re: #102 Cato the Elder

So why did you try to engage me in a bullshit discussion of what I meant, bullshitter?

Because apparently meaningless phrases might have meaning I don’t understand. I figured you wouldn’t actually be able to explain it, but I thought I’d give you the opportunity.

Perhaps it’s because I don’t believe “climatology” is evolved enough as a science for the 99% percent (again, I call bullshit on that number, but whatever) to actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to making predictions. Their record with ice ages hasn’t been so good, so I’m withholding judgment.

What are you talking about with their record for ice ages?

The basic science for AGW— Co2s action in the atmosphere— has been known since before the turn of the century.

We have been putting out enormous amounts of CO2. That’s simply a fact.

So, the very, very simplest of all examinations of the science would show, if you’re putting more CO2 into an atmosphere, you will have warming.

That’s AGW in a nutshell. All the observations and all of the data also shows them to be right.

I had thought you rather smarter than to think you were smarter than scientists who dedicate their lives to a subject.

This is one of the problems with education in this country: Why bother to study and get a PhD in climatology, if random dudes on the internet feel they have the authority to dismiss your entire field?

Thank god they do, in spite of ignorant dismissal by many.