GO Away and Stick Your Head in the Sand with the Rest of the Anti-Global Warming Nuts.
It would seem that mcauleysworld continues to send me comments on anti-global warming (which I delete). However I tend not to ignore people when they are persistent. But as I said I don’t intend to give him a pulpit to preach from. It’s a personal fault of mine sorry folks. In his most recent comment he notes that I have increased readership in his blog by posting a couple comments on his blog and writing about it here. I think he said the increase was in the thousands, which is odd because only five people have bothered to click on the link to his article in my blog post.
He also criticizes the fact that I didn’t use a string of pro-global warming articles as he uses a string of anti-global warming ones. Personally engaging in that sort of DATA-MINING is a waste of time when I can use one source that speaks for a large number of groups as I did, using the letter in the series of links below. He claims that the letter is “Alleged” implying it does not exist. Hey folks go check out the letter at the links below it exists. I don’t intend to let Mr Daost or Mr Mcauley or whatever his name is comment any more, why, because he has chosen to ignore the one piece of evidence that disproves his claim to represent the majority of scientists. He continues to claim that the body of science supports his fringe view. Read the letter folks and tell me if you think he is right. As you can see almost every credible science group is represented in the letter.
http://enviroknow.com/2009/10/22/climate-science-senate-letter/
http://www.grist.org/article/18-leading-scientific-organizations-send-letter-to-senators/
His claim that I am increasing his readership is crap. I would be honored if I thought it was true but I know how to read my blog stats.
His claim that the letter was an “alleged letter” is bogus as you can see by clicking on the links above which show the signatures of the groups involved.
So either mcauleysworld is lying or is deliberately ignoring the truth. I can’t argue Pro-global warming (I have said it before, I am not a scientist) but I can and will argue that a larger percentage of science supports global warming over the contrary. As the letter quote says;
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
This letter was sent to a large number of senators before legislation to limit carbon emissions moves forward. I hate to admit I have not checked in to see how this is progressing in the US senate as it was scheduled for the first few weeks in November. Possibly this is the reason behind the increase in traffic to mcauleysworld’s blog (didn’t think of that did you).
So mcauleysworld STOP COMMENTING because I and 18 Scientific Groups representing a huge number of scientists DON”T AGREE ! I won’t approve your comments EVER, because you’re a Crank. Notice I am not wasting my time posting on your blog I haven’t for some time now. (besides I think I only posted twice to begin with)
SO please GO Away and stick your head in the sand with the rest of the Anti-Global Warming nuts.
michaelsuddard
daniellarocque
abdulalqrim
holigolitely
Oh I forgot to mention that mcauleysworld also keeps beating me over the head with the words of Richard Siegmund Lindzen an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The same Lindzen who according to Ross Gelbspan in Harper’s Magazine “… charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC.”
Read Gelspan’s article it is interesting – http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
In it he talks about the “small band of skeptics” including Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, who “helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns.” Again mcauleysworld are you in the majority? I think not.
here, here.