re: #199 Bagua

Calling me “a cretin” is not a sensible argument. It is impossible to have a civilised debate with you for this reason. On a prior thread you called me an A-hole twice in one sentence and have not retracted that either. I can not debate with someone who displays the worst of adolescent behaviour.

I am calling you out here Ludwig for you poor behaviour, not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, yes, I agree we can be “certain” of that. As I said in that prior thread, there was a sliding scale of degrees of certainty, something the IPCC has clearly stated in thier “Uncertainty Guidance Note” which they include with the Fourth Assessment Report. However, I find it impossible to debate this point of science with you as you are so fond of gutter talk,

Ahh great, and here we have backing up Bagua in the Bagua two step.

look, here it is really plain. If you read what I wrote without the bias you have up your ass about me, you would notice that I give ranges and errors and say we don’t know when we don’t know.

Youw ould also notice that there are some things we do know. Like CO2 is a GHG and there is an ice feedback and that there is a huge amount of methane released by the bogs.

These are certain facts Bagua, and that is what I was writing about.

Yet you came along and made a bruhaahhaa about us not being certain of them.

That makes you disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. I don’t care for you games or your passive aggressive BS anymore. I stopped caring ages ago.

So I ask that you consider that in science, there really are some things that we know, and stop writing about how your scientist friends scoff at certainties.

If you accurately report what I say, then indeed we are talking about certainties.

If you are misreporting it, like you do here all the time, and mischaracterizing it like you do here all the time, it only does you disservice.