He's a trojan horse. Working for a think tank. The strategy is to win respect and friends on the left in all other areas so his denial of the climate science is more respected. The right need no convincing. No real gains can be made there. The think tanks have people like him throughout the internet on sites like this. That's a fact. And they usually pose as some kind of scientist to gain credibility. Some of them ARE scientists. Just like the "scientists" that worked to counter the science on the hazards of smoking tobacco. Millions of dollars from conservative and libertarian fossil fuel related groups and individuals go toward paying people - scientists like Salby and non-scientists - to spread doubt about the science.
Sure it does. The rantings of someone like jem are easy to dismiss. He's a crazed right wing ideologue. Those of piezoe are less so since he has the respect of many on the left. Heck, I agree with him on virtually every other matter. Do you know the Trojan horse story? Get in the gates as a friend first. The libetarian think tanks don't care about the social issues. It's the fossil fuels where the money is. Maybe a double agent is a better name.
Jem's posts are excellent and well thought out---Piezoe's are not---yours are not. Thinking he is infiltrator on this site is one of the most ridiculous beliefs I've ever run across. Stop watching so much TV.
No point in posting a link. Everyone who takes any rational interest in the subject knows the internet is full of links to published peer reviewed papers explaining how anthropic CO2 is causing warming. Same for evolution and gravity and moon landings. You are someone still in denial of the very large amount of links on the internet that show, explain, describe and confirm an ex-president's birth certificate. So no amount of scientific data is ever going to convince you about any fact or piece of information when it stands in the way of the climate denial you want to believe in. You'll always just keep repeat dredging the same old things as you do above, even though non of it has been validated , not formally published, not peer reviewed , not independently scientifically validated, against the vast amount of independently scientifically verified published peer reviewed papers, which explain how anthropic CO2 causes warming.
Dude, for goodness sake! The links I made direct further inquiry towards the hard science out there. It reveals your reluctance to follow through and is another reason why providing links is a waste of time . Shaviv and Salby need to make presentation to places like the Royal Society, not youtube. There is already confirmed science at the RS and everywhere else that matters, which directly pulls the rug from under their so called hypothesis. Their notions simply do not work in scientific terms. If anything, they do more to confirm the current science that anthropic CO2 is causing current excessive global warming as correct , and the solar affect which Shaviv promotes, cannot be correct. After years and years and years, neither Shaviv nor Salby (nor anyone else) has presented a formal scientific proposal for validation which undermines GW science. And for good reason. Their ideas don't scientifically stand. The science that stands is the science that more science cannot knock over. That is why GW science stands. With both Shaviv and Salsby you seem to have been suckered by watching a couple of semi-charismatic you tube self-promoters. For life long cure, try a few minutes of Justin Bieber instead.
Only if you equate "climate change" with Hansen's hypothesis. No one is anti climate change unless they are insane. People have completely lost sight of the crucial issue, which is whether man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is going to result in a catastrophic increase in the Earth's surface temperature.
I typed this search.. anthropic co2 causing warming no links to peer reviewed science there is zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming if there were the author would be more famous than al gore and have all sorts of science awards. (that is not based on now failed models) you lied again stu its you who makes claim you can not substantiate. I just keep explaining you lie.