how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Billo_Really]

They made their point long before you showed up to side with "Saigon`s" little boy`s club.

I'm not talking about what they said to Saigon, I'm talking about what they said to me.

 

[gslack]

I have no idea what all of this shit about socks is - but if gslack or SSDD think there are any socks here, then they should both name them and report them to the mods.

Neither will.

I have no idea what a "sock" is.

Sure ya don't socko, you just happened to show up and have an uncontrollable urge to attack people you don't know...LOL, happens a lot where Saigon, mamooth and numan are concerned. Almost like a pattern....

You joined this site in 05' and you have no idea what a sock is? ROFL, sure I believe you.. BTW, did you know I am also the pope?

 

[gslack]

They made their point long before you showed up to side with "Saigon`s" little boy`s club.

I'm not talking about what they said to Saigon, I'm talking about what they said to me.

Yes you the sock..

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure ya don't socko, you just happened to show up and have an uncontrollable urge to attack people you don't know...LOL, happens a lot where Saigon, mamooth and numan are concerned. Almost like a pattern....

Listen fuckface, you can shove that bullshit up your ass! I'm cruising through this thread and see this little punk-ass prick calling someone a liar and not providing any proof to back up that claim. I gave him a chance to pony up the evidence before passing judgement. When he didn't, I concluded he was the fuckin' liar and for the most part, deserved to be attacked.

If you're just going to come in here and talk shit, then you should be abused.

You joined this site in 05' and you have no idea what a sock is? ROFL, sure I believe you.. BTW, did you know I am also the pope?

I know who you are. You're Westwall's little bitch wife!

BTW, I Googled "sock puppet" and found out you're full of shit!

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes you the sock..

Throwing out shit because you ain't got the chops to debate the OP.

 

[gslack]

Sure ya don't socko, you just happened to show up and have an uncontrollable urge to attack people you don't know...LOL, happens a lot where Saigon, mamooth and numan are concerned. Almost like a pattern....

Listen fuckface, you can shove that bullshit up your ass! I'm cruising through this thread and see this little punk-ass prick calling someone a liar and not providing any proof to back up that claim. I gave him a chance to pony up the evidence before passing judgement. When he didn't, I concluded he was the fuckin' liar and for the most part, deserved to be attacked.

If you're just going to come in here and talk shit, then you should be abused.

You joined this site in 05' and you have no idea what a sock is? ROFL, sure I believe you.. BTW, did you know I am also the pope?

I know who you are. You're Westwall's little bitch wife!

BTW, I Googled "sock puppet" and found out you're full of shit!

Sure ya did socko... You kiss your momma with that mouth?

Carry on with your breakdown, it's all good. You can just happen to stumble by and see an injustice and take action all you want. But the problem is you didn't do that.What you did was come in and insult him and defend your pal. Unwisely I might add, because he was lying..

And sorry, but raving at me doesn't get me mad.it just makes me laugh at you more.. So you can go back to trolling the boards for injustice forum righter of wrongs who just happens to drop by and attack people out of the blue..ROFL.

BTW, I said sock, and you got sock-puppet. And you joined in 05' but have no clue what a sock or sock-puppet was till you googled it???? ROFL.

 

[gslack]

Yes you the sock..

Throwing out shit because you ain't got the chops to debate the OP.

LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Has it really not occured to you that the only poster here who never posts on topic, and posts only to "defend" his little pals is you?

Are you someone's sock?

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Has it really not occured to you that the only poster here who never posts on topic, and posts only to "defend" his little pals is you?

Are you someone's sock?

No finnish fraud, that would be you.. DO you realize you that I have had 3 neg reps from you in as many weeks? I got several positives from others on the same posts but you it seems have an issue with neg-repping me every chance you get. It's obvious junior, the fact I have 3 in a row from you only should be a wake up call to the mods..

You're joke fraud.. A big fat silly forum joke that keeps getting re-told everytime you post..LOL

Correction, make that 4 in a row...

4-28-13

5-6-13

5-13-13

5-21-13

the funny thing is I got 4 positives between the 13th and 21st. LOL, abusing the rep system is a pretty lame tactic junior..

 

[Saigon]

Glaskc -

And of course it has not occured to you that your constant off-topic abuse, name calling and this endless horsheshit about socks is WHY you are gerting neg repped?

It's not difficult, man - stay on topic, post honestly, stop making up children's stories about other posters, and you won't get neg repped by me.

