You've made a number of erroneous assumptions in your above post with regard to current research on climate change. You're still (predictably) following your special methods of research, which I have more than once explained to you are not very effective. Keep it up.

I would like to know how you came to know of Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

"Prove" has one "o". Same goes for lose, just in case. Sorry - just a pet peeve. Ordinarily, I would've let it go, but you seem to be using the word often.

A definitive no regarding climate change. It doesn't even make sense.

A moderate yes regarding terrorism, but that doesn't mean terrorism isn't real.


Again, a definitive no. In fact, quite the opposite.


For the most part, true.

Nothing could be more true.

There is non-fiction, which is a body of facts about the way nature works, and a body of facts about that which has happened.

Follow my advice. I've already given it, but I'll quote it for you again:

Milankovitch cycles are one of the predominant causes of ice ages. And technically, those cycles are currently such that we should be headed into a new ice age (over thousands of years), and yet despite that, we are living in a time of rapid warming, coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age. This rapid warming is occurring at a rate which ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough to, and that results in mass extinctions (microscopic and macroscopic) which in turn results in a lowered productivity of the Earth's natural systems. That means less natural resources. Do not confuse a migration northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) of species to cope as being a simple displacement and change in location of biomass. Existing artificial and natural barriers (human developments, water bodies, mountains, etc.) prevent those migrations.

Please point out where I declared you a fraud. You won't be able to, because I never did. Once again, your statements and methods just fall short of being relevant, in more ways than one.

In a nutshell, your methods of seeking literature that states exactly what you want it to say, and my observations of your nitpicky parsing of words in specific scientific documents (among many thousands), your natural gravitation to according significance to scientists who are quite clearly sellouts to Big Oil, and your statements here in general demonstrate a general lack of effectiveness.

Take the advice I gave you earlier on how to better understand the overwhelming evidence of AGW. It's great advice, and to argue against it only further calls into question the likely success of your endeavors, which frankly, even you have had trouble articulating.

No - your way is biting off more than you can chew. You simply don't have the time, resources, talent, knowledge, or expertise to apply your method.

As for my method being the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about - that's simply not true. If anything, my methods clearly expose the fraud behind the material cited behind those who deny AGW.

Have you so quickly forgotten our discussion about the efficacy of your methods? Given the running history of your methods and errors in this thread, I don't have any confidence in your techniques. I'll quote my earlier summary below:

Wow. After all that, I still don't think that's a very effective method at all. It's too much work, which likely means you won't achieve your goal. It requires too much knowledge on the subject, which you're unlikely to ever possess. It appears to almost have an agenda (which is bias). It requires you to have a deep discussion with an expert, which you're unlikely to have, and then that calls into question who you chose to have said discussion with.

Honestly, for all your efforts, you're not going to achieve a good answer.

Here's a better way. Learn about the different ways climate change is being studied by reading mainstream articles written in science magazines. Take note of how independent methods (i.e ice cores vs. satellite studies vs. temperature measurements) corroborate each other. Learn about the motivations and credentials of those who seem to be constantly arguing against climate change and see how often you can discover any legitimacy and no connection to oil companies with said arguments.

How do you determine who knows what they're talking about?

*sigh*

It's not what the NAP says that is at issue. It's that it doesn't address the ramifications of what happens when those who don't abide by the NAP have more force, resources or money than you. It doesn't provide a solution when a greater majority does not consistently abide by the NAP.

He never explains what force forces one to comply with NAP.

I believe I have characterized you effectively.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

Thank you for the last post. It has made clear to me by reading between the lines that you are politically motivated to doubt AGW. Unfortunately, that puts you squarely into the camp which uses political beliefs to guide how they interpret science.

Frankly, I'm not getting your point at all. Why you're weaving together two separate things in this thread together is beyond me. I think your only point is that you like to parse words.

You asked me what I thought AGW is. I told you what it is by defining where it will lead. Those ecosystem changes are important, but you don't yet understand that. Later, and to the point of it being tiresome, you kept discussing the need to determine if there was a scientific consensus on climate change. Your path to ascertaining this seemed overly sprinkled with some vague agenda of yours and rather long winded to boot. I simply chose to expedite the process for you by providing a link.

Tell me, is there a scientific consensus on Evolution? Will you conclude that there is not such a scientific consensus because you don't find it explicitly published in an IPCC report?

Sadly, (again due to your parsing), you're confusing a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes with a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken.

I'm sorry, but I missed where anyone but you declared a 2k rise by 2099 being a proxy for damage.

I'm not asking you to be burdened with demonstrating that you deserve freedom. I'm asking you to demonstrate how your solution will actually result in freedom.


That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.