re: #291 Salamantis

As do I.

Sal,

Three substantive differences:

1. I read the evidence that others bring me and I instantly admit it if I am proven wrong. Have you ever looked at the multiple links I have given you on what is wrong with assuming that IPCC is only as bad as it will get, that would also put your Bristol paper into question? I gave you four last night.

2. You do not know how big an issue AGW is. You have no clue really. You are not in the field. You are not a scientist. You don’t read the papers and you don’t know enough mathematics to really understand the papers even if you did read them. Do not go writing that you KNOW anything at all about it.

3. When someone who is actually in science explains to you over and over again why your analysis is faulty, you rather than look at the arguments presented or the numerous links given, continue to spout the same stuff ad nauseam. It is more about dick waving at that point than being factually correct.

I fully accept that you are very smart. I am glad that you post here and I generally like your posts. However, I would very much like it if you would just quit the aggressive baiting that you do on this topic and accept that someone who actually is a physicist might, just might, know more than you about this at least enough to have the respect of processing the information he is giving you.