So the Oceans are rising are they?

[IanC]

still no update on sea levels but the web site has now restricted access to the data.

will the new web design be released soon? and will the historical data be the same or will we see another example of the information being 'Hansenized'?

 

[polarbear]

still no update on sea levels but the web site has now restricted access to the data.

will the new web design be released soon? and will the historical data be the same or will we see another example of the information being 'Hansenized'?

That`s understandable, how could anyone allow public access to "data" and "studies" that claim to have "measured" a 2/100 th of an inch rise in sea level.?

How exactly would that be done?...like measuring John Candy`s waistline while he was doing jumping jacks...

So this thundering farts retard has surfaced here and like "OldRocks" keeps quoting "measurements" which are nothing more than a pixel ruler on a "computer model" screenshot as usual

And on the Maldives, which are supposed to sink first according to these "measurements" You can see on the beach that the seal level has fallen ~ 40 cm in the last 10 years.

And sea walls built by the Romans on the British Isles are hundreds of meters from the present beach line.There are cities now on ground which was then below water.

And check out how the North American Natives have built everything they did build along the Mississippi river on mounds. They weren`t trying to imitate Pyramids with their earth mounds. It`s just way smarter than what we do today, building on low ground an a dyke around it...and having to hope the pumps don`t fuck up..

And from were was all this extra water that these frauds claim to have "litered" it with 2/100 .th of an inch precision supposed to have come from...?
There is fuck all ice missing in the arctic or the antarctic to account for that..

as a matter of fact we have been gaining according to JAXA Satellite measurements.
JAXA started out in 2002 and discounts everything with less than 15 % ice cover.

And these Morons keep showing graphs that pre-date that by decades, sometimes even centuries and compare it with the -15% JAXA data...like this one that "James Bond" aka Chris + OldRocks posted here dozens of times..

They show you totally fictive data which goes back to 1979, which for sure was not like JAXA with the -15% discriminator, and an "average" of this bogus data, then compare it with a 2007 "average" which by the way is totally false...and then one single line for 2011 which leaves out the maximum ice coverage which always happens end of February/beginning of March... they simply flatten it out, averaging it with the minimum,...and 2007 had the lowest minimum in the entire data set...that`s why they picked it out for the grapf for retard consumption
minimums have come way up since 2007 and the the length of time the ice is staying around, as well ....:
presently we have..:

IJIS Web Site

The latest value : 12,974,531 km2 (April 25, 2011)

Although we are well past the usual maximum ice cover date this is way above what it was then in 2007, the graph GW assholes like to post&quote..
the April 25th 2007 ice area was : 04/25/2007/12700781

If You have a problem with that go here, load down the entire data set and look it up yourself...

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

04,20,2007,12980781
04,21,2007,12942813
04,22,2007,12869531
04,23,2007,12801250
04,24,2007,12756406
04,25,2007,12700781
04,26,2007,12660781
04,27,2007,12629688
04,28,2007,12621719
04,29,2007,12629844
04,30,2007,12633750

Here, I finally found a site that lets you store and link to animated gifs over 250 kb file size..
The program I wrote sifts through the entire JAXA set , calculates and graphs not just a simpleton Windows Spread SHIT "average"...:

Around that time of the year the temperatures are still well sub-zero in the arctic and the ice is not "melting"...
The sea water below is @ -1.8 degrees Celsius if no warm water currents reach the arctic sea, but they do more often than not.

This ice would "melt" even at minus 30 degree air temperature if You were to insulate it from the cold air above with thick styro-foam...because it dissolves in the salt water below..it`s not melting

Even a farmer knows that, or the crews that salt roads...
The cold air above simply keeps the balance or tips it way in favor of freezing and forming new ice when the winds howl as they often do inside the polar circle.

As soon as the wind picks up @ these low temperature "new ice" forms so fast that what`s called "frost smoke" shoots out of the cracks which were still open..
The violent heat exchange exceeds then > 1000 watts per squ. meter and the "frost smoke" gets cut off abruptly as each open crack closes within seconds.

So the whole mechanism is driven more by the wind speed increasing the "wind chill factor" and the salinity of the water below, and especially the water currents below, rather than CO2 from cars in New York.
You can easily spot on my graph when the winds howled over the polar region and when not...it`s the top "differential area gain" in blue and when the delta(squKM)/time goes negative I had my program plot a red line downwards..

If anyone really wants to learn the physics how this ice "melts" or how salt water in the arctic ocean freezes You can read up here..:

How does Arctic sea ice form and decay - Wadhams

The salt rejected back into the ocean from this ice formation causes the surface water to become more dense and sink, sometimes to great depths (2500 m or more), making this one of the few regions of the ocean where winter convection occurs, which helps drive the entire worldwide system of surface and deep currents known as the thermohaline circulation (or "Great Ocean Conveyor Belt").

