The Holocene Deniers

[Thistlethorn]

By the way, grmorton, I've read through this thread again, looking for the post were Baggins claimed he had found a billion barrels of oil. I just can't find it. I'm not going to call you a liar again. Instead I'm going to ask you to point me to it, as you seem dead set on making a big deal out of it.

Also, I can now post pictures and links. I'll celebrate with this:

 

[thaumaturgy]

Good lord a'mighty. Looking back over my posts here I really have to say, "I'm Sorry".

I'm sorry I started off with the snarky post at the beginning which kind of helped set the tone here. I did start off poking Glenn.

Glenn, I'm sorry for being rude. This whole thing has gotten outta hand and I helped get it started.

So, mea culpa.

I don't buy your criticisms of anthropogenic global warming but I don't like what I become in these debates, so I'm going to bow outta here now.

Again, my apologies to everyone.

I've got enough stress in my life as is without needing to get worked up over this stuff.

So I'm going to go back to my fuel-efficient car and bicycle and my solar unit and my xeriscaped yard. I'll function within my convictions around global climate change. Glenn, you by all means, do what you want on this.

 

[corvus_corax]

Is this what peer review is like?
Seriously?!?!?

Name calling, "Im better than you", "your poop stinks worse than mine", etc?

Really?

I certainly hope not.
Because if THIS thread is any indication of three qualified scientists peer reviewing the data present.....
....well that's just sad.


Please please PLEASE tell me, baggings, thaumaturgy, GRMorton, that this is NOT what peer review is like.


And if it is (ad homs, name calling, "Im better than you" arguments), then even AV1611VET might have a point about how much peer review sucks.

 

[Baggins]

Didn't bother reading anything Billion Barrel Baggins. You aren't worth much of my time given your lack of credibility. One final comment. I told some people at work about you without mentioning what you did. I just mentioned the names of the companies you worked for, GSI, Western, and Halliburton. I told them that I met a guy who said he found billions of barrels of oil. He has worked for GSI, Western and Halliburton.

The first guy said, "Those companies don't drill!" The other said, "They don't find oil." As I said, if you put that claim on a CV you would be laughed out of the room.

Have a nice life finding more billions of barrels but never actually getting grease on your hands.

Thank you I will. Although I think you will find that a ship board geophysicist does rather more dangerous and dirty work than office bound interpreter when it comes to exploration.

I rather doubt you did mention those companies to anyone, for a start GSI haven't existed for over 20 years and Halliburton do drill. So I think we can add fantasist to list of charges brought against you.

If you do not wish to discuss the political reasons that bring you to deny AGW then all we have is this constant snipping about authority and credentials which, while entertaining, isn't very illuminating.

If you do want to discuss why your politics drives your science I will be waiting.

 

[Baggins]

No Gracchus, I absolutely agree that it doesn't matter. But I wasn't the one who claimed to have found billions of barrels .

No one claimed that, you just made it up.

Thus bringing into question the veracity of everything else you have to say.

 

[Baggins]

By the way, grmorton, I've read through this thread again, looking for the post were Baggins claimed he had found a billion barrels of oil. I just can't find it. I'm not going to call you a liar again. Instead I'm going to ask you to point me to it, as you seem dead set on making a big deal out of it.

Also, I can now post pictures and links. I'll celebrate with this:

You can't find it because it doesn't exist, I just claimed to have discovered more oil than him in a dig at his love of appeals to authority.

He knows you can see hydrocarbon accumulations on stacked seismic, heck you can see it on raw shot and cmp ordered data.

I think I, like Thaumaturgy, just poked him with a stick for fun and perhaps I shouldn't have, there is no need, all you need to do is keep asking why he lets his politics dictate his science rather than the evidence.

He has no answer to that and it is fairly obvious that the more I have asked this question the more he has turned up the "billion barrel baggins" insults and ignored it.

I think that speaks volumes.

Very few people reject AGW for scientific reasons for the simple reason that that is where they evidence points, they all, like Mr Morton, reject it because of its perceived political implications.

 

[grmorton]

By the way, grmorton, I've read through this thread again, looking for the post were Baggins claimed he had found a billion barrels of oil. I just can't find it. I'm not going to call you a liar again. Instead I'm going to ask you to point me to it, as you seem dead set on making a big deal out of it.

You really have a limited vocabulary. Liar constitutes about 90% of your responses. Ok, Baggins made the claim in pst 31.

