[Mariss Freimanis]

CO2 is good for plants and other living things:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE"]YouTube - Seeing is Believing[/nomedia]

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt,

Calling people who disagree with you 'deniers' is odious. As you well know that word has Holocaust connotations and it is intended for deniers of Nazi crimes. To intentionally apply that insult to people who merely have an honest disagreement with your view is repugnant. I'm keeping it civil and I would appreciate you doing so likewise. Let's not name-call.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

Phil Jones, originator of the AGW theory, comes clean and agrees there has been no global warming since 1995 (question 'B' in the interview):
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

[Mariss Freimanis]

Sure Matt, try using 'climate realists' instead.

[Ron Dunn]

It is OK, Mariss, the expression Lying Climate Alarmist is appropriate for their particular brand of extremism.

One day an enterprising lawyer is going to figure out that LCAs can be sued for the damage their "science" has done to economies and individuals. In Australia, for example, their latest tactic is to seek to ban coastal (urban) development on the grounds that it will be inundated by up to 100m of water some time soon. If I owned any of that land I'd be seeking restitution.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt,

Would this be the same Al Gore who said the earth's temperature is "several million degrees" two kilometers below the surface? Not to make fun of Mr. Gore but someone so woefully uneducated in the sciences isn't someone whose book / movie I'd use for any meaningful scientific insight.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

Ron,

Global warming never was about science. AGW science itself is laughable. It was a Trojan Horse meant to gain admittance to making various social changes such as wealth redistribution and it worked as long as people were frightened by it. People are bored with the subject now because 30 years of promised catastrophes didn't eventuate. No has ever died, been injured or even inconvenienced by this so-called global warming. No one can even notice it because it's all been just a figment of a computer model's imagination. Now they are reduced to saying global warming causes severe winters, an utterly cynical and desperate assertion.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt,

I fail to see the point you are trying to make; can you clarify in what way is it "pathetic"?

Mr. Gore did say what I pointed out on the Letterman Show. It's pertinent because it goes to Mr. Gore's science qualifications or lack thereof. There are plenty more gaffes I can offer you. The movie is a documentary about Mr. Gore's efforts to educate people about his personal beliefs. His lack of qualifications lends credence to questions regarding the value of the offered education. Of what value is it to read a defense of material originally presented by a scientifically illiterate politician on a biased website?

You claim to be an educated man. Would you seriously use a Hollywood movie as a citation for any scientific research?

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt,

Nice try.

Q: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

A: "Yes, but..."

I'm sanguine with my ability to understand the meaning of the word "Yes" without any additional help. Everything after "Yes, but.." is rationalization and self justification. In fact I had a hilarious exchange with Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He tried his mightiest to explain to me how "Yes" really means "No" in more than a two dozen posts back and forth but to no avail.

Maybe you can do better than the good press secretary did. Give it a try; I'm always open-minded to a persuasive argument.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

The duel continues!
FuturePundit: Sun Shines At 8000 Year Peak Of Brightness

[Mariss Freimanis]

"You're the king of the talking points, all the while denying the science. You're laughable."

Matt,

Why is it global warming advocates invariably become personally insulting after just a few back-and-forth exchanges? You make no effort at constructing a reasoned reply of your own, rely on links as a stand-in for your argument and resort to low derision instead of civility.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

It either is or isn't "statistically significant", if it's not, then the opposite is "statistically insignificant". Dr. Jones himself clarified this semantic distinction by not exercising his option to answer "No" to the question. Show me how that can be parsed differently.

Mariss

[cheetahcnc]

How much money is anyone going to make if GloBull Warming does not exist?

None.

How much money is anyone going to make if GloBull Warming exists?

Plenty, and they will make billions.

Jim, one of the ones that will be making none.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Your hurricane stuff stops in 2005. Here's more up to date information:
Global tropical cyclone activity still in the tank | Watts Up With That?

[Mariss Freimanis]

Micheal Mann's "hockey stick" temperature proxy reconstruction is in error. Here's the correct information:
Medieval Warm Period

[Mariss Freimanis]

Some who pass as climatologists aren't climatologists at all. For instance Micheal Mann has no climatology or even meteorology background at all. He is a geologist. Here is Mr. Mann's Curriculum Vitae:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

[Mariss Freimanis]

"Because you deny the science. And you want me to argue my own scientific view point? Forgive me, but I'm not as foolish as you. You've got nothing but your opinion, and you have proven yourself willing to deny facts right in front of you. That is laughable. That's not an insult, it's the simple truth."

Matt,

I'm reluctant to ask but what is your science background? It must be considerable indeed given you so confidently critique mine.

Mariss

[Mariss Freimanis]

We need some dueling banjo music! Since global warming is primarily a liberal affliction, you might want to look at this:
Researchers find a 'liberal gene'

[Mariss Freimanis]

Matt,

Replying to your own posts may be an early sign of schizophrenia. It's a joke, I hope neither of you take offense.:-)

[307startup]

Matt Clara...

You can be one of the angry villagers bearing pitchforks and torches, encouraging the Inquisition priests to set fire to the blasphemous "witches" you are clearly afraid of...but at the end of the day, the result will be the same for you as well.

AGW/Climate Change is a new religion, not a science. Just as the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for opining that the Sun did not revolve around the earth, the AGW/Climate Change consortium would gladly imprison "deniers" and "skeptics", if it had the power to do so. Since it does not, it aims to discredit them through pop-culture smear campaigns...just like any modern political campaign.

I believe in a nation that stays true to it's roots...to not mix politics & religion. To force the AGW/Climate Change ruse & it's attendant "solutions" on the citizens of this country...that would be no different than forcing all of us to become practicing Catholics or Mormons.

Since you are such a rabid convert to the new religion of AGW/Climate Change, you must realize that the burden of proof lies on you. All of your rhetoric and links are nothing less than your modern "Bible"...and attempting to prove the existence of God with nothing more than the Bible is to ask for faith, not logic or rationality.

I will not repent, nor will I walk a new path. If you could climb down from your opiate cloud of religion, you would realize that it's about control...surrendering control of your own life is one thing...to force others to surrender control over their lives is another thing entirely.

You can keep pushing the AGW/Climate Change agenda if you choose to, but ultimately in doing so, you are also pushing for your own enslavement and return to a non-technological lifestyle. Welcome to the StoneAge Ver:2.0!