BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Vinny

  • Rank
    Way too many!


  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Promoting World Peace and Loving My Fellow Man and Conger Eel
  • What I do for a living:
    Waste Management
  1. Amazing that a guy wants to argue these points, but as you kick each leg out from under his idiocy, he uses the Black Knight Line, and says, come back and fight like a man. What is he gonna do next, bleed on me?
  2. Or that the great and wonderful Germany is increasing, increasing, increasing its use of dirty polluting, green house gas emitting coal?
  3. What's the tactic, where I showed that the guy that came up with the 97% mischaracterized the science he was analyzing, to "cook the books", and the guy continues to ignore that fact?? Ostrich technique????
  4. Definitely not a wolf spider. That's a Brazilian Wandering Spider. If not, it's definitely a Sydney Funnel Web. Kill ya soon as look at ya. Stay safe.
  5. I'm convinced he was born in Hawaii. And, just as convinced that at least one of his college records or applications claimed otherwise.
  6. Do 97% believe that humans have contributed in some way to global warming, no matter how small and insignificant they believe that contribution may be or do 97% believe humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted international action??? Do you really believe that Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin support the 97-percent consensus that AGW is a crisis? Because, notwithstanding their positions to the contrary, your boy John Cook counted them as part of his 97% consensus even though they themselves say they hold no such beliefs. Your guy claim Scafetta supports the 97% consensus. Scafetta says: Your guy Cook, not a doctor of climate science, but certainly a doctorer of statistics, claim Idso's paper supports an AGW crises position. Idso says: " It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.” It doesn't get much more clear than that. Cook claims Idso is part of the 97% based on Idso's paper, and Idso says my paper says no such thing..... Two conclusions you can reach here. Cook is an idiot, or Cook is a liar. You quoted his 97% claim, so which is it? You decide. So, Shaviv appears to be of the Cook is an idiot school. But, I am on the fence, and believe he might just be an agenda driven liar. If they couldn't mischaracterize the papers to come up with the 97% consensus, they just lied about its very existence: Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” Your boy Cook also claims a paper by Soon took no position, to further doctor the numbers. So, what does Soon say? John Cook says that 97% agree with him, and then many of them say no we don't, and yet you come here and have the audacity to quote this malarkey? In addition to his doctored 97% claim, John Cook also says: More accurately, he said this: before he was called on it and made some edits after being called on the carpet by Anthony Watts. Really? REALLY? Watts elegantly demonstrated that all of these "usual suspects" and Keyser Sousa, were not conspicuously absent. He linked to an article showing solar variation was not absent: But certainly, there is a conspicuous absence of volcanoes over the "past three decades of warming".... or, as Watt demonstrated, NOT! June 15, 1991 (you could also stick Mt. St. Helens in there as well, although it is just outside the three decades referenced). Well, at least Cook got the Milankovitch cycle claim of conspicuous absense correct, no? No...... He really didn't. You could probably quote Cook, and not look the fool. But it would be a very, very rare instance.
  7. The college I went to is consistently ranked in the top 5 in the country in environmental studies. Mother Nature Network currently ranks it as the 3rd best program in the country. I was a biology major. While it was a while ago now, my undergraduate studies included all of the environmental and ecology (what we called it back in the day) courses then in existence. I worked on significant research projects on acid rain and eutrophication. In my first career after grad school (the first 15 years of my professional life) I worked extensively on environmental issues, although my role was once removed from the actual science.So more than happy to debate nitwits that get their information from bumper stickers, propaganda and chicken little.
  8. I love guys that failed middle school biology lecturing people on Old Growth Forests. They don't understand the basics of photosynthesis, much less more complex facts. They are totally unaware that at times, like night and during winter seasons, growing forests are net emitters of CO2. They have no clue that the science of carbon storage, accumulation and capture/sequestration is full of conflicts, and not well understood, but that generally, temperate grasslands have almost 2xs the carbon load of temperate forests. They just believe what they read in their sierra club newsletter. Most reasonable science suggests new growth forests have the ability to capture/sequester more carbon than old growth forest. All the cries about release of carbon from responsible harvesting of timber is pretty much nonsense. The wood is milled, and used in buildings, furniture, etc. not left to decay. It is the decay that causes release of carbon. Like the decay of leaf litter on the floor of an old growth forest. All the studies cited by environazis abjectly ignore this fact, and pretend the tree that has been harvested will release "all of its carbon" causing climatic Armageddon. So, by harvesting, and using the wood for furniture, housing, etc., you actually sequester the carbon stored in that biomass to a greater degree than if the tree died of natural causes and decayed. Or was burned in a wildfire (oh the horror, the horror associated with the huge carbon creation of a forest fire). Not to say that there are not very, very good reasons to preserve old growth forests. But, to suggest that responsible harvesting of timber is going to cause the temperature and sea level to rise is stupidthink.