As far as the name goes, it’s not that I do not like my name (and, BTW, yours is just fine, IMO), just that I do not want it used here on the blog, particularly in the way meatbrain was using it, just to be annoying. But, I do appreciate the sentiment.

Teach, I’m not going to use it, since it obviously bothers you, but I think I actually like your real name better than William Teach. It’s better than mine: Jason Leggett. -blegh-

No, Holocaust deniers are in a special category all by themselves which is why I have no problem toning down the rhetoric and making it clear that I was not comparing him to one. When it comes to AGW Teach is uninformed, not delusional.

The irony of the fact that he lumps everyone who disagrees with him about AGW together as “climahysterics” is probably lost on him but Oh well…

By the way, in case you haven’t figured it out from the name clearly posted before the comment, I’m the one who said “I’m perfectly willing to change my mind when I am presented with better evidence…” not Teach.

Oh, puh-leeeze. It denies the facts. It is a denier. Kindly refuse to let it pull a guilt trip on you.

No, but I would appreciate an answer to my earlier questions:

1. How is this article relevant? You state yourself the dispute is not whether the earth is warming but why.

2. Do you know of a study that supports your argument that the output from the Sun has changed significantly enough to account for the recent warming trend?

3. Why do you acknowledge methane’s effect but not CO2’s?

The use of Deniers and Skeptics is meant to be on par with those who do not believe in the the Holocaust.

I honestly never thought of it that way, Teach. I would never compare someone who disagrees with the evidence supporting AGW with a holocaust denier. Those who do it are wrong and I hope I didn’t offend you. I won’t use that term again.

The facts, such as they are, are, at best, skewed and unreliable, at worse, falsified.

I’m willing to consider whatever facts or scientific organizations you deem reliable. Just cite something…anything…not just more unsupported assertions (often demonstrably false ones).

AGW is reliant on computer models which tend to ignore natural processes

Computer models do consider natural processes. They are an integral part of them. You may disagree with their conclusions but natural processes have not been ignored. Just look at the Table of Contents on page 590 of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

The fact that you can make such demonstrably false statements seriously damages your credibility on this topic, Teach.

Notice how methane is rarely ever mentioned?

Not true. It is mentioned throughout the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. There’s even an entire section dedicated to it in Chapter 2 of the Working Group I report (Atmospheric Methane, page 140). I’ll even link you to it:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Again, this is easily shown to be false. Not only are you mistaken about this but the fact that you acknowledge methane and ignore CO2 is mystifying.

Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO CONNECT ME TO MY OWN LIES AND DISHONESTY!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

Absolutely hilarious. It doesn’t have the guts to own its own arguments. I think that tells us all we need to know about it.

And, yeah, I do call those who believe in AGW names, in particular, Climahysterics. Those of us who do not believe are called far worse. The use of Deniers and Skeptics is meant to be on par with those who do not believe in the the Holocaust. Interestingly, the majority of people who believe in AGW are liberals, who also think Ahmadinejad is better then Bush, despite him being a Holocaust denier.

ANd there is a reason I call you climahysterics. The majority of you folks yammer on and on about how bad it is, yet, that is about as far as it goes. Like most liberal beliefs, it is always someone else who must sacrifice. Most are not giving up their gas burning SUVs and minivans, unplugging all their appliances when done with them, giving up their plasma and lcd tv’s (they are now considered bad for climate change,) and really doing nothing, other then maybe changing over to a CFL or 2, which are much worse, considering the mercury in them.

AGW is similar to Scientology. The facts, such as they are, are, at best, skewed and unreliable, at worse, falsified. AGW is reliant on computer models which tend to ignore natural processes such as the Sun, water vapor, La Nina and El Nino, and volcano’s. It tends to focus on what could happen 50-100 years from now, reminding me more of Madame Zelda at the carnival rather then people who are using the scientific method. Hell, I believe in Darwinism more then AGW. So many of the people who lead in the AGW crowd have something to gain from pushing it. Of course, Scientology does have one difference: they practice what they preach. I might have continued to believe in the whole AGW thing if the people pushing and believing it practiced what THEY believed.

Notice how methane is rarely ever mentioned? I wonder why? Could it be because it is not a sexy gas, and wouldn’t help the narrative?

And meatbrain, if your attempt at continuously using my real name is meant to be assholish, you have succeeded. Do it again, and you are out of here. This is not a free speech zone. I pay for it. If I wanted to use it, I would use it for my author name. You are just doing it like that to be offensive. One and only warning.

Porter Good is not a skeptic; he is a denier. What he posted was not ignored. Instead, several people tried to explain to Porter why the conclusions he drew from the UIUC report were not supported by the data. He did not “virtually” ignore this information, he ignored it in its totality.

His statement above can be read as a tacit admission that he does, in fact, ignore what he is told. The wingnut does not see discussions of this nature as an honest exchange of information and views; he sees them merely as an excuse to play a game of tit-for-tat.

Note also that Porter Good has put the lie to his claim that “[he is] perfectly willing to change [his] mind when [he is] presented with better evidence or it can be shown [he is] mistaken about the evidence.” Clearly, he is willing neither to change his mind, nor even to consider any evidence other than that which he has cherry-picked.

“It is not up to me to prove that Man is not the primary or sole cause of global warming: it is up to the Believers (who barely, if at all, practice what they preach) to prove that Man is the primary or sole cause, ignoring billions of years of evidence.”

Porter Good moves the goalposts. No one has asked him to “prove that Man is not the primary or sole cause of global warming”. Apparently, though, it is too much to ask Porter to even read the data that those of us who disagree with him have cited.