On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:59:22 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:04 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > I think on the scale of 4 billion years the sort of margin we're talking >> about is that necessary to keep water liquid on the surface. >> > > At least twice in the last 4 billion years water WAS kept below the > freezing point at the surface, from the pole continuously to the equator > and we had a snowball Earth. It happened once about 1.5 billion years ago > and again about 700 million years ago; why it happened and once it did how > things ever warmed up again is not well understood, just like most things > in climate science. > > I knew you'd say that. So what if there are two periods or more when liquid water wasn't free running. Does that alter the fact that liquid water has been *roughly* in situ over billion years while the sun warmed 20%? Do you actually dispute that this is something that needs explaining? Or that the numbers add up just right based on historic Co2? Several posts up, you obviously did not know about the sun warming issue. You obviously didn't know by what you said. Where have you acknowledged this, like someone arguing in good faith would do? Isn't it a major new piece of information that has clI deared up a huge amount of your concerns? Yet you say nothing, just carry on throwing out more argument. The one above looks like you'll reach for anything. You didn't even stop to think if it was a sensible way to respond to my point.
> > You keep throwing out eratic graphs....you do know they are provided by >> climate science? >> > > > So you think climate scientists are putting out "eratic graphs" but > nevertheless based on what they say you think the human race should be > forced to be put on a starvation energy budget that will impoverish the > world and kill billions of people. And this is the moral high ground? > I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. They are doing science. The discussion about what needs to happen is a separate matter. You are basically admitting here that you are engaging in argument aimed at discrediting science, for ideological reasons. You think they want to impoverish everyone so you help those who want to discredit it. You don't deserve to be here in a list like this if that's who you are. > > > What steps do you take to understand the position in science, before you >> make claims like you do? >> > > 42 steps. > Fuck off -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
