marked as "spammer" by 10 people, account deleted (CAGW skeptic)
-
My username was purplesuit1 and I am a "CAGW" skeptic. My account was deleted due to a comment I made about AGW in an (unfortunately) inappropriate forum. In that comment, which I probably should have made here in this "back room" or not at all, I mentioned that I was not interested in getting links about "global warming" and how catastrophic it will be (hence the abbreviation CAGW instead of AGW). The Daily News should be about code, not about politicized science issues. There is no doubt that AGW exists as a result of added CO2 from manmade sources. Atmospheric CO2 is at the highest levels in over 3,000,000 years. The question is what is the consequential amount of warming. The current long term temperature rise is about 0.1C per decade. That includes periods of natural warming and natural cooling layered on top of the manmade rise. But it appears the manmade rise will result in another 0.7 or 0.8C degrees between now and 2100. That kind of rise will not be "catastrophic" in any way. That estimate (similar to TCR) is backed up by scientists as diverse as Isaac Held and Judy Curry. Lindzen is an outlier and thinks it will be lower. Trenberth and quite a few others think more like another 1.3 (TCR of 2.0C) The TCR consensus is not 2.0 as some would maintain (e.g. several blogs masquerading as science and the Guardian newspaper) but 1.3 to 2.0C. There are 10 members who decided to have me banned and that is their prerogative, their forum should not be gummed up with non-programming flame wars. However, I must point out that the Daily News is no place for that kind of material either. Instead both the forum and newsletter should remain free of such material.
-
My username was purplesuit1 and I am a "CAGW" skeptic. My account was deleted due to a comment I made about AGW in an (unfortunately) inappropriate forum. In that comment, which I probably should have made here in this "back room" or not at all, I mentioned that I was not interested in getting links about "global warming" and how catastrophic it will be (hence the abbreviation CAGW instead of AGW). The Daily News should be about code, not about politicized science issues. There is no doubt that AGW exists as a result of added CO2 from manmade sources. Atmospheric CO2 is at the highest levels in over 3,000,000 years. The question is what is the consequential amount of warming. The current long term temperature rise is about 0.1C per decade. That includes periods of natural warming and natural cooling layered on top of the manmade rise. But it appears the manmade rise will result in another 0.7 or 0.8C degrees between now and 2100. That kind of rise will not be "catastrophic" in any way. That estimate (similar to TCR) is backed up by scientists as diverse as Isaac Held and Judy Curry. Lindzen is an outlier and thinks it will be lower. Trenberth and quite a few others think more like another 1.3 (TCR of 2.0C) The TCR consensus is not 2.0 as some would maintain (e.g. several blogs masquerading as science and the Guardian newspaper) but 1.3 to 2.0C. There are 10 members who decided to have me banned and that is their prerogative, their forum should not be gummed up with non-programming flame wars. However, I must point out that the Daily News is no place for that kind of material either. Instead both the forum and newsletter should remain free of such material.
This is the place for the post.
-
My username was purplesuit1 and I am a "CAGW" skeptic. My account was deleted due to a comment I made about AGW in an (unfortunately) inappropriate forum. In that comment, which I probably should have made here in this "back room" or not at all, I mentioned that I was not interested in getting links about "global warming" and how catastrophic it will be (hence the abbreviation CAGW instead of AGW). The Daily News should be about code, not about politicized science issues. There is no doubt that AGW exists as a result of added CO2 from manmade sources. Atmospheric CO2 is at the highest levels in over 3,000,000 years. The question is what is the consequential amount of warming. The current long term temperature rise is about 0.1C per decade. That includes periods of natural warming and natural cooling layered on top of the manmade rise. But it appears the manmade rise will result in another 0.7 or 0.8C degrees between now and 2100. That kind of rise will not be "catastrophic" in any way. That estimate (similar to TCR) is backed up by scientists as diverse as Isaac Held and Judy Curry. Lindzen is an outlier and thinks it will be lower. Trenberth and quite a few others think more like another 1.3 (TCR of 2.0C) The TCR consensus is not 2.0 as some would maintain (e.g. several blogs masquerading as science and the Guardian newspaper) but 1.3 to 2.0C. There are 10 members who decided to have me banned and that is their prerogative, their forum should not be gummed up with non-programming flame wars. However, I must point out that the Daily News is no place for that kind of material either. Instead both the forum and newsletter should remain free of such material.
-
Are you saying the CP newsletter had an article about global warming? I don't recall that. :confused:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
There was an article on it some time before 29 August because that is when I posted "why the off topic propaganda" as purplesuit1. The post is now deleted, but the title might still be there (or not). I don't know how to find old editions of Daily News.