AK, go back to the Curry Cult worship site and continue to pathetically genuflect to the goddess who rules you. You people could teach John Hinckley a lesson about twisted obsessions.

You remind me of a little kid on a playground calling names. What are you going to do next, threaten to beat the cr*p out of me?

P.S. You’re too easy. Why don’t you either shut your fingers up or spend some time on a little research?

Of course, some bright light bulbs might want to use it to predict some of the human consequences that will result from global warming.

That should make it a bit easier to identify him.

It is proven. […] It is proven. […] That is a lie.

I know a biblical literalist who assures me the first two chapters of Genesis are both literally true, despite the obvious contradiction between them. Your use of the word “proven” reminds me of her use of “literally”. I’ve actually examined these issues, and while I would agree with the real scientists who say there’s a high probability of it, there are serious holes in all these “proofs”. (Especially the one about humans causing the high CO2 levels.) The science isn’t settled, and any scientist who says otherwise is either lying or an ignorant fool. (But most of them are practicing Marxist pseudo-science, IMO.)

You say this to everyone who disagrees with you, don’t you?

No, but when they’re (you’re) clearly wearing ideological blinders, I might as well point that fact out. (Not that I expect it to do any good, but who knows?)

Fairy tales. Do you really think the global climate science community is at this level of conversation?

Doubtful. But it might help to remind people here, who don’t seem to know the difference between correlation and causation.

@TTT:

Everything you say in your post is a good example of dialectic, in the Marxist tradition.

…you’ll continue slandering other highly experienced researchers with your lies about international criminal Marxist conspiracies.

I never called it “criminal”, that’s your word. Although there are parts of the behavior I’m aware of that IMO should be.

There is probably perfect overlap between the Curry Cultists and the victims of Gore Derangement Syndrome. They all view science as a completely ego- and personality-driven pursuit, with evidence being far less important than popularity. I’d compare them to a pack of 6th-grade meangirls, but it would be an undeserved insult to meangirls.

This is the sheerest nonsense, as anybody who’s actually followed Professor Curry’s website knows. You simply show your abysmal ignorance by saying it.

…you’ll continue slandering other highly experienced researchers with your lies about international criminal Marxist conspiracies.

There is probably perfect overlap between the Curry Cultists and the victims of Gore Derangement Syndrome. They all view science as a completely ego- and personality-driven pursuit, with evidence being far less important than popularity. I’d compare them to a pack of 6th-grade meangirls, but it would be an undeserved insult to meangirls.

It is proven.

and also responsible for the temperature going up (if it is, this isn’t proven

It is proven.

this isn’t proven and probably can’t be due to lack of info)

That is a lie.

The conspiracy is there, and obvious to anybody not wearing their (your) own ideological blinders.

You say this to everyone who disagrees with you, don’t you?

Should be “Correlation <> Causation”

Fairy tales. Do you really think the global climate science community is at this level of conversation?

Should be “Correlation <> Causation”

Purveyors of the “global-warming-is-a-socialist-conspiracy” are clearly addled morons.

Argue the facts, not your stupid and nonsensical conspiracy theories.

– CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by human activity
– CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is going up
– CO2 traps heat
– the temperature of the planet is going up

Facts.

“Correlation <> Causation” – Basic scientific principle.

And even if increased CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity (unproven, and even if it is it’s more likely, IMO, to be due to deforestation than fossil carbon burning), and also responsible for the temperature going up (if it is, this isn’t proven and probably can’t be due to lack of info), that doesn’t mean there isn’t a “socialist-conspiracy” to take advantage of the reaction for ideological purposes.

The conspiracy is there, and obvious to anybody not wearing their (your) own ideological blinders. So is the widespread use of Marxist psuedo-science (a la Lysenko), including dialectical lies, intellectual hooliganism, and explicit conspiracies to prevent contrary science from being published. Dialectic materialism has no more place in science (e.g. climate science) than dialectical creationism (e.g. “Intelligent Design”).

When Judith Curry is treated with the respect a highly experienced researcher is entitled to, rather than the intellectual hooliganism found at “Real” Climate and other pseudo-scientific sites, then perhaps you’ll be justified in your statements. Until then, you just demonstrate your ignorance.