Fact, I and the teams I managed found a billion barrels of oil. Baggins claims

You can all accept my word over Glen's because I have undoubtedly discovered more hydrocarbons than he has and I was in China this week doing it and that makes me far more impressive than him.

For the mathematically challenged. if he has found more than I, that means that he is claiming that he found MORE than a billion barrel of oil. A claim that no one in the oil industry would grant him since he hasn't drilled a single well. Indeed, the companies he works for specifically DON'T drill wells because if those companies are service companies and they went into competition with the oil companies by drilling for oil, the oil companies wouldn't use them.

My problem with Baggins is that he is vastly inflating what he has done. That means that I wont' trust what he says. I dont' trust people who aren't brutally honest, when the data goes against them and they won't admit it.

Of course, you won't apologize for calling me a liar simply because you don't correct yourself on these sorts of things. But the fact is, that if he claims to have found more than I, then he is claiming to have found more than a billion barrels. (you are probably going to weasel out here by trying to say that he didn't type the word billion)

Now,, this is my last comment on Baggins. Lets talk about data. You guys would rather talk about my bad personality, my evilness, how my mama treated me, about Baggins anything but the actual data.


Everyone knows that the arctic should see the largest effects of warming. So lets look at the temperature in a town in Siberia. This is part of an extensive look at the temperatures in Siberia on my blog.

I chose to plot the degree days above zero C. Degree-days are used by the electrical companies to know how much demand one will have over a period of time. The plot consists of the multiplication of the average monthly temperature if it is above zero times the number of days in the month. Then the values are summed for each year. This procedure will allow one to see if Siberia is melting. As you can see from Tura, it isn't. Indeed, I found only 3 cities which were warming by this criteria. Remember, Siberia isn't melting if the temperature is below zero.

What we see is that the number of days and or the number of degrees above zero has been declining according to the temperature record. I am the one who doubts the validity of the temperature record. So, those of you who do think it is valid, then please explain why Siberia is getting colder over the past century rather than warmer as you expect?

Hint. Most plots you see are average temperature and there is some warming in the night time /winter temperature lows. And that causes the average to move up. Then the average is claimed to be rising at such and such a rate and everyone panics, when in fact, the danger of melting is receding because the number of degree days above zero is going down.

So Thistlethorn, I will grant freely that I am an ahole, I will freely grant that I am nasty, rude, brusque whatever. That doesn't bother me in the least. If you guys can't quit doing pop psychology on my and start talking about the data (as you used to do) then I am going to think you don't have answers to my points.

Why should I fear the permafrost melting when over the past century the number of degree days in Siberia is declining?

 

[grmorton]

No one claimed that, you just made it up.

Thus bringing into question the veracity of everything else you have to say.

Post 31

You can all accept my word over Glen's because I have undoubtedly discovered more hydrocarbons than he has and I was in China this week doing it and that makes me far more impressive than him.

Baggins claim:

Baggins' discoveries > Glenn's discoveries

And he claims ties that claim to his veracity by specifically stating that you can accept his word over mind because of that claim. Note his silly claim. "you can all accept my word over Glen's because I have undoubtedly discovered more hydrocarbons than he has..."

I didn't make it up. You guys can't read or remember in the case of Billion Barrel Baggins.


This leads to the following syllogism:

Baggins' discoveries > Glenn's discoveries

Glenn's discoveries = 1 billion

Baggin's discoveries > 1 billion.

QED

Quit weaseling Billion Barrel.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Is this what peer review is like?
Seriously?!?!?

Name calling, "Im better than you", "your poop stinks worse than mine", etc?

Really?

I certainly hope not.
Because if THIS thread is any indication of three qualified scientists peer reviewing the data present.....
....well that's just sad.


Please please PLEASE tell me, baggings, thaumaturgy, GRMorton, that this is NOT what peer review is like.


And if it is (ad homs, name calling, "Im better than you" arguments), then even AV1611VET might have a point about how much peer review sucks.

Corvus,
Don't worry. It's not.

The times I've done peer review it is usually pretty mellow and reasoned. Some folks do get a bit nasty but that is, in my experience, rare.

Back when I was a more active peer reviewer, I once reviewed a paper that mentioned a critique of one of my earlier papers and I was so impressed that they caught an error I had missed that I recommended it for publication.

