gO

Done. 3 guesses.

Dpme

@drwho. "The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has very little control over the temperature of the planet" Who says? Thist is just BS. Given all other factors we know (Astronomical cycles etc.) the GHG effect is the most dominant factor. And CO2 the most dominant GHG. And the three most contributing factors to "man made" CO2 are deforestation, fossil fuels and production of conrete (in no particular order). As I said before, you should read a text book.

g/g

I think what MrOo is saying DrWho is that you should read the same propaganda he does, it just happens to be in text book format. Remember though, the key to good propaganda is to make it easy to read and not confuse the reader with difficult or boring things such as facts.

Done

done

I wonder if people who have been played ever realize they've been played, and if so, how they feel then.

not too bad, one guess

Ng/1guess

Diane, they deny.

MrO, please be comforted by the fact that most citizens of the U.S. do not think or believe as kaosangel, drWho, KnightTime believe. The represent about 30% of the population. They are also an endangered species as the younger generations here do not share their views and are becoming more and more vocal as the reach voting age.

Finally MrOo has exposed the ultimate fallacy of climate change, the claim that the greenhouse gas effect is the most dominant factor controlling the temperature of our planet. That has never been proved. It is just a theory. If there were proof, it would be documented, but it isn't. Nor is a true comparison ever likely to be made, because there are so many other factors which obviously influence temperatures on earth, including volcanic eruptions and meteor and asteroid strikes which erratically pollute the atmosphere and block radiation from the sun, and variations in the sun's intensity which sometimes seem to follow a pattern but are still beyond our ability to predict. Besides, there is no such thing as "the temperature of our planet." There are so many different temperatures we could measure, and yet very few are actually included in climate change studies.

Diane's comment is so ironic. The people who are most likely to be played are those who do not consider alternatives to the currently popular theories. Today's proven facts often turn out to be tomorrow's incredible fallacies.

TallMike, do you receive any renumaration from extraction industries? Do you get dividend or other income from Oil and Gas stocks? Also just curious, how old are you? And what is your educational background?

I will answer those questions about myself just to show I am not trying to expose you. I am just curious. No to receiving any renumeration. I am 62. I have a B.S. in computer science.

64 - B.S. in Bus Adm, MS in Information Systems.
Worked in IS since 1978 when I left the military. Specialize
in
Conservative investor. Wh

and can't type in this wacky chog :)

tuco, your tactics are so predictable. When you can't find a flaw in someone's argument you go after the person's credibility. Which playbook did you learn that from? It is quite a joke that you try to disguise your intent by using phrases like "just curious" (twice) and "I am not trying to expose you." It's also revealing because you apparently think that people won't notice.

Anyway I'm pleased that's the best you can do as an attempt at a rebuttal. My confidence in my argument just went up a notch.

Wait a sec. Seriously? "Today's proven facts often turn out to be tomorrow's incredible fallacies." ??? Are you kidding me?? What does that even mean? Okay, everyone who's ever held a position in research, or is a published author on a research article - let's all run down to the university libraries & burn all those reports. TallMike, you may want to re-think that blanket statement. We're no longer debating whether the earth is flat.

The earth is flat.

Otherwise everything would roll off.

I wasn't trying to rebut anything TallMike. In your profile you say you are from England and spent half your life here. I assume the U.S. Did you work for BP?

Or royal dutch shell? The reason I ask is the same reason I ask myself, why do I believe certain things when others like yourself do not believe them. I always try to look for motive. Religion, Poliical Belief, etc. But usually it comes down to money.

Tuco - One obvious possibility is that what you believe is
incorrect. But since you are never incorrect
then if someone believes differently it is because they
are flawed in someway.

That may be true KnightTime. And you could apply that to yourself, no?

I do apply it to myself. That is how I grow.
And why I am not bitter.

I have always thought you were sweet KnightTime.

Having worked in software development for 40
years, I have learned to start from a position
where I assume I am wrong.

I am looking for motive. You KnightTime have given me one. Conservative Investor. Now that makes sense to me.

We have one thing in common. I also have been in software development for 40+ years.

I work in health care software. Have done that
exclusively for 25 years.

I've done everything from scripting to neural networks. I am looking forward to retiring and focusing on repairing old clocks and watches.

And pissing off conservatives full time. :-)

I look forward to retirement too. Will probably
work in my church and let people like you piss off

others - plus I am going to learn to type in the chog

I don't wear a watch. They are only correct twice a day
when they're broken and never correct when
they're running.

I don't wear a watch either. My skin breaks out no matter what kind of band. I like taking them apart and making them run again though. Most good mechanical watches can keep excellent time if serviced correctly. The George Daniels coaxial escapement can keep as good if not better time than a quartz movement.

That was a pathetic attempt at humor.

helenkeller, would you like a list of "proven" facts which later turned out to be wrong? No, apparently that won't do it because you say "We're no longer debating whether the earth is flat," which indicates that you don't understand the concept of "proven" facts. The whole point is that, in their heyday, "proven" facts are universally believed and are therefore not debated. Like blood-letting is a beneficial medical technique. Or fire is a process which releases phlogiston. Or stomach ulcers are caused by stress and gastric acid. Get it?

But, TallMike, how many of those "proven" facts in your list were actually proven under rigorous scientific scrutiny?

And I will agree that consensus is not rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Doctors prescribed cigarettes for nervous disorders based on industry propaganda less than 60 years ago. That was not based on scientific scrutiny but industry propaganda.

@Tallmke - your ignorance is stunning and so is your unwillingness to inform yourself. The only science that has 100% proofs is maths, but the physics of GHG's as many other physical phenomena is almost as certain, say 99.999999999%
say is bla-bla-bla. Vocanoes - of course we know. They are about the best documented phenomena.

Whats wrong with US education???????

"say is bla-bla-bla" - means all your words say is bla-bla-bla

Mr. O TallMike was educated in England, and maybe the Netherlands.

Done.

@MrOoijer: I guess I really hit a sore spot with you. Your comments are usually reasoned responses and reliable facts, but this time you started with insults and then switched to a mixture of off-target argument and unintelligible sentence fragments. I'll ignore the insults and start with the certainty of the physics of greenhouse gasses (GHG's). I haven't challenged the near-certainty of said physics. Really. Please re-read my original post if you believe otherwise.

On the other hand, what I have pointed out (and you have only indirectly addressed by your uncharacteristic bla-bla-bla comments) is that there is no way to compare the relative significance of all the factors which influence our planet's temperatures, and it is therefore fatuous to claim, as you and others have done, that the greenhouse gas effect is the most dominant.

tuco, if you are looking for rigorous scientific scrutiny before you accept a fact as proven, you are going to have a hard time explaining how it has been demonstrated that our efforts to control or reverse planetary global warming actually work.

elsewhere.

cockfights

your

Take