Comments GMB has made

  • You Are Just So Pathetic.

    David you are an idiot.

    You are such an idiot and so mindless. Lacking in any intelligence... You are so ideologically minded and your ideas are so lacking in any factual basis,  that you had to bring it down to name-calling.

    What is a Troll David?

    What is a troll?

    What is your definition of a troll?

    So mindless are you you did not realise that it was merely a tax-eaters fascist putdown of anyone who doesn't follow the leftist line.

    That is how stupid you are.

    Now have you got any evidence for catastrophic global warming as opposed to catastrophic global cooling?

    No you haven't.

    Else you would have come up with it ahead of this childish baby-talk name-calling.

    So you are part of this massive scientific fraud.

    And you are too stupid to have an opinion of your own.

    You are a sheep in sheeps clothing.

    A useless dolt.

    A complete drone of a human being.

    But I'll tell you what?

    Why not prove me wrong?

    Why not just stop the name-calling?

    And attempt to debate these matters like a grown-up.

    You think you can do that?

    I don't think you can.

    Because I think you are an idiot.On Ignore them posted 2 years, 11 months ago 21 Responses

  • Still No Evidence Troll?

    So you've got not evidence for your mindless sheep-like behaviour.

    So its down to name-calling now you pathetic gutless little dumb-leftist-bully-by advocate of the status quo mental weakling.

    But thanks for bringing my old stuff up.

    Its all good stuff.

    And a good sermon can stand a second and third repeating.

    I'd reccomend any of the old stuff.

    But its all before I investigated this particular subject.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • Still no evidence Troll?

    So you've got not evidence for your mindless sheep-like behaviour.

    So its down to name-calling now you pathetic gutless little moron.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • You Won't Because You Can't.

    You won't come up with any evidence for catastrophic global warming, because you can't. Because there is no such evidence.

    Those are good shows that you're mindlessly bagging but no doubt somewhat beyond your ken.

    But even the dimmest amongst us (I'm talking to you fella) ought to be able to see a pattern from this relentless argument-from-smugness not buttressed by any real evidence.

    Forget peer review. Its a crap idea.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • ACTIVE OR PASSIVE?

    "I have to question your definition of "biodiversity". You seem to equate it with sheer quantity of biomass."

    No I don't.

    "As Earth's climate warms and becomes more uniform, there will be loss of certain ecosystems."

    You are taking a passive approach here. And a presumptive one. Because its more then likely that mid-century the planet will be cooler even if it heats up again later on.

    "This is especially true today when the rate of climate change,.."

    You might want to check that again. This time see if the data includes ocean air and the Southern Hemisphere and averages out for Antarctica and minuses out any urban heat islands.

    After all that who knows. The rate of change might not be as nasty as you think and will almost definitely come back the other way because it tends to oscillate back and forth.

    "...fragmentation of habitat, and reduced distribution of members of each species reduces the ability of species to shift..."

    Right. I suspect that a lot of this would happen if we froze. Or got warmer. Or stayed the same.

    But more CO2 will make for a more robust natural world independent of the temperature of that planet.

    And therefore will make it easier for us to invest in biodiversity in the active sense. On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • You aint talking to me are you amazingdrx?

    Surely not?

    You being an evidence-free-zone and all?

    Now that would be mindless and hypocritical.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • The Tendency Is There

    "GMB, I can imagine that nitrogen-fixing "plants enrich the soil with nitrogen when growing in a CO2-rich environment", but do you mean to suggest that all plants do? If so, could you please point us to a source for that claim? That would be an important piece of news, indeed."

    The tendency is there. I mean I wouldn't expect every tree or blade of grass to start acting like lupins.

    But on average the tendency is there.
    On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • Rolling Thunder of Error

    Lets go through it one error at a time:

    "CO2 is not a limiting nutrient in majority of cases...."

    Yes it is.

    " which has been shown in several ecosystem based experimental (not modeling) studies...."

    several hand-picked out of several thousand

    "... So in reality, CO2 is not going to get absorbed..."

    Well yes more of it is. Not all of it. We want some left over to help counteract the planetary bias towards catastrophic cooling.

    ".. and as it is being put out from under the ground where it was merrily sequestered for millions of years, the rate at which it is increasing is quite 'unnatural' (I don't really like that word) and definitely unprecedented...."

    And a good thing too.

    ".. And CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', which warms the planet...."

    Well you don't have the data for that. But I think thats probably right and I'm the optimistic sort.

    "You can deny all you want, but it's causing global warming. You do not matter."

