Greta Von Death Metal, killer climate song.

[percysunshine]

Wow...Greta of Arc....martyred saint of the Church of Global Warming.

 

[SSDD]

Says the predatory old queer who keeps stalking me. On the bright side, it you're on the board here, it means you're not on the streets. I do agree that you're an expert on deviant behavior. With your years of practice, how could you not be?

Seems more like you are stalking me hairball...but with you, all one need do is look at what you claim about others in order to know what you are up to.

​

So, why do you consider Greta to be a saint and an evildoer at the same time? Do you understand how insane that makes you look?

Talk about crazy....when did I ever suggest that she was either. I said that she is a poor kid with multiple neuropsychiatric conditions who is being abused and exploited...

​

And why, in all these years, have you never been able to support any of your cult pseudoscience with any facts? Other than the rest of your depraved death cult, who do you think you're fooling? In all those years, you haven't brought a single convert into your death cult. Quite the opposite, you've just convinced everyone of your cult depravity. Given how your preaching harms your death cult, why do you keep it up?

Like I said...all one need do is look at what you accuse others of in order to see what you are up to. We both know that it is you who can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

What you do a great deal of is offering up a plethora of excuses for not being able to produce any such evidence....my favorite is the lie that it has already been produced....we both know that if you had access to any such evidence, you would be biting at the bit to slap me down with it...instead...it is one excuse after another for not being able to provide any such evidence.

Now...make an excuse, or run along....in either case, what you won't be doing is providing even 1 piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

 

[mamooth]

eems more like you are stalking me hairball...but with you, all one need do is look at what you claim about others in order to know what you are up to.

So, have you left the computer at all in the past few days?

That's not normal, you know.

 

[SSDD]

eems more like you are stalking me hairball...but with you, all one need do is look at what you claim about others in order to know what you are up to.

So, have you left the computer at all in the past few days?

That's not normal, you know.

What do you know? Yet another claim that you can’t begin to support with any kind of actual evidence. How predictable, and banal...

 

[JoeB131]

What do you know? Yet another claim that you can’t begin to support with any kind of actual evidence. How predictable, and banal...

 

[SSDD]

What do you know? Yet another claim that you can’t begin to support with any kind of actual evidence. How predictable, and banal...

And yet another warmer, frustrated, and rendered impotent by his inability to support his position with anything like actual evidence...reduced to wordless posting of pictures.

More and more pitiful all the time.

If you ever work up the courage to actually discuss the science joe, by all means let me know. You will get your ass handed to you, but do let me know.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet another warmer, frustrated, and rendered impotent by his inability to support his position with anything like actual evidence...reduced to wordless posting of pictures.

A picture is worth a thousand words.. You "Flat-Earthers" are the joke.

 

[SSDD]

1000+ peer reviewed, published papers skeptical of the AGW hypothesis...care to discuss the science or has your inability to find any evidence to support your position rendered you entirely impotent...

How about we discuss the fact that there is more ice in the Arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years according to the peer reviewed, published science. That isn't what your approved warmer source is telling you....is it?

Or how about we discuss the actual dangers of abusing and exploiting children diagnosed with neuropsychiatric disorders and a history of self harm?

 

[JoeB131]

1000+ peer reviewed, published papers skeptical of the AGW hypothesis...care to discuss the science or has your inability to find any evidence to support your position rendered you entirely impotent...

Nope, I really don't care to discuss papers published by the Oil Industry, Koch-sucker.

I put that up there with all the "peer-reviewed" papers that claimed cigarettes don't cause cancer.

How about we discuss the fact that there is more ice in the Arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years according to the peer reviewed, published science.

FACT CHECK: Does an 'Increase' in Arctic and Greenland Ice Cast Doubt on the Reality of Global Warming?

Natural News cites a climate change denial blog called ClimateDepot.com as evidence of the claim that sea ice has grown 40 percent since 2012. In reality, the claim made by this website was more specific and less useful. In a post dated 18 September 2017, Climate Depot stated:

The overall trend of declining sea ice is even clearer when you look at a different measure: sea ice volume (presented by the Polar Science Center, below). Not only do such records show a clear negative trend, they also show just how anomalous 2012 was as a data point:

In reality, 2017 was the eighth lowest year on record for Arctic sea ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1978. But in no world but the pseudo-scientific fringe internet would the concept of global warming rely on every single year breaking the previous year’s record for sea ice minimum.

