Personally, I wouldn't say it wouldn't amount to much. I would say something to the effect that based on the evidence, it doesn't appear that it will amount to much and then you have to supply the evidence or where it is lacking. I leave nonscientific remarks to alarmists. Some1 is right but interestingly he doesn't hold alarmists to the same standard. Even if you know nothing at all about science, it is very easy to debunk statements that have no qualifiers. Alarmists make them all the time. Their belief system depends on it.

I would say if Dook doesn't block you, you probably are an idiot or a radical leftist (or both) but that is just my opinion.

I think you miss the point, Rasin Cane. When someone makes the claim that global warming will not amount to much then that someone would need to show the science that would validate this claim. Otherwise it is not anything more than an unsubstantiated claim.

Should I, or you, make the claim that sea level rise is due to an increase in the moon's gravitational pull on the surface of the oceans then we would need to show the scientific evidence that would support such a claim. Otherwise we would just be making an unsubstantiated claim. I suspect that this is all that Hey Dook is really saying. Since the ones making the claim do not support the claim then how is the person able say such in an informed and honest manner? They cannot.

Maxx blocks me but answered my questions. As do others, such as Rio, Cyclops, and many more yet I do not block any of them. I don't repost their questions though. The reposting of his questions is getting rather tiresome and childish.

To find out if it is 'denial of science' you'll have to look at what the current science says, how the source came to those conclusions, and how the person you are responding to came to those conclusions. The person you are talking about is Kano. Kano has stated numerous times that he believes it won't amount to much because the first 10ppm of CO2 has the greatest energy retention. Do you consider this anti-science or denial of science? In these posts he constantly posted a graphic from a blog.

Edit: Where and when did I ask you for money? I haven't. If you want to put forward an alternate theory then by all means go ahead. If you are attempting to do this then why are you discussing it on an internet forum? Why don't you post your findings in the peer reviewed literature? If you want to replace a current theory then what you need to do is do things that get it out there in the scientific community. Are you doing that? Do you really think we can do anything about it? Do you think you attacking others makes your idea seem more plausible? It is a provable fact that CO2 has caused quite a bit of warming in the past few decades. It is a provable fact that human emissions of CO2 are greater than atmospheric increase.

Furthermore, while this is true, as I have stated previously, it does not mean that the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be negligible. How can you come to the conclusions, as Kano does or did, that a doubling of CO2 will amount to hardly any warming at all based on blog propaganda as he did? Now he has turned to stating that a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase of about 1C. However he does not mention that this is due to CO2 alone and does not include feedback mechanisms.

Given that it is generally the skeptics and "skeptics" who question computer models of climate, it is funny that they would claim that "climate change won't amount to much." To make such a statement is to claim a high degree of certainty about climate. One that would require very accurate models.

Regarding Hey Dook's blocking, I don't usually block just because I think that I don't usually agree with them. If I don't like someone's answer, I just pick another as BA. Yes, I do block people, like Madd Maxx, Cyclops, Jim Z and someone called Richie, because they block me. In the past, I also used to block people who I thought were responsible for deleting my questions.

This graph by Akasofu says it all. It's even in a peer reviewed journal.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/sy...

You have blocked me from the last several of your questions, so it is interesting that you make an exception for the one you copy from me. What is "stupid" here is your stubborn and addicted denial. Did you really think that by trying to make a misleading copy of my question without referencing that question, that no one would compare what you are pretending here to the actual original here?: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Over 100 years of massive science (no doubt also supported and accepted now by at least most of the professors in the SCIENCE departments of the university that awarded you the strange PhD in statistics that apparently gave you no insight into the risk assessments and actuarial statistics used in the multi-trillion dollar international insurance industry which, obviously not having the luxury of your ignorant willful denial of climate science, follows that science fully and carefully) supports the conclusions reached ALREADY 25 years ago at the IPCC:

"The potentially serious consequences of climate change on the global environment give sufficient reasons to begin by adopting response strategies that can be justified immediately even in the face of significant uncertainties."

15 years of still more MASSIVE scientific research (95% of which you are utterly and willfully ignorant of) later, the probabilities changed: "every respectable panel has concluded that it probably will be a severe problem, and soon."

And now (IPCC 2013), it is "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century...Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia"

This is all in my question that you plagiarize here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?... but think (like a typical lazy liar) that no one else will notice your ignoring that evidence and simply declaring (as any run of the mill F student Bozo denier here might) that my question (shorn of those essential details in order that you can try lamely to distort it) is "stupid." You are either an idiot or a liar, and since I think your PhD in statistics DID probably include some probability theory somewhere (despite your incessant, interminable and laughable pretense that an inability to project the future of the climate (or the economy, or the population of polar bears or anything else?) with 100% certainty into the decades ahead future means that over a century of science and hundreds of Nobel Prize winners can be somehow rationally or objectively be denied), there can be only a very low uncertainty as to which of those two it is.

We have had all these years of 'Climate Change' and environmentally my life hasn't changed a bit. But it has financially and politically. So it all depends on what change you are referring to. Right now, in the US 'change' is a dirty word along with 'hope'.

Since scientific consensus and real time temperature readings verify a continually warming world, and has already caused changes, tied to continually rising CO2, then the phrase "climate change won't amount to much" is the accusation, is a denial of known science, and is responsible for the burden of proof.

denial of science?

This is a repeat of Hey Dook's question, with a slight change. Because Dook, likes to block, I thought I would open up this question.

Please note the inherent irony and stupidity of the original question. In herently, if someone wanted to claim that this was "denial of science", then they need to provide compelling reason. Indeed the burden of proof falls upon the accuser as there is nothing inherently unscientific about the claim.

To claim that saying "climate change won't amount to much" is a denial of science, seem to be an ad hominem attack as well as begging the question.