    This is what the psychologists call LEFTIST PROJECTION. In fact it is YOU who are the denialist-alarmist. And being as you seem to have a sheep-live disposition your opinion will make no difference one way or another.

    Now the fact is though. You have no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

    Yet there is mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global cooling.

    Deny all you want. But thats the state of the science so far.
    On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • It Aint The Least Bit Dubious.

    No thats not right.

    You see you have to take notice of the effect of CO2 on three things.

    Water, Nitrogen and trace elements.

    Water.

    1. Easier to collect. Because if in the first instance if CO2  does cause SOME warming and therefore extra precipitation it will increase the efficiency of rain. Making water easier to collect for a society with substantial capital goods.

    2. Increases the water-productivity of plants by reducing transpiration.

    Nitrogen...

    Plants tend to enrich the soil with Nitrogen  when growing in a CO2-rich environment.

    3. Trace elements.

    Well of course the agriculturalist will have to replace these. Because he's always creaming the plant matter off. Thats all cut and dried.

    But in the natural environment these trace elements move hither and yon by sheer Serendipity. And are most likely to stay put, at least for the most part, with the rotting of the leaves and the crapping of the animals and such.

    So nature will be more robust for sure. But there is a sort of saturation point where everything is entangled with the other. You won't find a great more productivity coming out of the rainforest for example.

    But it will be easier for the fringes of the high-productivity areas to spread.

    Which will make our job easier should we choose to invest in biodiversity.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • MORE EVIDENCE THAT PEER-REVIEW IS CRAP.

    Yeah. Some peer-reviewed research says that.

    And the research that says this is all bogus.

    Which is a failing commentary on Peer-review.

    I mean it doesn't even have a thing to say about what time-scales we might be looking at to support such a thing.

    And besides that its entirely baseless and without the evidence to support it.

    Without clicking your link I assume you are looking at the Annan study using Bayesian statistics to polish a turd.

    This guy is like Beethoven trying to dress up Mary had a little lamb. He does a great job of it to a point.

    Like trying to dress up bad guitar playing with sophisticated audio engineering.

    Look if the above was actually true in any sort of decadal or century-long time period we would be very fortunate indeed.

    I almost WANT IT to be true.

    But the data just doesn't support it.

    Not unless we are talking about keeping levels high for thousands of years.

    I'll admit the POSSIBILITY of something of that nature.On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 11 months ago 43 Responses

  • IF NOT YOU, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

    "Have you ever heard of the IPCC?  Their reports provide lots of evidence that there is a significant risk of severe climate change."

    No thats not right.

    They provide absolutlely no evidence for Catastrophic global warming.
    >>>>>>>>>

    Yeah great work Dessler.

    Bravo.

    But it aint evidence for catastrophic global warming now is it?

    And if YOU OF ALL PEOPLE cannot come up with any such evidence what does this tell you about the alarmist-denialist movement more generally?

    You should be seeing a pattern forming here.

    Or if not third parties ought to be.On Robert Novak does it on purpose posted 2 years, 11 months ago 8 Responses

  • I Checked You Links Biodiversivist!

    But it just links alarmist-denialists being smug smartasses

    No evidence to be found there.

    No evidence of anything but cultic behaviour.On Every one destined to be 100% correct posted 2 years, 11 months ago 25 Responses

  • Put thy Troll-brand away good sir....

    It burns the flesh. And its only pressed upon those heretical non-persons who will not take non-evidence for an answer when talking to alarmists.

    Now since I've found you out.....

    Have you sir... got any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?

    NO????

    I.... DIDN'T..... THINKSO!!!!On Every one destined to be 100% correct posted 2 years, 11 months ago 25 Responses

  • WHAT IS PRUDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT?

    "So your skeptical about whether CO2 is causing global warming... but if there is any doubt, it seems the responsible conservative thing to do is to reduce our emissions until we know it is safe to return to burning fossil fuel."

    The prudent and conservative thing is to go with either one of two options........ or a compromise between the two if the two relevant tendencies are working against eachother.....

    That is to say prudence can be found in either of the following:

    1. Not imposing costs on anyone and encouraging the maximisation of economic liberty and voluntary capital accumulation.

    2. Setting policy to go against the natural catastrophic-cooling-tendencies of the planet.

    Since to do 1 appears to be in furtherance of 2 also.... It follows that to ascribe to option 1 is THE VERY PATH OF PRUDENCE.

    You see. We have a planet that for a long time now has had a continental layout that favours catastrophic cooling.