Tom Karl, the former director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, told us that 2017’s sea ice extent was still much lower than the 1980-2010 average (by two standard deviations), and that, despite claims to the contrary, “one can’t look at a trend over 5 years and say much about the impact of global warming as other factors are also important on these short time scales.”

This is why there's no point talking to you people. You spread bullshit.

 

[SSDD]

1000+ peer reviewed, published papers skeptical of the AGW hypothesis...care to discuss the science or has your inability to find any evidence to support your position rendered you entirely impotent...

Nope, I really don't care to discuss papers published by the Oil Industry, Koch-sucker.

Talk about lying to yourself. Is that how you deny all peer reviewed published science?

This one is from the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromoso, Norway. Not that I would expect you to know....being a science denier, but they are well respected in the climate science community.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9d01/7c43133eb7e028f19d429748de055c7542a0.pdf

“The early Holocene (ca. 9500 – 5800 cal yr BP) … Relatively low IP25 concentrations [a proxy for sea ice presence] with increased brassicasterol abundances indicate reduced seasonal (spring) sea ice cover and longer (warmer) summers with open water conditions suitable for phytoplankton production. The occurrence of reduced sea ice cover and longer summers is consistent with increased planktic foraminiferal concentrations (reported here and Carstens et al., 1997) and with longer ice-free seasons and a retreated ice margin in the northern Barents Sea (Duplessy et al., 2001) as well as increased phytoplankton production in the northern Fram Strait (Müller et al., 2009). Reduced spring sea ice cover also indicates the HTM recorded at the sea surface between ca. 9300 and 6500 cal yr BP, which probably results from maximum summer insolation at 78° N.”


Then there is this one published in the Journal of Quartenary science, a well respected journal within the climate science community...

Error - Cookies Turned Off

In this study, we present new detailed biomarker‐based sea ice records from two sediment cores recovered in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea. These new biomarker data may provide new insights on processes controlling recent and past sea ice changes. The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid‐Holocene short‐term high‐amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific‐Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP. This Late Holocene trend in sea ice change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas seems to be contemporaneous with similar changes in sea ice extent recorded from other Arctic marginal seas. The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice (and surface‐water productivity) are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long‐term decrease in summer insolation. The short‐term centennial variability observed in the high‐resolution Middle Holocene record is probably related to solar forcing. Our new data on Holocene sea ice variability may contribute to synoptic reconstructions of regional to global Holocene climate change based on terrestrial and marine archives.



I could go on at length...posting peer reviewed science published in well respected journals. When you actually take time to look at the science, you get an entirely different picture than the media, and activists alarmists present..

One has to feel for you poor unfortunates who aren't bright enough to actually look at the science...but hey...feel free to post up some of your peer reviewed alarmist science which says that there was more ice in the arctic over the past 10,000 years than there is now...

Of course, it won't happen because there is no such science.

FACT CHECK: Does an 'Increase' in Arctic and Greenland Ice Cast Doubt on the Reality of Global Warming?

Sorry...different topic. You don't know enough about the topic to even stay on topic? We are talking about the fact that there is more ice in the Arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years..and to top it off, you don't provide any peer reviewed, published science...you provide a blog as if that were any sort of evidence.. If that is what passes for science in your mind, there is little wonder you are a dupe.

This is why there's no point talking to you people. You spread bullshit.

I get your point....there is little point in talking to people who are going to support their case with peer reviewed science published in respectable journals when all you can do is post up blogs that are off topic in an effort to support your case... And yes....you spread bullshit...that is what you can expect to get from blogs...if you want to know what's what, then you need to be looking at the actual science...of course, it isn't going to support what you believe so you will deny it all...but that is how it goes when you are a dupe..

 

[JoeB131]

Talk about lying to yourself. Is that how you deny all peer reviewed published science?

