http://www.esnips.com/ doc/ 79c22395-7bd6-4299-92db-cf392e381698/ kutiman—this-is-what-it-became

Peace

Another criterion for responding to a denier or delayer should be that this person provide its real name, so the kids _can_ find out, in future.

> “$1000 says the next decade is hotter than this one. I’ll give you 2-to-1 odds.”

Joe, just to be clear – the bet is about whether 2010-2019 is hotter than 2000-2009? And the delayer/denier puts up $500, against your $1000?

This will probably be my final response to you, since you have not met either of the conditions laid out in this post.

1) Your condition is laughable — if I can’t “prove” to you [i.e. convince a denier/delayer] the cause is CO2, you won’t pay off? The bet is straightforward. Since you don’t believe science now (i. e. the conservative review of the scientific literature in the IPCC), then why should I think you’ll believe it in ten years?

2) Any of the global datasets would be fine. The satellite data would work as well. The fact that you laugh at GISS data clearly shows your anti-scientific nature.

3) “The Al Gore predicted 20 feet – soon!” Factually incorrect. Please identify online any statement to back up that claim. I’ll bet you on sea ice, as I’ve said.

4) [or what you call 3 again]. I am exceedingly uninterested in betting on weather. My bets are about the climate. I haven’t opened up online betting because denier/delayers turn out to be all talk and disinformation — they don’t believe what they are saying so they won’t put any money down.

Your other comments been well-debunked here and elsewhere. They need not further take up my time — and I certainly can’t imagine why anyone else would want to reply to them.

You have satisfied the criteria of a Delayer-1000. If you (or Lomborg) were running national and international climate policy, we’d hit 1000 ppm and end of life as we know it on this planet. Do tell your kids — or any children in your family — that you were one of those counseling delay. They will be wondering who to blame by the 2020s, I imagine.

Finally, concerning global climate policy, Bjorn Lomborg has shown that reducing CO2 emissions would be a massive waste of funds – a financial folly. As CO2 is a mere trivial climate driver, it’s umimportant which levels are reached. Every newly added CO2 concentration has a reduced greenhouse effect. What’s being added today is peanuts in the entire climate equation.
With overwelming consensus, isn’t it a bit peculiar how few people are reducing their emissions. They’re still flying around in private jets, heating swimming pools with gas etc.. Why? It’s because they aren’t at all convinced themselves of this bogus global warming theory. Why should they be? Historical data shows ZERO correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Even the Vostok ice core data you refer to kills your own argument and claim! LOL! You yourself neither can provide an answer for the recent cooling nor for the 9°C temp drop 130,000 years ago while CO2 was constant.
You guys can’t hockey stick the entire climate history away. But I’m sure Steve McIntyre will not mind if you tried! That’s probably your only chance though, a takeover of the media and all weather and climate services. Go for it! Lol! Stalin managed it for 70 years.

What are you writing? If you think that the message on this board is delayer, what should be written? What is a non-delayer message that can’t be confused with a delayer message?

You look at that graph of carbon dioxide and temperature and you only see the 115000 year part? Huh? You miss all the other close alignment of carbon dioxide and temperature?

Carbon dioxide and temperature are in a dance with each other because carbon dioxide is soluble in water and it gets dissolved in the oceans. The oceans can store a lot of it and how much it stores is determined by the oceans temperature which is determined somewhat by how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Look on the charts of where the carbon dioxide levels are stopped at 280 ppm. We’re at 385 right now and we are off the scale and we’re going even higher and further off that chart of carbon dioxide level and further off the scale. That’s what the climatologists see.

You are mistaken in your analysis of the problem because you only think that climate temperatures are caused by anything and everything other than the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are things other than carbon dioxide that affects climate, but carbon dioxide level is a major factor. Your attitude of anything, anything, anything at all but carbon dioxide has blinded you.

I don’t rely on taxes. I do rely on a cap & trade system that is about one year away from being enacted.

You really should read my book someday, or my blog posts. We don’t need plug-in hybrids to start the deep reductions. We probably need them and EVs to get where we must go. But they don’t require breakthrough technology. They qualify as in the pipeline