*sigh*
The post that RomanM here is referring to is this one. He makes a very specific claim in regards to Steve McIntyre that I am, “accusing him of being paid to operate his blog for the purpose of undermining public confidence in the work of climate scientists.” If RomanM would take the time to actually read it, he would see I make no specific claim. I honestly think Steve operates his blog of his own volition and has complete editorial control over the content in it. I do not believe for a second that he is taking money from anyone to do so. What I do believe though is that Steve has vested interests given his work history and close associations with mining companies and that he is doing his best to protect those interests. The way he operates his blog and the posts he makes are designed to undermine confidence in climate science. After all, that’s how he attracts the rampant deniers he does.
What I do object to is the veiled legal threats that idiots throw up in an attempt to scare people. “slandered”, “defaming his character”. Oh please! Harden up Princess. I’m sure Steve McIntyre is a big boy with pretty thick skin, and if I had actually said what RomanM is saying I did, he has probably heard worse. I know I certainly have, and some of that has come from his sycophantic supporters. I’ve been called sleazy and venomous for example. That said, RomanM should probably have a look at this post of Steve’s. On reading that, he will realise that if Steve has a problem with my post, he will contact me himself.
Finally “a ban on spreading my venom”. Banning freedom of speech simply because you don’t like what you hear is juvenile. Grow up.
After spending a few thousand hours studying this controversy I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s no such thing as a competent and honest advocate of CACC. Might I ask your name, Mr. youknowIspeaknonsense?
–AGF
After spending a few thousand hours myself studying the mentality of deniers, I’ve come to the conclusion that those who feel the need to muck around with my pseudonym probably don’t have anything of value to say.
agfosterjr says:
May 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Greetings, Tallbloke, and thankyou for your attention. What immediately caught my attention here was your remark on the displacement of the sun from the barycenter–two solar diameters, I think–representing two million miles. I had never before considered variable earth-sun distance as affected by solar-barycenter displacement as a climate/weather driver. And I have never seen a graph of true earth-sun distance over time, taking into account the displacement. Maybe this just shows what a novice I am, but could you direct me to such a graph? Regards, –AGF
you seem to want to believe anything except atmospheric physics
And you think you can make a case for CACC through atmospheric physics? A few years back when the urban night light study was put out for public consumption I had no idea that it was pure obfuscation, intended to deflect our attention from the true nature of urban warming. I used to think James Hansen was just an idiot. Now I have little doubt that he is a liar, or just a senile puppet. Anyone who repeats Hansen’s radical rhetoric is scientifically bankrupt.
BTW, I recently learned I can’t win an argument at Climate Crocks: if you make them look stupid they just censor the posts. That’s how most of these sites our. I doubt you are any different. –AGF
With all due respect, as long as you follow the rules to my blog I won’t censor you. It’s pretty straight forward. I am also waiting for to add something of substance. All I have seen so far is drivel with no scientific basis at all other than your personal opinion of what you consider to be science. If you have a problem with what Hansen is saying, highlight which parts of his science you disagree with, and then explain why you disagree with it. It might also help to add some references to back up what you say.
Also, based on what I’ve seen so far, I very much doubt you have made Peter Sinclair look stupid.
Shall we talk about sea level hysteria? You and Sinclair seem to think Hansen knows what he’s talking about. Here’s a question for you: over what percentage of the coasts is sea level dropping? I don’t know the answer–I would guess about 30%. The point being, sea level rise is so miniscule that over a large fraction of the coasts it is dwarfed by geological processes. In ranking contributors to coastal threats sea volume comes in dead last, after tides, hurricanes, tsunamis, fluid depletion (oil, gas, water), sediment diversion, etc. Attempts to link CO2 to coast control are hopelessly unscientific, especially if you try to link hurricane trends to GHG’s. Take that for starters. –AGF
What insane logic you possess,
agfosterjr ” The height of sea level is not as important as the height of tides in ranking contributors to coastal threats”
effectively this is the same as saying that the global warming threat is less important than heatwaves, droughts and wildfires
.
I need a coffee .
.
AGF – One thing you are going to have learn very quickly here is that if you pose a series of questions in asingle post I will deal with only one at a time. You have asked, “over what percentage of the coasts is sea level dropping? I don’t know the answer–I would guess about 30%.”
Here is a map. You can scroll in and scroll out. Feel free to work out a percentage from that. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Here’s a paper too. http://www.ocean-sci.net/6/179/2010/os-6-179-2010.pdf
And of course, the relationship of global warming and sea level rise,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622103833.htm