Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 9:38am:



Blah - what's your source? Without a source, you're wasting your time, even if you haven't produced any paleoclimate research.  

By the way, I'm a dentist. I've never done anything with teeth, except eat food, but I'm an outspoken and respected dentist. My charges are reasonable. Would you like me to fix your teeth?

It doesn't matter anyway. I will give you a voluminous list of all his publications relating to paleoclimatology when I hear back tomorrow.

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:


No paleoclimate research on the list you provided. Paleostratigraphy is not the same thing.

Quote:


I restrict myself to scientific sources. A so called 'skeptic site' is generally aimed at a wider audience than scientific journals, which are intended for serious academic purposes.

You might as well quote something off You-Tube about setting off homemade rockets. It would be just about as relevant.

For those interested in more than the miniscule non-core point Muso seems obsessed with.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming—has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

—Paul Johnson

Grendel wrote on May 19^th, 2009 at 3:49pm:


There is absolutely no science in that statement. Which Paul Johnson would that be? The Evangelist?

Oh so now you've moved the goalposts from papers to major journals eh Muso...  what's up...  found a paper after all eh. 

Oh and BTW don't know who Johnson is...  don't care...  but his point is relevant.

You gonna be a hypocrite again and start with the MUST be a climate scientist to have a relevant opinion?  You already proved you don't stick by your own rules.

Happy - sorry about the tone of my post, especially if you happen to be a teenager LOL. That snide remark was directed at somebody else, who probably enjoyed it.

Virtually all the energy that warms the Earth comes from the sun - that's a given. However the sun has been fairly constant in the last 50 years or so, yet we've noted some temperature increases. The atmosphere has the effect of trapping the heat, and the extent to which that happens depends on the concentration of Greenhouse gases.

I have degrees in Chemistry and Environmental Science, the later one being Environmental Science,  but I'm not very good at explaining things that are second nature to me as a result of my training, and I get frustrated sometimes when I try.  

Oh and BTW...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/611/UN-IPCC-Scientist-No-convincing-scientific-arguments-to-support-claim-that-increases-in-greenhouse-gases-are-harmful-to-the-climate

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/488/NASA-Scientist-Declares-Climate-Dissent-Scientific-analysis-must-conclude-the-basic-theory-wrong

muso wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:31am:


Not exactly on subject, but fellows who brought up idea that bacteria can also be responsible for stomach ulcers, met with head on resistance from muso wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 8:31am:

that no bacteria can survive stomach acid.

I am not saying that this is the case here, but I am open minded to suggestion.