Or keep lying, keep spamming threads, keep making up silly stories about other posters and take the neg reps on the chin.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is an overview from the NOAA:

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.

Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

And the NOAA put that information out five years ago and there has been considerable rebuttal of their statements by various scientists since. Most especially the certainty of the statements when the paleoclimate record shows no clear correlation between CO2 temperatures and warming/cooling and a strong case can just as easily be made from the same record that CO2 levels followi climate change rather than cause it.

Certainty and absolutes are words very foreign to true scientists who are studying paleoclimate phenomena. But the NOAA receive all its funding from a government that is determined to keep the 'certainty' of AGW alive. It would follow that NOAA 'scientists' are not eager to offend or go against the motives of those who write their paychecks.

As rebuttal:

One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson, described as follows:

The first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”.

Then consider her statement:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly… As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.

No, we don’t all know the frailty of the models! Certainly most of the media and thereby the public and politicians don’t know otherwise the latter would not be planning completely unnecessary, incredibly expensive and society-altering policies. But the opening comment is actually frightening and speaks to why the scam has progressed so far: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” . . .

. . . .Some are being more cautious and looking for ways out. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden notes,


Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.

Decades ago Tolstoi provided another explanation for failing to acknowledge the growing evidence:

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. . . .
How the World Was Bullied Into Silence

Another opinion:

During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Figures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 show, however, that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature.

The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Dr. Christy speaks my mind in this short video clip:
CO2 Science

It is so much easier to buy into the scary scenarios the Agenda 21 and other AGW proponents want us to believe than it is to do the really hard work of researching the truth - a truth they aren't telling us.

And for the life of me, I still don't understand a mentality that WANTS us to willingly hand over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities without first knowing that this is necessary for the survival or comfort of the human race.

Totally wrong. What real scientists state.

A23A

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure ya did socko... You kiss your momma with that mouth?

Going after family members is against the rules.

Carry on with your breakdown, it's all good. You can just happen to stumble by and see an injustice and take action all you want. But the problem is you didn't do that.What you did was come in and insult him and defend your pal. Unwisely I might add, because he was lying..

I saw someone call someone else a liar and asked for proof. Neither one of you have provided any. I did what I always do when someone makes a claim.

And sorry, but raving at me doesn't get me mad.it just makes me laugh at you more.. So you can go back to trolling the boards for injustice forum righter of wrongs who just happens to drop by and attack people out of the blue..ROFL.

Asking for proof is not an attack.

BTW, I said sock, and you got sock-puppet. And you joined in 05' but have no clue what a sock or sock-puppet was till you googled it???? ROFL.

That's right! Until now, I didn't care to know.

As far as the OP, I don't consider climate change a debatable issue.

People who argue against climate change, would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

That's how stupid I think your argument is.

 

[gslack]

Glaskc -

And of course it has not occured to tou that your constant off-topic abuse, name calling and this endless horsheshit about socks is WHY you are gerting neg repped?

It's not difficult, man - stay on topic, post honestly, stop making up children's stories about other posters, and you won't get neg repped by me.

Or keep lying, keep spamming threads, keep making up silly stories about other posters and take the neg reps on the chin.

See junior, its just you that's doing the neg-repping.. I got 4 positives from four people and 3 of them were for the same thread, in between your last two negs..

All of those negs were from you alone. One for every week, that's abusing the rep system by any standard..

We aren't talking about neg reps from various people schmuck, they are ALL FROM YOU..

It's okay junior, sooner or later someone here will have to do something about you.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.

Oh, I offered something!

I was scrolling through trying to find if anyone responded to my post, when I ran across your buddy shooting his mouth off.

 

[gslack]

Sure ya did socko... You kiss your momma with that mouth?

Going after family members is against the rules.

Carry on with your breakdown, it's all good. You can just happen to stumble by and see an injustice and take action all you want. But the problem is you didn't do that.What you did was come in and insult him and defend your pal. Unwisely I might add, because he was lying..

I saw someone call someone else a liar and asked for proof. Neither one of you have provided any. I did what I always do when someone makes a claim.

And sorry, but raving at me doesn't get me mad.it just makes me laugh at you more.. So you can go back to trolling the boards for injustice forum righter of wrongs who just happens to drop by and attack people out of the blue..ROFL.

Asking for proof is not an attack.

BTW, I said sock, and you got sock-puppet. And you joined in 05' but have no clue what a sock or sock-puppet was till you googled it???? ROFL.