    Now were we on this planet 70 million years ago then I would likely be advocating minimisation of government but maximisation of carbon-tax in the funding of that minimal government.

    But this is clearly not the appropriate risk-minimisation strategy now.

    We have to stop thinking of Mother Nature as always right. When in point of fact she's a Nazi-bitch-Goddess.

    Or it might be that she's kind and caring with regards to temperature.

    But having the Antarctic where it is amounts to a design-fault in terms of heat-regulation.

    Or it might be that she likes to play favourites. And that during the last 39 million years its see animals that are her favourite children.

    But either way we have to see her straight. And not as some avenging Yahweh who always punishes us to the seventh generation when we go against her covenants.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • It Would Be Smart And Effective...

    ....On three conditions.

    1. It was a tax-substitution and not a tax increase.

    2. It was only on oil until we had made sufficient progress in our efforts tot substitute away from oil and:

    3. THERE WAS A REASON TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Dude. I appreciate what you are trying to do here. But you can't build a super-structure of reasonableness on top of a scientific fraud.

    This is a planet that for the last 39 million and particularly the last 3 and a half million years has had a bias for catastrophic COOLING not warming.

    And we ought not impose even $1 of costs until we get some evidence that things have swung the other way.

    Which by the way is entirely unlikely.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • It Is Good News

    It is good news because plants respond positively to these higher CO2 levels without ill-effects.

    If we got 10 000 ppm (ie 1%) then thats more ambiguous. Since you can kill insects with that amount and some plants act kind of strange.

    So thats the good news and the bad news ie EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC WARMING is entirely lacking.

    You look like someone whose put in a lot of effort to get out bad news that doesn't happen to be true.

    Why not put out the good news that is?On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • You Got An Argument Their Champ?

    Couldn't find any actual argument beneath the mindless smugness.

    Looks like I'll have to repeat myself to stop you throwing people off  the scent.

    CO2 is good. Gaia eats CO2 and shits life. The planet, with its current configuration of continents has a tendency towards catastrophic cooling. Catastrophic unless we are talking about sea-creature who tend to thrive during glaciations due to the extra oxygen absorption.

    There is no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming and no evidence that we have nearly enough CO2 let alone too much, for the further invigoration of the natural world.

    We could have three or four times as much and we might expect a further invigoration of the natural world and this would make it easier for us to maintain biodiversity.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • Lets See It Then.

    "Even if this were true (flying in the face of all the peer reviewed research), it doesn't change anything."

    Look I assume that CO2 might cause some warming. But you are wrong here to suggest that Peer-reviewed-research shows CO2 leads to significant warming.

    It appears to be too slow and/or feeble to effect things very much at all over time scales we normally worry about. I say this because it barely shows up in the data contrary to your glib claims here.

    And we ought to deep-six this peer-review obsession anyway.

    But do go ahead?

    Do give us some examples of this research that you are talking about.

    It doesn't exist.On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 11 months ago 43 Responses

  • Justify This Statement:

    "The moral of this story, which, perhaps because he has been slapped too often by his good ol' Seattle friends, Jason is himself unwilling to draw, is that animals, as an industry, suppliers of meat, eggs, skin, and so forth, are not at all good for the environment."

    No thats NOT right.

    And you cannot justify this statement unless you first show that this planet is more prone to catastrophic warming then catastrophic cooling.

    Which none of you can show. On account of it being the opposite of the truth.

    Its incredible just  how sheep-like people can be. There isn't one of you here that hasn't fallen for some aspect of this scientific fraud.On Livestock's long shadow posted 2 years, 11 months ago 42 Responses

  • Hypocrite

    A careful reading of what you said reveals a sort of rolling thunder of insults.

    "All views are welcome, but polite, well articulated and defended ones are especially valued. Tolerance of diverse viewpoints is the strength of this site. Humor, sarcastic and otherwise is icing on the cake."

    Here you are really making a lying claim that I'm not explaiining myself clearly. And you are reserving the right for sarcasm to one side only.

    Now look you guys are doing the wrong thing and perpetuating a fraud that will be immensely costly. That has already been immensely costly.

    So its time you put up a case in open debate and not instead tried to set things up in advance to close it down.

    Now have you got some evidence fella?

    Have you got some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming? As opposed to catastrophic cooling?

    Well lets hear it then?On Every one destined to be 100% correct posted 2 years, 11 months ago 25 Responses

  • It Was Well-Argued And Well-Defended

    I'm waiting for an authentic counter-attack so I can counter-attack back. Only then will you see just how well defended the truth can be.