Only bad experience I had in peer review was for one of my first papers in which the reviewer compared my work to a high school science project and slammed my advisor for putting her name on this paper.

But that was about the only time I got to see academics acting that unprofessionally in peer review.

Academics snipe and fight, no doubt, but peer review is serious biz and most take it seriously.

The debates on here are to peer review what cage-fighting is to chess.

 

[Thistlethorn]

You really have a limited vocabulary. Liar constitutes about 90% of your responses. Ok, Baggins made the claim in pst 31.

Fact, I and the teams I managed found a billion barrels of oil. Baggins claims

Ah, I get it. You have found a billion barrels of oil, and since Baggins claim to have found more hydro carbon than you, that makes it ok for you to call him "Billion Barrel Baggins". Well, Billion Barrel Morton, I don't know if I, or any sane person, would agree with your logic here.

For the mathematically challenged. if he has found more than I, that means that he is claiming that he found MORE than a billion barrel of oil. A claim that no one in the oil industry would grant him since he hasn't drilled a single well. Indeed, the companies he works for specifically DON'T drill wells because if those companies are service companies and they went into competition with the oil companies by drilling for oil, the oil companies wouldn't use them.

I thought it was pretty obvious what Baggins was claiming. In fact, he went as far as explaining it. He surveys for oil, you drill for it, or something like that. It seems to me that your only problem was that he challenged your argument from authority, which is basically the only thing you had in this thread.

My problem with Baggins is that he is vastly inflating what he has done. That means that I wont' trust what he says. I dont' trust people who aren't brutally honest, when the data goes against them and they won't admit it.

Well, Baggins didn't inflate his deeds. He was fairly open with what he did. You, however, was less than "brutally honest" when you started claiming he had claimed to have found a billion barrels of oil, going as far as calling him names, when all along, it was YOU who claimed to have found a billion barrels of oil, and you just couldn't stand being one-upped by anyone.

Of course, you won't apologize for calling me a liar simply because you don't correct yourself on these sorts of things.

I did retract my earlier "liar" statement, and instead replaced it with ignorant, which was more fitting at the time. This time I explicitly said I wouldn't call you a liar, even though you, in fact, were.

But the fact is, that if he claims to have found more than I, then he is claiming to have found more than a billion barrels. (you are probably going to weasel out here by trying to say that he didn't type the word billion)

No weaseling required. He didn't say what you claimed he said. You spent an awful lot of time calling him names for something he never said. You are probably the least honest person I've encountered on these forums thus far. I figured that "honor" would have belonged to a creationist. Congratulations!

Now,, this is my last comment on Baggins. Lets talk about data. You guys would rather talk about my bad personality, my evilness, how my mama treated me, about Baggins anything but the actual data.

Yes, "Billion Barrel Baggins" is certainly a sound scientific evidence, based on well researched data.

Everyone knows that the arctic should see the largest effects of warming. So lets look at the temperature in a town in Siberia. This is part of an extensive look at the temperatures in Siberia on my blog.

I chose to plot the degree days above zero C. Degree-days are used by the electrical companies to know how much demand one will have over a period of time. The plot consists of the multiplication of the average monthly temperature if it is above zero times the number of days in the month. Then the values are summed for each year. This procedure will allow one to see if Siberia is melting. As you can see from Tura, it isn't. Indeed, I found only 3 cities which were warming by this criteria. Remember, Siberia isn't melting if the temperature is below zero.

What we see is that the number of days and or the number of degrees above zero has been declining according to the temperature record. I am the one who doubts the validity of the temperature record. So, those of you who do think it is valid, then please explain why Siberia is getting colder over the past century rather than warmer as you expect?

Well, the obvious explanation would be local variations. I'm not a climatologist, but even I know that you wouldn't expect to see a uniform increase in temperature all over the world. What you would expect, and what we DO see, is an increase in average temperature. All this is of course dependant on you actually showing complete data, and are making a correct interpretation of said data. Something which requires scientific credibility on your part, which, sadly, this thread has shown you lacking.

So Thistlethorn, I will grant freely that I am an ahole, I will freely grant that I am nasty, rude, brusque whatever. That doesn't bother me in the least. If you guys can't quit doing pop psychology on my and start talking about the data (as you used to do) then I am going to think you don't have answers to my points.

I have already debunked your data. YOU have been the one to degrade this thread into a mud-slinging competition.

