Hey, alarmists...

[RW]

Oh God.  I just read his position on a lot of things including global warming.  *groan*

[Bricktop]

I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

I didn't watch that one.  Does HE address the energy equation?  I don't want to waste another half hour listening to a bunch more ridiculous crap that doesn't even bother to address the key concern.

Put another way, you will follow the dogma of alarmists, because the evidence they present is "incontrovertible".

[Romero]

You make a good point.



Would you please identify your qualifications and credentials to the audience.

Alright everyone, every time Spec makes a point from now on we should demand that he identifies his qualifications and credentials.

I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

Hilarious! You're the one wanting to focus on one tree yet you'll ignore major organizations such as NASA, NOAA, the WMO...

[RW]

Your Nobel laureate has written no papers on the issue - nothing published or peer reviewed.  Reel picked his arguments apart noting the same issues with what you seem to think is a scientific argument.

[Bricktop]

How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

Because it will manifest itself and will likely do so in a way that is not favourable to our economy and food production.

You ommitted an important phrase. "In your opinion".



There's that word "likely" again. Where have I seen that before?

[reel]

Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.

Put another way, I don't need scientific credentials to understand the basic premise of the energy equation.



Can you refute it?

[reel]

I see you alarmists are ignoring the former leader of Greenpeace, and his take on global warming.



It seems that you want to focus on the trees, but ignore the forest.

I didn't watch that one.  Does HE address the energy equation?  I don't want to waste another half hour listening to a bunch more ridiculous crap that doesn't even bother to address the key concern.

Put another way, you will follow the dogma of alarmists, because the evidence they present is "incontrovertible".

No.  I'm following a basic energy equation.  Prove me wrong.  Can you?

[reel]

How that energy manifests itself is not really what's important.

Then why are we concerned with it?

Because it will manifest itself and will likely do so in a way that is not favourable to our economy and food production.

You ommitted an important phrase. "In your opinion".



There's that word "likely" again. Where have I seen that before?

No.  It's not my opinion.  The energy is there.  I don't know what it will do.  Nor does anyone else.  But it is there and more is being retained.



Prove that it is not so.

[Bricktop]

Your Nobel laureate has written no papers on the issue - nothing published or peer reviewed.  Reel picked his arguments apart noting the same issues with what you seem to think is a scientific argument.

*sigh*...



He gave a PRESENTATION to his peers. Recorded for distribution. He was speaking to a room full of Nobel Laureates!!!



And that's NOT "peer review"? You are being pedantic. You are simply following alarmist protocol "THE FACT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE". You do not WANT to accept a contradictory viewpoint. That is the point and issue here. I am not a scientist. I cannot review his conclusions, but you alarmists go straight into DENIAL when any rebuttal is raised. See the problem here?



In order for Reel to pick his arguments, he must be a peer. So far, the best I have is he studied the physics of thermodynamics in high school.

[Bricktop]

Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.

Put another way, I don't need scientific credentials to understand the basic premise of the energy equation.



Can you refute it?

I don't have to. Ivar Giaever did.

[Bricktop]

No.  It's not my opinion.

Then kindly cite the references upon which you base that statement.

[reel]

Your Nobel laureate has written no papers on the issue - nothing published or peer reviewed.  Reel picked his arguments apart noting the same issues with what you seem to think is a scientific argument.

*sigh*...



He gave a PRESENTATION to his peers. Recorded for distribution. He was speaking to a room full of Nobel Laureates!!!



And that's NOT "peer review"? You are being pedantic. You are simply following alarmist protocol "THE FACT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE". You do not WANT to accept a contradictory viewpoint. That is the point and issue here. I am not a scientist. I cannot review his conclusions, but you alarmists go straight into DENIAL when any rebuttal is raised. See the problem here?



In order for Reel to pick his arguments, he must be a peer. So far, the best I have is he studied the physics of thermodynamics in high school.

You don't seem to be able to address what I'm saying.  That has nothing to do with my qualifications.  You simply are not capable of addressing how I have refuted his argument.  Show me that we are not increasing the amount of energy in the climatic system or that it doesn't matter that we are.



Your Nobel Laureate didn't, so he missed the mark.

[RW]

Once again, READ what it means to peer review so you can quit embarrassing yourself.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review



Your laureate said he doesn't publish his work in his own speech!



 

[reel]

Put another way, you do not have any scientific credentials, yet you feel justified in using your high school level knowledge to rebut the views and opinions of a Nobel Laureate. A renown physicist.



How about the former Greenpeace leader? You are silent on his dissertation.

Put another way, I don't need scientific credentials to understand the basic premise of the energy equation.



Can you refute it?

I don't have to. Ivar Giaever did.

Uh, no.  He didn't.

[reel]

No.  It's not my opinion.

Then kindly cite the references upon which you base that statement.

I gave you the layout.  Prove it wrong.  Why should I give you references when it is not necessary to do so?  The energy equation is very straightforward.