97% of CLimate Scientists.... say global warming is a thing.

You posted bullshit, I debunked it pretty quickly.

 

[skookerasbil]

Talk about lying to yourself. Is that how you deny all peer reviewed published science?

97% of CLimate Scientists.... say global warming is a thing.

You posted bullshit, I debunked it pretty quickly.

View attachment 282871

Lol....there is nobody who hasn't heard the 97% thing. Known if for close to 15 years. Not mattering. Evidently not impressing the voters....at all.

Been saying for 10 years that the climate crusaders need a Plan B. Because nobody has climate change action on their radar.

 

[SSDD]

Talk about lying to yourself. Is that how you deny all peer reviewed published science?

97% of CLimate Scientists.... say global warming is a thing.

You posted bullshit, I debunked it pretty quickly.

View attachment 282871

If your claim is in fact true, then it should be effortless for you to provide some actual science to support your claims...or to demonstrate that the peer reviewed research I have already provided that, by the way was published in respectable journals is mistaken.

If your claim is, in fact false, then you can provide no actual peer reviewed science ro contradict any statement I have made.

By now it is clear that you can't provide any actual science because there just isn't any to contradict me...if there were, then I would hold a different position.

You don't look at the science...you take the word of people who share your politics regarding what the science says. You have no idea of what the science actually says..you only know what the people you look to for information say about what the science says.
You have reached a point where you are denying climate research that has passed peer review and been published in respected scientific journals and calling it bullshit based on what people tell you the science says.

Here is a thought for you...

When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead...your being dead is only difficult for others.

It's the same when you are stupid....

 

[JoeB131]

If your claim is in fact true, then it should be effortless for you to provide some actual science to support your claims...or to demonstrate that the peer reviewed research I have already provided that, by the way was published in respectable journals is mistaken.

Guy, reports the Koch brothers paid for isn't "Science".

All your links are denier shit, and are ignored.

97% of scientists say the world is warming, and humans are responsible. This is settled science.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't look at the science...you take the word of people who share your politics regarding what the science says.

No, guy, I look at what 97% of the people in the field who have degrees in it say.

I ignore shills who aren't scientists who are more upset about what the policy results would need to be to look at the actual science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

97% of scientists say the world is warming, and humans are responsible. This is settled science.

That is an abject lie...

Legates Et Al buried your lie...

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, guy, I look at what 97% of the people in the field who have degrees in it say.

Bwhaaaaaaaa what a load of crap.... Just 0.3% of scientists say that man is causing the warming..

 

[bluzman61]

Yeah Greta, kick ass!

He-he! Maybe she could hook up with Greta Van Fleet and they could call themselves Greta Greta Van Fleet?

 

[bluzman61]

From the replies on this thread, it's alarmingly evident that loony liberals really have NO sense of humor! Whatsoever. None, nada, zilch, zip, zero. Very sad.

 

[SSDD]

Guy, reports the Koch brothers paid for isn't "Science".

You talk a lot of shit, but don't seem to be able to back any of it up. Lets see some actual evidence that the Koch brothers paid for any of the papers I linked to..and you seem to also be saying that the reviewers for respectable journals are for sale, which calls all published science into question..is that what you are saying?

Or do you just automatically deny anything, regardless of the source that doesn't agree with what the people who tell you what climate science says have told you?

All your links are denier shit, and are ignored.

Got any actual evidence of that? Any at all? Didn't think so.

97% of scientists say the world is warming, and humans are responsible. This is settled science.

And yet, you can't produce the first bit of this settled science to support your beliefs. Are you really such a dupe that the fact that you can't produce any actual science to support your claims doesn't sink in? You keep making claims, but can't support any of them...how weak is that?

Is this impotent mewling really as good as you can do? Do you think you are speaking in private? Do you think that no one is noticing all the shit you are claiming and likewise noticing that you can't seem to support any of it? Guys like you serve to convince more people that you are full of shit than I ever could...

All I have to do is ask for evidence to support all the claims you make and then watch you fail to support any of it. That sort of failure goes a long way towards convincing fence sitters that you really are just useful idiots who have never actually looked at the science.