    As for politeness you cqn forget that for starters. Your movement is not merely fraudulent. You actually want to impose costs on the rest of us. And you spend all your time slandering people who disagree.

    Don't tell me about polite Gristmill culture siince thats a lie. I've just seen abuse of Inhofe and Bob Carter. Two people smart enough to find you clowns out and brave enough to try and combat your malevolence.

    I don't need to cite any sources. Because you guys won't come up with any evidence. And you all know that we are in an ice age.

    You guys are just playing silly-buggers. On Every one destined to be 100% correct posted 2 years, 11 months ago 25 Responses

  • CO2 Is Not Pollution

    Gaia is a creature that eats CO2 and shits life.

    Will you ever be quits with this unscience and idiocy?

    How about a little bit of science here.

    A little bit more science and a little bit less of keeping the fraud-momentum going.On So says Worldwatch posted 2 years, 11 months ago 2 Responses

  • But Losing Nemo? Why?

    If CO2 was a bad thing you would be right. But why would you do any of that stuff?

    There isn't the least bit of justification for it.

    No use building a rational free-enterprise approach on top of a scientific fraud.

    CO2 is good. And we live on a planet that lurches towards catastrophic cooling. Not catastrophic warming.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • You Don't Have A Warming Problem

    "but greens in general need to get over their suspicion of the state; in particular, they need to move beyond the small-government, market-focused ideas deeded to us by some of our brightest lights (the Amory Lovinses of the world.).."

    Why?

    1. You don't have a warming problem. There is absolutely no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

    2. Big government would still a grave danger and a really stupid way of doing things if you did have a problem. But you don't have a problem,

    3. If you did have a problem (you don't) but if you did the cheapest way to deal with it would be straight tax substitution to  a CO2 tax and reductions in tax elsewhere in the context of reducing the size of government.

    Of all the posts I've seen so far this takes the cake of being the most irrational.

    Since it is wrong on all points of the argument.

    Now you guys just have to stopit. Come up for some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

    And if you cannot try and bring this scientific fraud to an end.On Time for greens to get over their fear of big government posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

  • Whats Wrong With Inhofe?

    Instead of being nasty about Inhofe. Seeing as its a New Year and all you might take the opportunity to clean up your own act and stop trying to impose costs on people for no reason at all.

    Now do you have any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?

    No you don't.

    So how about giving Inhofe a little bit of credit for finding you guys out.On He's staying atop his committee posted 2 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses

  • Evidence?

    No.20 is plainly idiotic.

    Since the data doesn't support the likelihood of catastrophic global warming the people who are onto this scientific fraud will multiply even as the costly policies that you crowd have foisted upon us are being applied.

    Come up with the evidence champ and you won't need to be a smartarse.On Every one destined to be 100% correct posted 2 years, 11 months ago 25 Responses

  • A PREMATURE SUBJECT IF EVER THERE WAS ONE.

    The context is that we have plenty of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global cooling. And none at all NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

    So that therefore EVEN $1 of costs imposed for the purpose of emissions reductions is clearly and obviously a disgrace.

    This ought to be obvious to even a smart 9 year old. But apparently not to you Dessler.

    Now have you got any evidence or not?

    Come up for some evidence for the idea that the boat is sinking before you begin waxing lyrical on the finer points of living underwater.On Robert Novak does it on purpose posted 2 years, 11 months ago 8 Responses

  • Foolish Definition

    Your definition is irrelevant. If its bad science its bad science. And has nothing to do with Peer review and non-peer review.

    And bad science or good science, none of this Jive has anything to do with the politicising science.

    EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE FACT:

    And that is the very act of you coming up with this bogus and irrelevant definition is a symptom of your camp politicising science.

    Its just you point-scoring in lieu of you coming up with any actual evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

    Come up with the evidence Dessler.

    And you won't have to continue with this tortured nonsense.

    "This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. "

    Yes it does undermine the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to (much) global warming so you can get that right for starters.

    " Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.

    This is hogwash, of course."

    No its not hogwash. The relatitionship is unclear. You are talking Hogwash and not Bob Carter. This is because you are part of a movement that has politicised the debate.

    "In the end, claims repeatedly verified by the scientific community (e.g., the earth is warming..."

    Well thats a totally untenable statement right there. Unless you can give us a start and finish date.

    So you see you have long since ceased to be a scientist on this subject. Because you have politicised the subject and decided not to go where the chips fall.On Discuss posted 2 years, 11 months ago 7 Responses