Why should I fear the permafrost melting when over the past century the number of degree days in Siberia is declining?

Well, unless Siberia covers the entire globe (hint: it doesn't) you should rather be looking at average temperature on a global basis rather than local variations.

Need I remind you of the fact that your line of argument here directly contradicts your earlier claim of being aware that the earth's temperature is rising?

 

[Naraoia]

One question that seems relevant to the name-calling contest here:

Did Baggins's "more oil than thou" appear before or after Glenn's Billion in this thread?

*ducks to avoid stray mudballs*

 

[grmorton]

Ah, I get it. You have found a billion barrels of oil, and since Baggins claim to have found more hydro carbon than you, that makes it ok for you to call him "Billion Barrel Baggins". Well, Billion Barrel Morton, I don't know if I, or any sane person, would agree with your logic here.

Then you would be illogical. I was not wrong that you wouldn't with draw your liars charge--even after I pointed out that the claim was indeed made. I will skip down to the data discussion as that is more what I would rather discuss anyway.

Well, the obvious explanation would be local variations. I'm not a climatologist, but even I know that you wouldn't expect to see a uniform increase in temperature all over the world. What you would expect, and what we DO see, is an increase in average temperature. All this is of course dependant on you actually showing complete data, and are making a correct interpretation of said data. Something which requires scientific credibility on your part, which, sadly, this thread has shown you lacking.

Clearly you didn't bother to go look at the data on my blog or apparently even read the sentence that said I could only find three Russian cities that had increasing degree days. All others, and there are lots of them show decreasing degree days. The data is there on the blog to look at but your reaction without looking at it is to merely claim that it is a local phenonmenon. But that is the case whenever I post data anywhere--it is always discounted with the universal local phenomenon claim.

On my blog I have posted data from Australia, China, the US, Britain, Canada, Alaska Argentina, South Africa showing the same thing--all of which is claimed to be local phenomenon. There actually is nothing that would convince you of a global phenomenon.

I have already debunked your data. YOU have been the one to degrade this thread into a mud-slinging competition.

I slang mud at Baggins. True. But much mud has been slung at me. You call me a liar--about the mudiest thing one can do and don't retract it even when I show that the claim under question was there.

Well, unless Siberia covers the entire globe (hint: it doesn't) you should rather be looking at average temperature on a global basis rather than local variations.

A look through the data on my blog would counter your claim--you dont' look at data, you merely pronouce your belief.

Need I remind you of the fact that your line of argument here directly contradicts your earlier claim of being aware that the earth's temperature is rising?

Maybe you should learn of the argument reductio ad absurdam. You take your opponents belief and then present the consequences of those beliefs and show that they are absurd. That is what I did with the Tura data. You believe the world is warming, yet Tura and much of Siberia, where we should see the warming first isn't warming. It is either staying the same or cooling. It is absurd to think that Siberia is warming if we don't see it in the temperature record--assuming the temperature record is good.

But such nuances of argumentation may slip past you.

 

[grmorton]

One question that seems relevant to the name-calling contest here:

Did Baggins's "more oil than thou" appear before or after Glenn's Billion in this thread?

*ducks to avoid stray mudballs*

Baggins claim appeared about 2 days before I pulled out the Billion Barrel Baggins moniker. I did it when Billion Barrel Baggins deigned to call me a liar. I figured that claiming to find oil when one didn't isn't exactly being truthful.

It seems that everyone likes the liar word on this thread. It means "I can't look at the data"

I don't know where you are going with this but if it condemns me in your mind so be it. That is the history of the thread. Unfortunately, this is what happens everytime I debate here which may be why I have a bad reputation. This time, I am not leaving. We will look at the data no matter how many times they call me a liar.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Then you would be illogical. I was not wrong that you wouldn't with draw your liars charge--even after I pointed out that the claim was indeed made. I will skip down to the data discussion as that is more what I would rather discuss anyway.

The claim wasn't made. Baggins never said what you claimed he said. You, sir, are a dirty, rotten liar.

Clearly you didn't bother to go look at the data on my blog or apparently even read the sentence that said I could only find three Russian cities that had increasing degree days. All others, and there are lots of them show decreasing degree days. The data is there on the blog to look at but your reaction without looking at it is to merely claim that it is a local phenonmenon. But that is the case whenever I post data anywhere--it is always discounted with the universal local phenomenon claim.

