2009 second warmest year on record

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.

Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.

Please cite a post where I stated I believed any of the things you accuse me of.

Please site posts where I believe the things that you acuse me of believing.

Note that most of the statements that I make in posts I back up with articles, often from peer reviewed literature.

Appeal to authority, damned right. When trying to understand climate, a PHd climatologist is a far better source than a drugged out radio jock.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.

Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.

And where, perchance have I said that?

Aren't your pants hot from all that lying? Isn't it good enough that you have Mann Jones and Hansen doing enough of it for you?

You post idiocy concerning PETA and the rest on a thread concerning global warming.

Prove where Mann, Jones, or Hansen have lied.

 

[Oddball]

"Hide the decline"

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocksinthehead is the king of logical fallacy. He needed to trot out the strawman for practice.

I see. It is logical fallacy to refer to articles written by Geologists when speaking of glaciers? You prefer people like Monkton for that, in spite of the fact he has no scientific bona fides at all?

Hansen is perhaps the most respected Climatologist in the world, so people like you are in the attack mode on him. He states where the evidence is pointing, rather than what your ideological preferance states.

As we move into 2010, starting with an extremely warm January, perhaps you would consider what a record warm 2010 will mean to the idiotic 'cooling trend' garbage you denialists have been spouting.

 

[Big Fitz]

You prefer people like Monkton for that, in spite of the fact he has no scientific bona fides at all?

...Says the man who believes the IPCC reports based on a student dissertation and an eco-activist article based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

"Hide the decline"

"Out of context"

 

[Oddball]

Old Rocksinthehead is the king of logical fallacy. He needed to trot out the strawman for practice.

I see. It is logical fallacy to refer to articles written by Geologists when speaking of glaciers? You prefer people like Monkton for that, in spite of the fact he has no scientific bona fides at all?

Hansen is perhaps the most respected Climatologist in the world, so people like you are in the attack mode on him. He states where the evidence is pointing, rather than what your ideological preferance states.

As we move into 2010, starting with an extremely warm January, perhaps you would consider what a record warm 2010 will mean to the idiotic 'cooling trend' garbage you denialists have been spouting.

Judging by the discoveries of last few months, it's pretty safe to say that climatology is no more of a "science" than alchemy.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.

Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.

And where, perchance have I said that?

Aren't your pants hot from all that lying? Isn't it good enough that you have Mann Jones and Hansen doing enough of it for you?

You post idiocy concerning PETA and the rest on a thread concerning global warming.

Prove where Mann, Jones, or Hansen have lied.

Climategate Document Database : Alleged CRU Email

All there, indexed and searchable. Beyond that, be your own research monkey, liar.

Oh, and PETA are fucking psychos deserving derision and contempt. No lie about that.

 

[Oddball]

"Hide the decline"

"Out of context"

You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

While you're up providing all this context, how 'bout explaining away Phil Jones' comment about "... even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!", insofar as keeping skeptics out.

 

[edthecynic]

"Hide the decline"

"Out of context"

You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know.

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.

 

[Big Fitz]

"Out of context"

You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know.

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.

Yes, but when we use it, it's been valid. Unlike libs, we understand what non-sequiter means.

 

[edthecynic]

You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know.

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.

Yes, but when we use it, it's been valid. Unlike libs, we understand what non-sequiter means.

Baloney!

 

[Big Fitz]

I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know.

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.

Yes, but when we use it, it's been valid. Unlike libs, we understand what non-sequiter means.

Baloney!

Been fooling us all then pretty darn well with your lack of understanding. You must practice, lots.

 

[Oddball]

"Out of context"

You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know.

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.

When I point out something is out of context, I give the context...And I'm not a "CON$".

So, either put up or shut up.

 

[edthecynic]

You keep saying that, yet provide no context.

I gave you the context before in another thread, as you well know.

You CON$ constantly whine "out of context" without ever giving the context so I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine to see your response.

When I point out something is out of context, I give the context...And I'm not a "CON$".

So, either put up or shut up.

And we went through that also in past threads. You play dumb like a typical CON$ervative!!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Delingpole had previously bought into the globalclimatecoolerwarmering scam.

You lose, Buckwheat.

So then its pretty obvious his claim of being right all the time can't be true, isn't it?

Its called sarcasm

 

[saveliberty]

Ah yes, and you fellows believe that asbestos is good for you, that Love Canal was a scam, that acid rain was never a problem, and that the rivers in the US were never polluted.

Just as rational as the Bullshit you idiots are posting.

Please cite a post where I stated I believed any of the things you accuse me of.

Please site posts where I believe the things that you acuse me of believing.

Note that most of the statements that I make in posts I back up with articles, often from peer reviewed literature.

Appeal to authority, damned right. When trying to understand climate, a PHd climatologist is a far better source than a drugged out radio jock.

Escape from a strawman with a strawman. So often your peers end up getting caught in a lie as well. Pardon me for having difficulty with the peer review argument.

 

[Zander]

Please cite a post where I stated I believed any of the things you accuse me of.

Please site posts where I believe the things that you acuse me of believing.

Note that most of the statements that I make in posts I back up with articles, often from peer reviewed literature.

Appeal to authority, damned right. When trying to understand climate, a PHd climatologist is a far better source than a drugged out radio jock.

Escape from a strawman with a strawman. So often your peers end up getting caught in a lie as well. Pardon me for having difficulty with the peer review argument.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it to be 100% accurate!

 

[Old Rocks]

Please site posts where I believe the things that you acuse me of believing.

Note that most of the statements that I make in posts I back up with articles, often from peer reviewed literature.

Appeal to authority, damned right. When trying to understand climate, a PHd climatologist is a far better source than a drugged out radio jock.

Escape from a strawman with a strawman. So often your peers end up getting caught in a lie as well. Pardon me for having difficulty with the peer review argument.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it to be 100% accurate!

The peer review of fools supporting fools. Are you another aficionado of Hillbilly Heroin?

 

[Liability]

* * * *

The peer review of fools supporting fools. * * * *

Sounds exactly like you AGW Faithers humping each others' legs and calling it "peer review."