Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 12:30pm:



Know your disposition to be wrong on data; it shouldn't be too difficult to provide the url then.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 1:52pm:



Yes. But when I leave a link out you request one. Just keeping the same terms.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 25^th, 2017 at 4:26pm:


Nope. You were talking May. The most in one month is April. The mean favours May marginally.

Why?

Because he can.

Quote:


There are many and varied reasons why some people deny AGW. Even on this forum the reasons are varied.

There are people like the Mechanic. He has no idea about science but rejects AGW on purely political ideological grounds. Right wing conservative commentators tell him to deny AGW, so he does. I would suspect the vast majority of the deniers would fall into this category.

Then there are people like Ajax. He is a conspiracy theorist who believes the moon landings were faked and the new world order is taking over. The AGW "conspiracy" just forms part of that paranoid narrative.

Then you get people like lee.
Of his 8000  posts I would estimate that 99% are anti AGW. Usually within half an hour he will respond to any AGW post with a rebuttal. The rare non AGW posts he makes are brief and lame. Clearly the sole reason he is on this forum is to counter AGW posts.
lee's posts suggest that he does have an understanding of science, but he uses that knowledge to deliberately, deceive, cherry pick, obfuscate and confuse. He has been caught many times flip-flopping to suit his position.
Clearly there can only be 2 reasons why lee denies AGW.
1) he is a paid shill to monitor internet forums and make AGW denying posts
2) he is a troll who enjoys wasting the time of genuine debaters.

Webtoad wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 11:35am:


Right wing political science?
After reading some of your posts you fall in the same category as the Mechanic

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 11:44am:


No, one of the hard physical sciences. To clarify, natural climate change is real and occurring; AGW is nothing more than a conjecture that sees public support (predominately from the left) although little to no peer reviewed science of any significance backing it up.

I'm not active here enough to know who the Mechanic is.