Since it has little to do with arguments I have actually made, I don't try to explain it at all, nor do I have any reasonable obligation to do so. But I will briefly mention refutations by other people anyway, simply because you asked. Isn't that nice of me?

How about this? (This is someone else's work, not my own, so if you don't like it, argue with him.)

(From Idso, S.B. 1998: CO2-induced global warming Climate Research, 10, 69-82. K is Kelvin, NOT thousands.)

It took me about 30 seconds to find that. Spending another 30 seconds or so found this. Are you suggesting that if I spent more time I would not find more and better?

Again: if you have problems with their figures, I strongly suggest you argue with THEM. Because arguing with me isn't going to take their pages down. Is this support of Latour's argument? Probably not. But on the other hand it rather invalidates yours.

I know how you can generate revenue! Sell it all to me for $100.

s/quoting the/quoting them

This person has no courage to engage the actual authors of ideas, but would rather do his best to ad-hominem others who mention those ideas. He has proven many times that he doesn't have "courage of conviction", but would rather snipe at others from the sidelines, without demonstrating strength of his own. That's called cowardice.

In any case, after many years now of being too tolerant and putting up with his abuse, I don't mind saying it like it is. I am looking into legal remedies against this odious person. We'll see how that turns out. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to save copies of these snipes of his. It's easier than getting a subpoena. But in all honesty I'm probably going to have to do that too.

A real skeptic would see you arguing with the person who made the argument in the first place, publicly, and not just your habit of "arguing" with people quoting the, with no notice on your personal blog, which nobody knows or cares about, so they don't even know you're trying to "argue" with them anyway.

I've stated this many times: your arguing with yourself on your personal blog amounts to zilch, because nobody knows or cares.

Do you HONESTLY expect me to visit your blog every day to see your arguments with yourself, and effigies of your "opponents"? And expect that is necessary to "refute" your straw-man and ad-hominem arguments? And (still to be legally determined) libel?

Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times.

Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person.

I have already stated that it might have been done for legitimate reasons. Which makes your "conspiracy theory" accusation (which you have made many times, not just here) bogus.

But I am curious: why do you insist I demonstrate to you that it might NOT be a conspiracy theory? Are you unfamiliar with the subject?

I rather expect so. Here's my actual "theory": either you are ignorant of the actual facts surrounding the situation, and so assume it's "conspiracy theory", or you are ignorant of the actual facts surrounding the situation, and can't imagine why it might not be conspiracy theory, or you are actually familiar with the situation and are just trying to make me look bad, because you're an asshole.

If I have summarized the possibilities well (and I think I have), that means in 2 out of the 3 possibilities you are simply ignorant, and 1 out of 3 that you are just doing this to try to make me look bad.

But of course, that's assuming equal probability to each outcome, and of course I make no such assumption.

How about just a reporter who knows what a "bus" (sic) is?

Where do you get the idea I would or should know this? There are a great many possibilities.

I repeat: it is not a "theory". It is established fact. The document published on the White House website is not a simple "copy" of a birth certificate. Anyone can download it and see for themselves that it is not a simple scan into Photoshop or Illustrator, as the White House claims. Forensic evidence indicates it was edited using both Adobe products and Mac OS X Preview, and that it is not even remotely possible that the final result is an unedited scan.

That is a far different thing from claiming I "know" Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. I don't know that, and I don't claim that. I have no idea where he was born.

This "Laysej" person (not even close to his real name) has made a practice of trying to imply I'm a "conspiracy theorist" just because I've mentioned suspicious facts before. Like the proven manipulation of the White House website "copy" of the birth certificate.

I don't claim to know where Obama was born. One of the (many) ways Laysej's logic fails is that he does not seem to realize that even if the copy were "fake", there can be legitimate reason for that. But of course he has no idea what those legitimate reasons may be. So to him, anybody who states the facts is a "conspiracy theorist".

I don't have any "theory" about a birth certificate. I do have solid evidence (which has not been debunked) that the "copy" of the birth certificate on the White House web page has been deliberately manipulated.

You seem to be implying I am a "birther". This is not the case and you know it not to be the case. I have stated many times right here on Slashdot that I have no idea (and no opinion) about where Obama was actually born.

So why are you deliberately trying to make me look bad? What is your motivation?

I know the answer. But I doubt many other readers do.

HINT: When faced with the facts, a couple of years ago, that his own arguments did not hold water, and that nobody had successfully refuted Latour, his reply to me was "they will". Which, if you understand English, is an admission of defeat.

It is 2 years or so later now, and they still haven't. Dr. Roy Spencer (himself a self-proclaimed climate skeptic) and Anthony Watts (also a climate skeptic) both tried to disprove him experimentally, and both failed. And nobody has pointed out any genuine errors in Latour's math or logic.

Public Service Announcement

I guess I just can't let it slide. Khayman80's argument that Latour doesn't understand that the subject under discussion is net heat transfer is almost certainly disingenuous and intended to mislead, because we had that argument a couple of years ago. Which he lost, by the way.

Latour has written papers about EXACTLY that topic, and I know that Khayman80 has seen at least one of them, because of the mentioned argument (which he lost), in which he admitted to having seen it. So he is either lying in order to try to convince others I am wrong (which is dishonest), of he has completely forgotten about Latour's actual work, in which case he's just making up the argument (which is intellectually dishonest), OR he is trying to make a straw-man argument by suggesting that Latour himself was arguing something he actually wasn't. Which is intellectually dishonest.

I'll let other readers decide the existence (if any) and extent (if any) of Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty. The evidence is right there above, if any of you would care to go read ALL OF those old arguments (which he lost).

Public Service Announcement

I will add:

Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments.

Public Service Announcement:

I have nothing to do with this person, or he with me. His pretense of knowing who I am and what I think, and his practice of taking years-old comments out of context and conflating them together does not make for sound argument.

Dr. Latour did heat-transfer work for NASA, and has made a career of building control systems for chemical processes involving heat. I daresay he is more of an expert on the subject than "Khayman80".

To the best of my knowledge, no-one to date has successfully refuted Latour's science. Many have tried, many have failed. Khayman80 himself admitted this a couple of years ago, right here on Slashdot, which makes me wonder why he's digging up even older arguments that he has since failed to refute. Perhaps he just forgot. Though I doubt it.

I have no reply to this person specifically. As far as I am concerned, he is a non-person.

Nonsense. LOTS of things are obvious to the uninformed:

Global warming, Young Earth, WMDs, chemtrails, anal probes... the list goes on and on. Granted, some of that is MISinformation, rather than lack of information, but I count misinformed as uninformed.

OP:

Well, I grant the "threats or competitors" part, to some degree. But the U.S. now has MORE forests and other wildlife habitat than it had 100 years ago. In my general area, wolves and peregrine falcons have been reintroduced, quite successfully (there is now a wolf hunting season). Not to mention the rebound of raptors like osprey and eagles. There are an abundance of other predators like badgers and mountain lions... which means a robust-enough prey population to support them.

I don't know where you live, but where I do, there's not much extinction going on. Quite the opposite, actually.

I wouldn't even bother. No matter how valid a point you make the Kool-Aid Drinkers will never agree with you, and just continue quoting their gospel and insisting it's "fact", not politics. I know: I've been there many times.