knows no bounds.
I noticed that the idiot had put up the summary of the first part of the paper thinking that it was a summary of the whole paper,
I know. That’s part of the reason why I wrote him off, but like I said, I’m bored and in the mood for helping him understand just how stupid he is. He won’t show though and I’m pretty confident he’ll take a swipe at me over at Geoff’s. Time will tell.
I think that you will also find that geoff is lying low after his pat on the back to Heartland for their obnoxious billboard, just about every other scepto blog found it crossed the line, not old geoff, Geoff i believe may be a fundamentalist young earth, end times nut,
This bit obviously was not want nofuckingsense wanted to post
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2 growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase to 1 W/m2 in the next 50 years is plausible.
Indeed, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use declined slightly in 1998 and again in 1999 (71), while the global economy grew. However, achieving the level of emissions needed to slow climate change significantly is likely to require policies that encourage technological developments to accelerate energy efficiency and decarbonization trends.