Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.

You are the perfect example of a sellout... Ain't that right windy?

Ummm, olfraud is actually a political whore and nothing but a whore. he works for a notoriously polluting company (EVRAZ) in a notoriously polluting industry (steel manufacturing) and he has the gall to tell us how to live He's the epitome of what he claims to rail against. Us shills? Nope it's that fraud all the way! He's the shill and he proves it every minute of every day that he works for that company.

 

[westwall]

He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;

A23A

Oh goody a fraud from Penn State. BFD, Mann et al are crooks and pseudo scientists. I wipe my bottom with their papers (said with a heavy French accent)

 

[Si modo]

G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.

You are the perfect example of a sellout... Ain't that right windy?

Ummm, olfraud is actually a political whore and nothing but a whore. he works for a notoriously polluting company (EVRAZ) in a notoriously polluting industry (steel manufacturing) and he has the gall to tell us how to live He's the epitome of what he claims to rail against. Us shills? Nope it's that fraud all the way! He's the shill and he proves it every minute of every day that he works for that company.

No shit? He works for EVRAZ?

 

[westwall]

You are the perfect example of a sellout... Ain't that right windy?

Ummm, olfraud is actually a political whore and nothing but a whore. he works for a notoriously polluting company (EVRAZ) in a notoriously polluting industry (steel manufacturing) and he has the gall to tell us how to live He's the epitome of what he claims to rail against. Us shills? Nope it's that fraud all the way! He's the shill and he proves it every minute of every day that he works for that company.

No shit? He works for EVRAZ?

.

Yup! How's that for irony!

 

[Si modo]

Ummm, olfraud is actually a political whore and nothing but a whore. he works for a notoriously polluting company (EVRAZ) in a notoriously polluting industry (steel manufacturing) and he has the gall to tell us how to live He's the epitome of what he claims to rail against. Us shills? Nope it's that fraud all the way! He's the shill and he proves it every minute of every day that he works for that company.

No shit? He works for EVRAZ?

.

Yup! How's that for irony!

Obviously even hacks have their price.

 

[westwall]

No shit? He works for EVRAZ?

.

Yup! How's that for irony!

Obviously even hacks have their price.

Yes, I imagine he is more the two bit street whore kind of hooker. He's definately low class. I love your AVI BTW!

 

[Si modo]

.

Yup! How's that for irony!

Obviously even hacks have their price.

Yes, I imagine he is more the two bit street whore kind of hooker. He's definately low class. I love your AVI BTW!

Thanks! It's getting close to turkey time.

 

[Old Rocks]

He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;

A23A

Oh goody a fraud from Penn State. BFD, Mann et al are crooks and pseudo scientists. I wipe my bottom with their papers (said with a heavy French accent)

And you are going to present a lecture to the AGU this fall demonstrating the error of their papers, correct? We have only been waiting for three years now for you to do that.

But, since you stated that you are a fellow of the Royal Society, a presentation there will also do.

 

[westwall]

He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;

A23A

Oh goody a fraud from Penn State. BFD, Mann et al are crooks and pseudo scientists. I wipe my bottom with their papers (said with a heavy French accent)

And you are going to present a lecture to the AGU this fall demonstrating the error of their papers, correct? We have only been waiting for three years now for you to do that.

But, since you stated that you are a fellow of the Royal Society, a presentation there will also do.

Yes I will as soon as they stop selling their soul to the devil. I'm sure you don't realize the process for getting a paper submitted for consideration but here is a snippet, you receive an invitation to submit a paper on a subject they assign you. You write it and send it in. They review it and say yea or nay. Some pay to play Journals will allow you to be a presenter for a price. Something right up your alley..right MENSA BOY!

 

[SAT]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

 

[SAT]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

 

[daveman]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

 

[westwall]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

Phrenology! Crusader Frank has them pegged!

 

[Si modo]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

No. I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

Trust me, it's not rocket science.

 

[westwall]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

No. I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

Trust me, it's not rocket science.

It is to him! Trust me he's still astonished that phones can magically transmit voices from one side of the block to the other!

 

[SAT]

No. I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

Trust me, it's not rocket science.

Calm down.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist.

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies.

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?

 

[daveman]

My claim is that the science does not demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.

So, you are a fucking moron. Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.

Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue.

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one:

‘The null hypothesis says warming is natural’—An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

You can pretend this post doesn't exist, SAT, but your desperate wishful thinking alters reality not one whit.

 

[daveman]

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.

Then you won't have any trouble linking to any of them, will you?

Oh, wait...you haven't yet. You just keep weaseling out of it.

 

[Si modo]

No. I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

Trust me, it's not rocket science.

Calm down.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist.

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies.

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?

Here is your claim: "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.







(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking. Just so you know.)

 

[SAT]

What's your background? Your education? What field of science do you work in?

You can pretend this post doesn't exist, SAT, but your desperate wishful thinking alters reality not one whit.

I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it.

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.

Then you won't have any trouble linking to any of them, will you?

Oh, wait...you haven't yet. You just keep weaseling out of it.

Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game.

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?