On my blog I have posted data from Australia, China, the US, Britain, Canada, Alaska Argentina, South Africa showing the same thing--all of which is claimed to be local phenomenon. There actually is nothing that would convince you of a global phenomenon.




I slang mud at Baggins. True. But much mud has been slung at me. You call me a liar--about the mudiest thing one can do and don't retract it even when I show that the claim under question was there.



A look through the data on my blog would counter your claim--you dont' look at data, you merely pronouce your belief.



Maybe you should learn of the argument reductio ad absurdam. You take your opponents belief and then present the consequences of those beliefs and show that they are absurd. That is what I did with the Tura data. You believe the world is warming, yet Tura and much of Siberia, where we should see the warming first isn't warming. It is either staying the same or cooling. It is absurd to think that Siberia is warming if we don't see it in the temperature record--assuming the temperature record is good.

But such nuances of argumentation may slip past you.

The best I can make out of your argument and your "data" is that you look at this graph of yours, see the line pointing upwards since 1989, and then make an argument that is a complete non sequitur for what we are actually discussing.

Siberia has seasons. Four of them. Temperatures in summer are on average above zero. During winters they are on average below zero. According to that graph of yours, the average numbers of days with above zero temperature had a peak at around 1985, then a slump, and then an upwards climb. Do you realise what this means for the claim that the earth is warming up? Absolutely nothing. Would you care to do a graph with average temperature in Siberia, ranging from, say 1500 to present day? That would tell us something. Days above zero temperature say absolutely nothing, and is another red herring from you.

For those inclined to buy into this new bovine excrement, let me explain why it has flies buzzing from it.

Let's say you count the days with above zero temperature one year, then you count the days with above zero temperature 10 years later. In one case you get, say 120 days, in the other you get, say, 90 days. Does this mean the area of your measurement is heating or cooling?

Think about it.

Let me give you the answer: It means neither. It only means that there were more days with a temperature above zero in one year compared to the other. As there is no data as to how cold the days with below zero temperature were, we are given a slanted view of reality which doesn't tell us anything, except perhaps if we are an electric company deciding how much juice to pump into the system.

In order to get an answer to our question - is the area cooling down or heating up? - we need to take temperature measurements each day for both of our years, and then compare that data. If the average temperature the first year is lower than the average temperature the next year, it is heating up, and vice versa.

What grmorton is doing here is trying to "blind us with science" by presenting irrelevant data as a red herring. A thouroughly despicable approach to a scientific debate.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Baggins claim appeared about 2 days before I pulled out the Billion Barrel Baggins moniker. I did it when Billion Barrel Baggins deigned to call me a liar. I figured that claiming to find oil when one didn't isn't exactly being truthful.

It seems that everyone likes the liar word on this thread. It means "I can't look at the data"

I don't know where you are going with this but if it condemns me in your mind so be it. That is the history of the thread. Unfortunately, this is what happens everytime I debate here which may be why I have a bad reputation. This time, I am not leaving. We will look at the data no matter how many times they call me a liar.

Oh lay off the "woe is me" nonesense. You lied. It's in this thread in black and white for all to see. You made a huge thing about someone claiming to have better credentials than you, going as far as creating a derogatory moniker for him, and when called on it, you tried to cover your lie.

 

[Naraoia]

Baggins claim appeared about 2 days before I pulled out the Billion Barrel Baggins moniker. I did it when Billion Barrel Baggins deigned to call me a liar. I figured that claiming to find oil when one didn't isn't exactly being truthful.

You misunderstood. The two events I'm interested in are:

(a) Baggins says he found more oil than you

(b) you tell him how much you found.

If (a) followed (b), then Baggins did implicitly claim to have found >1 billion barrels. If (b) followed (a), then he claimed no such thing.

I hope that's clear now.

It seems that everyone likes the liar word on this thread. It means "I can't look at the data"

I'm sorry, is that addressed to me? I didn't call anyone anything in this thread, so far as I can remember.

I don't know where you are going with this...

... because you didn't get what I was asking. Hopefully, that problem is solved.

... but if it condemns me in your mind so be it.

Hey, hey, I don't remember being nasty to you, OR contributing to the mudfight, so I prefer you don't jump to conclusions.

That is the history of the thread. Unfortunately, this is what happens everytime I debate here which may be why I have a bad reputation. This time, I am not leaving. We will look at the data no matter how many times they call me a liar.

