I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Roger Bryant: 
 

Peter,

Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?

Normally, I wouldn't reply to such a piece of abuse. I don't correspond with people who are abusive.

However, it seems worthwhile for me to say where I think the discussion is at.

I previously asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:

You can ask me a hundred questions, or a million questions, about climate science. So what? 

There was a discussion of Karoly and Stott's paper on the warming showing on the CET. They described the CET data. You described the CET data in a manner which seems to be incompatible. I suggested that needed explanation, since you are looking at the exact same data set.

I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.

First, it's not the result that came in question. It is the description of the data. Your comments explaining why you disagree with Karol and Stott's observations about the data made no sense to me. They still don't. I don't see you engaging with that work in any way which is likely to lead to a resolution. 

The issue is this. 

1. 1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.

• 2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.
• 3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.
• 4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?

Your answer to #4 seems to be that it is negligible. There is a 120 year old result that, very far from being negligible, it is a few degrees C°. This has been considerably refined, largely since the 1960's, but has been confirmed as generally accurate. Two climate physicists have just been awarded the Nobel Prize for their contributions to this effort. The Nobel committee considers global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions as “prove[n].” 

In various interchanges you have been unable to come up with any story of your own which contradicts the judgement of the Nobel committee as well as the overwhelming majority of (seriou) climate scientists as to why you think the answer to #4 is negligible. I don't feel inclined to carry on playing forum ring-a-ring-a-roses on this. Either you can come up with such a story or you can't. Given the history so far, I think probably you can't. 

So I don't see the discussion with you progressing. 

Furthermore, you called people such as myself and the majority of climate scientists liars, in your title to this thread. I think that is morally reprehensible. I am rather surprised you haven't been sanctioned by the IET for such comments.

Roger Bryant: 
 

Peter,

Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?

Normally, I wouldn't reply to such a piece of abuse. I don't correspond with people who are abusive.

However, it seems worthwhile for me to say where I think the discussion is at.

I previously asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:

You can ask me a hundred questions, or a million questions, about climate science. So what? 

There was a discussion of Karoly and Stott's paper on the warming showing on the CET. They described the CET data. You described the CET data in a manner which seems to be incompatible. I suggested that needed explanation, since you are looking at the exact same data set.

I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.

First, it's not the result that came in question. It is the description of the data. Your comments explaining why you disagree with Karol and Stott's observations about the data made no sense to me. They still don't. I don't see you engaging with that work in any way which is likely to lead to a resolution. 

The issue is this. 

1. 1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.

• 2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.
• 3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.
• 4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?

Your answer to #4 seems to be that it is negligible. There is a 120 year old result that, very far from being negligible, it is a few degrees C°. This has been considerably refined, largely since the 1960's, but has been confirmed as generally accurate. Two climate physicists have just been awarded the Nobel Prize for their contributions to this effort. The Nobel committee considers global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions as “prove[n].” 

In various interchanges you have been unable to come up with any story of your own which contradicts the judgement of the Nobel committee as well as the overwhelming majority of (seriou) climate scientists as to why you think the answer to #4 is negligible. I don't feel inclined to carry on playing forum ring-a-ring-a-roses on this. Either you can come up with such a story or you can't. Given the history so far, I think probably you can't. 

So I don't see the discussion with you progressing. 

Furthermore, you called people such as myself and the majority of climate scientists liars, in your title to this thread. I think that is morally reprehensible. I am rather surprised you haven't been sanctioned by the IET for such comments.