I’m fascinated by how this stuff works, but don’t have a clue. Perhaps one of my pals over here is familiar with it.
I’ve received comments from a dude, (Jim Steele also does the same thing when he drops a turd on me.) they start out looking like this:
(I’ve had to take a screen shot because it keeps changing.)
In copying and pasting the above into a quote for this thread, it turned into this:
Your complaint that I "don't allow for comments" on my critique is misplaced. I first posted my comments on YouTube, on Prof. Mitrovica's video. The reason you can't see them there, and respond to them, is that the NAS won't let you. If the NAS hadn't "ghosted" my comments on Prof. Mitrovica's video, you could have responded there. But they don't allow critical comments there, so I posted my comments on my own web site. My sealevel.info web site is not a blog. It doesn't run Wordpress or any other CM or blogging software, so there's no provision for reader comments. But if you (or anyone else) find any errors, please let me know, and I will correct them. You asked, "what about predictable weather patterns and their role in producing bumper crops" and the disruption caused by anthropogenic climate change? The answer is in the data. Thus far there's no evidence that anthropogenic climate change is causing extreme weather events, or adversely affecting weather patterns in any other on Jerry Mitrovica: The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change... the videoAt my blog when I approved the comment and posted it, it turned into this: 
ncdave4life said... Your complaint that I "don't allow for comments" on my critique is misplaced. I first posted my comments on YouTube, on Prof. Mitrovica's video. The reason you can't see them there, and respond to them, is that the NAS won't let you. If the NAS hadn't "ghosted" my comments on Prof. Mitrovica's video, you could have responded there. But they don't allow critical comments there, so I posted my comments on my own web site. My sealevel.info web site is not a blog. It doesn't run Wordpress or any other CM or blogging software, so there's no provision for reader comments. But if you (or anyone else) find any errors, please let me know, and I will correct them. You asked, "what about predictable weather patterns and their role in producing bumper crops" and the disruption caused by anthropogenic climate change? The answer is in the data. Thus far there's no evidence that anthropogenic climate change is causing extreme weather events, or adversely affecting weather patterns in any other way. It certainly hasn't adversely affected agricultural productivity: http://sealevel.info/image024_agricultural_productivity_1958_to_2004.jpg (The red line is CO2.) You wrote, "It's utter malicious nonsense trying to conflate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with it's biological role." That's wrong in two different ways: 1. The fact that you're unfamiliar with something does not make it "malicious nonsense." Every word I wrote is true. If you learn more about the climate issue, what you'll discover is verification of what I wrote. Environmentalist David Siegel has already trod that path. Here he shares What I Learned about Climate Change: http://www.climatecurious.com/ He learned a lot, and so can you. 2. It is a fundamental error to try to separate what CO2 does in our atmosphere with its biological role. They're intimately connected. Have you ever wondered about the high level of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere? On Venus and Mars nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2. O2 is nearly non-existent, because it is highly reactive, and combines with other elements to make less-reactive, more stable molecules, like CO2, H2O, SO2, etc. But on Earth, other than some water vapor, >99% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of O2. Only 0.2% is in CO2, despite fires and animal respiration which constantly produce CO2 from O2. Have you ever wondered why? The correct answer is that it's because CO2-hungry living things have stripped nearly all the CO2 from the atmosphere, to get the carbon, releasing the O2 as a waste product. That's why, although 21% of the Earth's atmosphere is oxygen, carbon dioxide levels are measured in parts-per-million. The CO2/O2 balance is determined by a race between plants and animals. Animals use O2 and produce CO2; plants use CO2 and produce O2. But there are a lot more plants than animals, and in the tug-o-war between plants and animals the plants have won. They've tugged the CO2-O2 tug-of-war rope all the way to the end. Animals are relatively scarce, compared to photosynthetic plants, and the plants have used up nearly all the CO2. The animals just can't produce enough CO2 to keep up. The plants would use much more CO2, but they ran out of it. The chronic shortage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is the primary limit on plant growth. That's why anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have increased atmospheric CO2 from about 0.03% in the 1940s to about 0.04% today, are directly responsible for 15%-20% of current agricultural productivity. If CO2 were still at 0.03% instead of the current 0.04% of the atmosphere, we'd need 18-25% more land under cultivation, just to maintain current agricultural output. If all the world's rain forests were put under cultivation, that would almost, but not quite, make up the deficit. The rain forests can thank their continued existence to anthropogenic CO2! May 13, 2016 at 11:16 PM