That would be appropo as Msr Randi was widely castigated in the science community for his totally wrong headed comments on AGW which he very hastily modified.
You have shown nothing of a climate science knowledge and you like many others wear a badge of skepticism to hide underlying ignorance of the topic which at this point in time there is no excuse for.
Randi at least had the grace to mea culpa even tho in that he still did not grasp what GHG and AGW are actually about.
If your views coincide....then this is not the forum section for you.
He didn't modify anything. Rather, alarmists such as yourself like to strengthen their cause similar to how Christians used to go on witch hunts, so you like to draw the "us vs them" lines to rally more to your cause.
Clearly if she raises her finger in the air just a bit, she's ready to cast a spell rather than pick her nose.
Anyways, you are saying I'm showing nothing but you seem to have completely ignored almost all of my post where I fully addressed that particular talking point of yours.
hp/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html
So far not one indication from you shows anything other than a libby ideologue unprepared to acknowledge the reality of AGW, the responsibility it engenders to the biome, emerging economies and the future of industrial society.
Responsible companies, people and even nation states like Sweden and cities like Portland Oregon and others worldwide accept the science, understand there are consequences and work toward a carbon neutral solution.
Sweden is committed to carbon neutral by 2050 and well on it's way.
It can be done with goodwill, technology and admission there is a problem that we have to face collectively.
Are you in that responsible group?
Well "libbies" as you call us, tend to be overwhelmingly in favor of nuclear power. It has almost none of your boogyman in it (that is, carbon footprint) yet your environmentalist movement is doing the "responsible" thing by doing their best to make it too costly to implement because they're afraid of it, instead opting for plastic (another boogyman) solar panels that nobody can afford, or wind power which is impractical for most people because constant fast moving winds don't exist in most places.
You also opt for the "responsible" thing of recycling paper, even though it consumes more of that energy (read: carbon footprint) than simply cutting down another tree. Oh no, we can't kill trees, right? Well, we aren't going to run out of trees from paper any sooner than we are going to run out of potatoes or cucumbers. The trees best suited for paper are actually grown on farms and are selectively bred to produce optimal fibers for that purpose. The non-farm grown trees are harvested in a similar cyclic manner.
The forest population isn't declining due to paper. Nor for lumber. Nor for any other materials for that matter. Rather, the forest population is declining because people in jungle regions need to cut it down to make way for food farms. One way of reducing the landmass required to do that is through genetic engineering of plants to maximize yield. Oh look, another boogyman that environmentalists are trying to kill. Little do they know, though, that we've been doing this already since time immemorial. Ever notice how if you walk out into any wilderness type of your choice, there are lots of plants, but nothing to eat? Because most of the plants that we do eat come from thousands of generations of selectively bred plants that are optimal for our consumption and produce much higher yields of nourishment than you'll ever find in a wild plant (note the distinction between a wild plant and a feral plant.) If you've ever kept up with the banana man incident, you might know that the cavendish banana we all eat literally can't even survive in the wild.
So, tell me more about this "responsible" movement of yours.
Oh, and by the way, did I point out that this "responsible" movement is against something that you're in favor of, therefore making my argument a straw man argument? Guess what, you did the same thing to me numerous times already. Think, don't assume.
