Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case. But you knew that allready didn't you.

So you're saying that in every one of these investigations, the people investigating are the same as the people being investigated.

I don't think you can back that up.

Man certainly contributes some. However as shown in the Vostock ice core data, the warming occurs first then 800 years or so later the CO2 levels increase. 800 years ago was the height of the MWP. Now correlation is certainly not causation, but there is more evidence to support that correlation then anything the warmists are putting out.

So where's all the CO2 coming from now?

Most likely the oceans. They are the single biggest storer of CO2 on the planet. As far as the so called exonerations I suggest you review the "hearings". Of course one must be intellectually honest when one does so. Something I think you are not.

 

[Si modo]

LOL. As you shit all over the subject.

You have no desire to discuss science at any level. You merely wish to push your political idiocy without regard to scientific reality.

The only thing I push for is scientific integrity. The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.

Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corraled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophyisical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL

If I have ever said they have no scientific integrity, you would have a point.

As I never have, all you have is straw.

 

[Oddball]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

That sham was enviroloon equivalent of John Mitchell exonerating Nixon, Howard Hunt, Bob Haldeman, G. Gordon Liddy and John Ehrlichman for the Watergate break in.

Sucker.

 

[westwall]

LOL. As you shit all over the subject.

You have no desire to discuss science at any level. You merely wish to push your political idiocy without regard to scientific reality.

The only thing I push for is scientific integrity. The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.

Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corraled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophyisical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL

So, how then, do you explain the very public resignations of renowned Nobel laureates from those august bodies?

 

[Si modo]

The only thing I push for is scientific integrity. The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.

Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corraled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophyisical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL

So, how then, do you explain the very public resignations of renowned Nobel laureates from those august bodies?

They value scientific integrity, too?

 

[RollingThunder]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

What is a denier denying?

REALITY....and in your case, dodo, sanity.

 

[RollingThunder]

The only thing I push for is scientific integrity. The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.

Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corralled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL

So, how then, do you explain the very public resignations of renowned Nobel laureates from those august bodies?

LOLOLOLOL......you're really wanting to have that particular pissing contest, walleyed?

So how about you tell us how you "explain the very public" statements urging action to halt anthropogenic global warming issued by these "renowned Nobel laureates"? I mean, since you seem to think so highly of Nobel laureates (or is just the two or three who have expressed AGW skepticism that you respect - LOL). BTW, these names are only a few out of the 1700 prominent scientists who signed the statement below.

NOBEL LAUREATES
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING TO HUMANITY
(not restricted by copyright - free to reproduce)

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT IS SUFFERING CRITICAL STRESS

The Atmosphere

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultra-violet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops.

Water Resources

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste—some of it toxic

Soil

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded—an area larger than India and China combined—and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain—with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe—but the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life—coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change—could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs—small scale and relatively easy to implement.

We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war—amounting to over $1 trillion annually—will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is required—a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere.

We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists—natural, social, economic, political;

We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;

We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and

We require the help of the world's peoples.

We call on all to join us in this task.

 

[Si modo]

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.

What is a denier denying?

REALITY....and in your case, dodo, sanity.

Ah, you have no idea what a 'denier' is denying.

 

[Bigfoot]

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker! And from the honest folks at Berkley no less

She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.

The entire report is so biased it doesn't make much difference anyway. Professors have already discovered the inadequacies of the report in the group from Berkley's attempt to further push their false agenda. It's just another attempt at the left's mantra of redistribution of wealth and the destruction of what most decent people would like to see our country do.

 

[RollingThunder]

What is a denier denying?

REALITY....and in your case, dodo, sanity.

Ah, you have no idea what a 'denier' is denying.

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

 

[Si modo]

REALITY....and in your case, dodo, sanity.

Ah, you have no idea what a 'denier' is denying.

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

 

[gslack]

Ah, you have no idea what a 'denier' is denying.

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

Si, trollingedtheblunderingeunich or whatever his name is this time, is here to post propaganda and confound any real discussion on AGW. He hides behind a proxy most likely and swaps in and out of ID's to post the same scripted nonsense from his activist sources list. He has no more desire to prove AGW, than I do. He is about mass distribution of confusion. He and his clones go by the old PR standard of Bernays and others. They create confusion while burying people in mounds of pseudo-science, half truths, and out right lies and disinformation. They justify this thinking the ends will justify any means..

In my personal opinion they are the worst examples of activism gone terribly wrong. There is no "coming from a good place" inside this people. The core is twisted and that makes the entire purpose of their "activism" wrong..

I applaud you for your patience and ability to tolerate their nonsense. You handle their ignorance with far better patience than I can.

 

[Si modo]

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

Si, trollingedtheblunderingeunich or whatever his name is this time, is here to post propaganda and confound any real discussion on AGW. He hides behind a proxy most likely and swaps in and out of ID's to post the same scripted nonsense from his activist sources list. He has no more desire to prove AGW, than I do. He is about mass distribution of confusion. He and his clones go by the old PR standard of Bernays and others. They create confusion while burying people in mounds of pseudo-science, half truths, and out right lies and disinformation. They justify this thinking the ends will justify any means..

In my personal opinion they are the worst examples of activism gone terribly wrong. There is no "coming from a good place" inside this people. The core is twisted and that makes the entire purpose of their "activism" wrong..

I applaud you for your patience and ability to tolerate their nonsense. You handle their ignorance with far better patience than I can.

Oh, I normally have very little patience for idiocy. Very little. Just look at my posts in other subforms here.

But, when discussing science - or attempting to do so - it's just easy to be patient with them because those who are ignorant of science dig their own holes so easily.

That is a sweet payoff for patience, and almost immediate.

 

[gslack]

Hee Hee Hee, love that signature!

 

[Si modo]

Hee Hee Hee, love that signature!

It's awesome, isn't it?

I'll eventually edit it.

But, I am enjoying it right now.

 

[gslack]

I find it very enlightening.. Reminds me of that movie can't remember the name of it. Whenever there is an argument one of the dumber characters shouts the words "LOUD NOISES" so he can be apart of it.. LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

Ah, you have no idea what a 'denier' is denying.

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.

 

[gslack]

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.

Please point to any post, thread, discussion, or anything here where you have used your scientific abilities to explain, show or imply anything using your own words and logic...

I will wait for that.. Can we expect that this month at least?

EDIT: By the way, the words you used "Anti-science deniers" would make us deniers of anti-science. Meaning you must agree that yours is anti-sceince since we disagree with it... Hence the laughter and mocking... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.

Please post one repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures, acidifies the oceans and causes "unstable climate"

 

[Si modo]

Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again.

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.

"You anti-science deniers"?

Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.

Still, I'm an "anti-science denier", eh?

OMG. This is just too funny.