James

I've never had a denier say "Gee, that's a good argument, you've convinced me." You would think that happen occasionally if you had an open mind on the subject.

I don't think I've been convinced by any denier arguments, but I do try to understand and respond to them, as long as they seem like real arguments--not the "conspiracy of socialist climate scientist" variety.

I will ask this question and then shut down my account, so I won't respond.

There's currently a question from an "Anonymous" that blocks science realists from answering, that asks why the 2017 (Atlantic) hurricane season has been "so average". The question provides a link

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b5803597...

that actually disproves the premise of the question, so I'm wondering if there are any deniers out there dumb enough to fall for it.

That is what he suggested to me in a comment to one of my answers. That is his apparent reason for having no interest in learning science relevant to climate change.

I'm curious how far he believes the co-opting of these sciences dates to. Were the Manhattan Project scientists all communists? Was Ed Lorenz just a tool for George Soros? Was Newton working for the Democrats?

"The most widely held theory is that:—The increase [in atmospheric CO2] is due to fossil fuel combustion;—Increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth's surface;—The present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050."

You often hear that the talk back in the 1970's was just about cooling, but clearly somebody had it right back then, who was it?

I don't think anyone did, but Zippi62 claims that in an answer and when I called him a liar Kano implicitly defended him. I'll be happy to apologize to Zippi62 if shown evidence that ANYONE predicted this.

I would have thought that an engineer (geologic, power plant and electrical) would understand that things happen for particular reasons. It would be interesting hearing those three guys (JimZ, Kano and graphicconception) telling their bosses that some bad thing "just happened" and that there's no point in looking for the reason it happened.

I'm especially excited to see answers from "skeptics" in the crowd. I'll give my own most recent--"Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation" by Bohren and Clothiaux.

I ask this because in a current question Anonymous believes TV weather announcers know more about climate than actual scientists.

Deniers seems to think that people that talk about stuff are better at it than people that actually do it.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/am...

Many of the questions in Global Warming are based on lies and asked by people anonymously. If the questions were real, shouldn't everyone be allowed to answer them?

As it is, these are fake questions being used only for propaganda purposes.

One question is "Is this how climate change scammers steal money?" and the asker lies about sea level

Another is "Greenland has gained five billion tons of ice per day this month?" Where the asker ignores that it is WINTER and Greenland and so of course it SNOWS, and also ignores that HIS OWN LINK points out that Greenland is losing 200 billion tonnes of ice per year.

This just appeared on the website of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center:

"NOTICE: CDIAC as currently configured and hosted by ORNL will cease operations on September 30, 2017. Data will continue to be available through this portal until that time. Data transition plans are being developed with DOE to ensure preservation and availability beyond 2017."

Will data transition plans really be developed, or will the new administration work to have them "disappeared"?

Check out the speech by Jerry Brown at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting this week. This is the largest gathering of earth scientists in the world.

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanGeophysicalUnion/...

Some moron that chose to be Anonymous linked to a bonehead article in investors. com claiming that "climate fascists" wanted to "redefine what a hurricane is" when no one wanted to do anything of the sort, but they were too stupid to realize that.

Global warming "skeptics" tell us it's the atmospheric pressure that warms planets, not the greenhouse effect. Is that what made Agata, Siberia so warm on December 31, 1968 when it recorded a sea level pressure of 32.01" in Hg?

It did get up to -40 (C or F, take your pick) that day. Toasty!

I guess if they were honest and knew anything at all about science they wouldn't block.

This question is asked by someone that blocks most scientifically literate people from answering, and goes by anonymous. Not surprising since he doesn't define what he's talking about or give any links to prove it.

Does anyone even understand his gibberish?

Every day in here there are multiple questions from someone that goes by "Anonymous" that are usually based on some falsehood or misleading information. I'll often write detailed answers to the questions, only to find out when I try to submit the answer that I'm blocked. Would true skeptics block others from answering their questions? Aren't skeptics supposed to look at all the evidence? If they're not really interested in answers, is the point just to spread propaganda?