Feel free to stay. I stopped enjoying the "show" long ago, but data interest me.

 

[Thistlethorn]

As we're on the subject of Siberia, mr "Billion Barrels-o-fun Morton", let's see some data that actually matters:

Permafrost melting? But surely it is not so!

I'm fairly sure the scientists behind these graphs and diagrams would disagree with your assessment of Siberian temperature changes:

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Funny thing is, grmorton, I tend to agree with you regarding the data and AGW. I'm not convinced either way. Certainly to deny that 5 billion people have may not in some way have contributed to GW is a bit of a stretch though IMO. Shouldn't we at least investigate to determine if ths is natural vs. AWG?

As for data suppression, yes, unacceptable.

You sir however, come across like a bull in a china closet. What's the point of coming in here and insulting everyone? What did you hope to accomplish? Any hope of making a point is overshadowed by your rudeness. You come accross like a madman on a mission. Ease, up. Cut the ad hom, and let the data speak for itself.
It stands or falls, right?

 

[Baggins]

You really have a limited vocabulary. Liar constitutes about 90% of your responses. Ok, Baggins made the claim in pst 31.

Fact, I and the teams I managed found a billion barrels of oil. Baggins claims

For the mathematically challenged. if he has found more than I, that means that he is claiming that he found MORE than a billion barrel of oil.

So you claim, I don't know you from a hole in the ground, by claiming I have found more oil than you as far as I an concerned I could be stating I have found a thimble of oil because I don't know you have discovered squat let alone a billion barrels.

Judging by the veracity of some of the other information in your posts I'd rate that doubtful

You are really touchy about your credentials aren't you, anyone looking at post 31 can see the joking nature of it it was poking fun at you about your appeals to your own authority.

But the way you reacted shows that his is all you actually have.

very sad.

A claim that no one in the oil industry would grant him since he hasn't drilled a single well. Indeed, the companies he works for specifically DON'T drill wells because if those companies are service companies and they went into competition with the oil companies by drilling for oil, the oil companies wouldn't use them.

As I said I think it is perfectly acceptable to say you have found oil when you have seen signs of hydro carbons on seismic. You don't.

My problem with Baggins is that he is vastly inflating what he has done. That means that I wont' trust what he says. I dont' trust people who aren't brutally honest, when the data goes against them and they won't admit it.

You must distrust yourself hugely then.

You distrust me because I am supposed to guess how much oil you claim to have found in your career and you don't accept seeing hydrocarbons on seismic as finding oil.

OK

Of course, you won't apologize for calling me a liar simply because you don't correct yourself on these sorts of things. But the fact is, that if he claims to have found more than I, then he is claiming to have found more than a billion barrels. (you are probably going to weasel out here by trying to say that he didn't type the word billion)

I most certainly didn't I claimed to have found more oil than you, you claim to have found a billion barrels of oil, you could be lying about that as well.

Now,, this is my last comment on Baggins. Lets talk about data. You guys would rather talk about my bad personality, my evilness, how my mama treated me, about Baggins anything but the actual data.

I have no interest in discussing the data with you, you don't accept it for political reasons.

I can see nowhere to go from there.

 

[Baggins]

Post 31

Baggins claim:

Baggins' discoveries > Glenn's discoveries

And he claims ties that claim to his veracity by specifically stating that you can accept his word over mind because of that claim. Note his silly claim. "you can all accept my word over Glen's because I have undoubtedly discovered more hydrocarbons than he has..."

I didn't make it up. You guys can't read or remember in the case of Billion Barrel Baggins.


This leads to the following syllogism:

Baggins' discoveries > Glenn's discoveries

Glenn's discoveries = 1 billion

Baggin's discoveries > 1 billion.

QED

Quit weaseling Billion Barrel.

All I'd add to that is

Glenn's claimed discoveries..

I have no idea if you have found more than your trousers in the morning.

I have never heard of you before so in claiming that I have discovered more oil than you I am making exactly no claim at all about how much oil that I have discovered.

Anyone reading my post can see that it is a light hearted joke at your expense based on Thaumaturgy's - increasingly more accurate - portrayal of someone who bases everything on argument from authority.

Your increasingly hysterical and desperate attempts at portraying me as someone who has claimed to have discovered more than a billion barrels of oil is hilarious.

Why do you reject the scientific conclusions of the climatology community because of your politics Glenn? That is what I am really interested in knowing.