Anyone who ever attempted to discuss anything with Luboš Motl is likely to have noticed that he doesn't like to address anything substantive or answer questions. Below are three that I asked on his blog. My questions were met with deletion. He prefers the uniformed adulation of his sychophants.
Bill Nye surely doesn't understand much about climate science, but how about you? It would certainly be easy for someone of your skills to learn the essentials of the radiative forcing problem but I've never seen evidence that you do - you often quote approvingly from those who don't. Why don't you tell us what you believe - or better, what you know, about the following questions:
1)Is human activity increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere?
2)In the first order approximation (no feedbacks), does more CO2 produce warming?
3)If so, do you believe that anthropogenic warming is occurring or will occur?
So why is he that way? I'm guessing that it's sort of a fear factor - if you say something substantive, you might be proved wrong. On the other hand, if you respond with insults and epithets, you are only just proved a jerk.
If he responds here (probably not likely), I predict insults but no answers. How about it Lumo? Prove me wrong!