That's right! Until now, I didn't care to know.

As far as the OP, I don't consider climate change a debatable issue.

People who argue against climate change, would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

That's how stupid I think your argument is.

I didn't go after your family socko, I asked if you kissed your momma with that mouth after you had a cussing fit on here.. Grow up..

Yes, yes we all heard your tale about just happen to be browsing by and seen an injustice you just had to correct by insulting one person.. Sure socko, sure..

You asked for proof and insulted the man, you even did it in your previous post man. Your memory bad or something? You can't make the excuse of just asking for proof if you start asking by calling people names like the one you just called me in your previous post..

Sure socko, sure.. And if you just happened to be around and saw an injustice how the hell do you know what my argument is anyway?

Ya raging loon ROFL

 

[gslack]

LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.

Oh, I offered something!

I was scrolling through trying to find if anyone responded to my post, when I ran across your buddy shooting his mouth off.

Ah, calling people names and throwing a fit or having a breakdown isn't exactly material for debate. It's just you raging and spewing at people..

 

[gslack]

LOL, you haven't offered anything to debate silly man.. I call it as I see it, you came in out of nowhere and started insulting somebody. You didn't do it reasonably or anything like a legit reason. You came in and went right after one person specifically. It's not a knew thing where saigon and mamooth or numan are concerned. hell, it's not even new for today with them.

Oh, I offered something!

I was scrolling through trying to find if anyone responded to my post, when I ran across your buddy shooting his mouth off.

No you posted some silly crap trying to claim climate change is as real as gravity in some baiting post. That was your contribution..

Your first post to anybody after that in here was this one to westwall..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7254626-post225.html

Saigon can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it. I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.

Now that you called her a liar, care to prove it?

Did you do what she claimed? Did you leave out that line from the professor? Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?

Notice the asking for proof while you insulted him... yeah me too... Why not ask Saigon to do his own homework? Because you came to play internet tough guy and bark at people for the supposed internet girl. ROFL..

 

[Billo_Really]

I didn't go after your family socko, I asked if you kissed your momma with that mouth after you had a cussing fit on here.. Grow up..

Yes, yes we all heard your tale about just happen to be browsing by and seen an injustice you just had to correct by insulting one person.. Sure socko, sure..

You asked for proof and insulted the man, you even did it in your previous post man. Your memory bad or something? You can't make the excuse of just asking for proof if you start asking by calling people names like the one you just called me in your previous post..

Sure socko, sure.. And if you just happened to be around and saw an injustice how the hell do you know what my argument is anyway?

Ya raging loon ROFL

Here's what I said, dumbass!

Saigon can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it. I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.

Now that you called [him] a liar, care to prove it?

Did you do what [he] claimed? Did you leave out that line from the professor? Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?

I love how you claim that was the insult, but don't think Westwall calling Saigon a liar without showing any proof, was not.

We're getting off-topic and you can go to hell! That's all I have to say about this.

 

[gslack]

I didn't go after your family socko, I asked if you kissed your momma with that mouth after you had a cussing fit on here.. Grow up..

Yes, yes we all heard your tale about just happen to be browsing by and seen an injustice you just had to correct by insulting one person.. Sure socko, sure..

You asked for proof and insulted the man, you even did it in your previous post man. Your memory bad or something? You can't make the excuse of just asking for proof if you start asking by calling people names like the one you just called me in your previous post..

Sure socko, sure.. And if you just happened to be around and saw an injustice how the hell do you know what my argument is anyway?

Ya raging loon ROFL

Here's what I said, dumbass!

Saigon can debate rings around you and doesn't even need the A-game to do it. I wouldn't talk too much about others not backing up their shit, when you didn't provide a link either.

Now that you called [him] a liar, care to prove it?

Did you do what [he] claimed? Did you leave out that line from the professor? Why don't you pony up the link and then we'll see who's the one lying?

I love how you claim that was the insult, but don't think Westwall calling Saigon a liar without showing any proof, was not.

We're getting off-topic and you can go to hell! That's all I have to say about this.

LOL, you just changed the her to him otherwise it's exactly what I posted.. And we can see perfectly clear how you feel about Saigon and anybody who doubts him...ROFL

 

[Saigon]

Gslck -

Please read and respond to post #310.

Once again, I do not neg rep on-topic or polite posts. I do neg rep off-topic abuse, lies and these stories about people being socks etc.

So it's entirely your choice.