Ha! Ha! After all that crap he spewed the TOP scientists still believed in an imminent Ice Age at the time of his death.

Life magazine of January 30, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

Greenies say Ice Age due to CO2. Other greenies say AGW due to CO2. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! With shotgun science you would think they would be right some of the time. But both theories have been proven wrong. They couldn't even hit the target with a shotgun! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Also Dook, I once again will say, that while I agree with your answer entirely (thus far), YA will not allow me to give you BA as you have blocked me.

Also Dook, Since you call people "deniers" for not believing in your view of AGW, I have to wonder why you are whing about discussions of beliefs. And I do not have fire insurance, I have home insurance, which also covers fire. My policy does not cost a trillion dollars and does not cover my house increasing in temp by 0.8 degrees.

Hey dook,

Once again using the "lying" crap again are we. Please point to ONE lie I have told. While you are at, point to the "science" I "deny".

You can't. You know you can't. You have been given the opportunity many of times and it all comes to nothing. In fact, RIGHT HERE we are talking about Guy using the SAME estimate that I think is still true for the climate sensitivity. Do you have any evidence showing it is false??? NOPE. In fact, if they used the 2 degree sensitivity, 95% of the climate models would not be OVERESTIMATING. LOL. You talk about science because you don't even know that science is NOT something to deny. It is a "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". It is not the opinion of some scientist or even a group of scientists. It is a methodology by which to study nature.

EXPERIMENT AND OBSERVATION. What I observe is the Guy's estimate would NOT result in 95% of models overestimating.

Now I could throw around a ton of insults especially aimed at your lack of education is comparison with mine. It means nothing. Having a PhD does not make me right. Heck you could be right about global warming. BUT, I choose to follow the scientific method, which will eventually lead me to the right answer. Observation and experimentation, NOT political belief. My observation is that 2 degree climate sensitivity would have yielded models that do not overestimate the current temps. Now IFFFF in the future temps rise more quickly then I will change my opinion based upon new OBSERVATION.

Right now, however, your view is so lacking in evidentiary support that you seemingly MUST resort to insults and attempted character assisination.

And BTW, Dook,

Belief is defined as "an acceptance that a statement is true ". Ironically you chose the term "accepting", proving your own statement false.

I understand your dilemma. Your having to stretch English to the breaking point is part of your normal rhetoric. "Global warming" now means man-caused CO2-induced warming of the planet and my "denial" of global warming means not that I deny man's CO2 contribution, or even that I deny that this contribution increases temps, simply that I "deny" the amount of warming you believe. And would you care to define what you mean by climate change and my "denial" of it???

Unfortunately, I am a simple-minded man. Perhaps with your superior intellect you could use REAL ENGLISH to describe what you mean instead of your lawyerized rhetoric.

Science doesn't depend on poster children, or deceptions about poster children from addicted deniers of science.

Edit: RC, one can (and you do) deny science by not ACCEPTING it. No belief is required, one way or another or a third, and I never said there was, and your repeated attempts to try to put words into other people's mouths may be something you "learned" as part of your Statistics "PhD," but it doesn't have anything to do with climate science (though it evidently is related to addiction to lying about science).

Unfortunately, neither Guy Callendar nor Svante Arrhenius considered the effect of warming on sea level or or regions that were already as hot as what humans could stand.

However, climatology was in its infancy. It would have been interested to see what Einstein would have said if he were aware that the work of Knut Angstrom was flawed.

Not poster child, more like a calendar model.

https://www.google.com/search?q=calendar...

Well he isn't my cup of tea.

Gee I guess 50 years of science can be thrown out the window then right?

He died 50 years ago, get over it!

no this guy is