Or stay as stupid as Thunder farts and OldRocks

(With the "You",... of course I did not mean You, IanC ! )

Just looking at how many posts per time these morons do tells it all...
They never shut up and read up because they are too busy yapping like these fucking annoying dogs dogs chasing pick up trucks...
I like attaching twirling potato sacks on a wheel, let`m catch up and bite into it...
Instant silence

 

[RollingThunder]

Bla..bla..bla..bla..blabla...blaaa. Bla..bla..bla....bbblla.

You're sort of funny the first few times only because the nonsense you post is so unbelievably retarded and totally wrong but aside from that, you're pretty obviously just an annoyingly and arrogantly ignorant little dumbfuck who wouldn't know a scientific fact if one bit you.

 

[RollingThunder]

In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
(short excerpt)

Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.

Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).

 

[westwall]

In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
(short excerpt)

Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.

Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).

Wow, 6 cm of sea level rise that has been observed huh? Where is it? The fountain in the employee lounge?

 

[RollingThunder]

In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
(short excerpt)

Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.

Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).

Wow, 6 cm of sea level rise that has been observed huh? Where is it? The fountain in the employee lounge?

Half-wit humor is always so pathetic. You don't even know enough to realize how idiotic you sound.

 

[IanC]

hahaha, or better yet change the colours to avoid 'hiding the decline'.

according to the newest and best technology the sea level rise is deaccelerating instead of rapidly increasing like we hear in the media.

 

[westwall]

In spite of all the denier cult drivel and nonsense, sea levels are still rising and will inevitably rise even faster in the years to come.

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
(short excerpt)

Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.

Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).

Wow, 6 cm of sea level rise that has been observed huh? Where is it? The fountain in the employee lounge?

Half-wit humor is always so pathetic. You don't even know enough to realize how idiotic you sound.

What was that blunder? Were you saying something?

 

[RollingThunder]

[Home: Aviso]

hahaha, or better yet change the colours to avoid 'hiding the decline'.

[stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com]

according to the newest and best technology the sea level rise is deaccelerating instead of rapidly increasing like we hear in the media.

Nope, wrong again, P-IanInaAzz. The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say that sea level rise is accelerating and is currently rising at twice the rate that scientists measured it at 50 years ago.

Perhaps you're moronically trying to refer to the OP but that study being cited is not at all about the "newest and best technonogy", it is about a study of a limited set of tide gauges (really old and limited technology) just around some of the US coastlines only. It is not definitive. There are many other studies using larger data sets that show sea level rise to be accelerating worldwide.

And BTW, numbnuts, just what "decline" do you imagine climate scientists are "hiding" by "changing the colours" on a chart of the different satellite measurements? Sea levels? LOL. Who do you think changed the colors? Checking the sources of the two charts you posted, the top one is the original chart from a reputable source and the bottom one is an altered version coming from Steve Goddard's website. He changed the colors. The different colors refer to different satellite mission series and Goddard just changed which color is assigned to which mission. Jeez, you're gullible. You do realize, don't you, that Goddard is not a climate scientist, he is a discredited reporter, who has been caught repeatedly lying about climate issues. Or could it be that you're just clueless and flailing about mindlessly, as usual. You certainly can't mean a decline in temperatures. No decline there. 2010 was tied as the second warmest year on record, the eleven warmest years on record all occurred in the last 13 years, the last three decades have each been, in turn, the warmest decade on record.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wow, 6 cm of sea level rise that has been observed huh? Where is it? The fountain in the employee lounge?

Half-wit humor is always so pathetic. You don't even know enough to realize how idiotic you sound.

What was that blunder? Were you saying something?

Yeah, I was saying what an ignorant, half-witted, brainwashed fool, walleyed is. I didn't think you could hear me. Good ears, dude.

 

[IanC]

[Home: Aviso]

hahaha, or better yet change the colours to avoid 'hiding the decline'.

[stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com]

according to the newest and best technology the sea level rise is deaccelerating instead of rapidly increasing like we hear in the media.

Nope, wrong again, P-IanInaAzz. The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say that sea level rise is accelerating and is currently rising at twice the rate that scientists measured it at 50 years ago.

Perhaps you're moronically trying to refer to the OP but that study being cited is not at all about the "newest and best technonogy", it is about a study of a limited set of tide gauges (really old and limited technology) just around some of the US coastlines only. It is not definitive. There are many other studies using larger data sets that show sea level rise to be accelerating worldwide.

And BTW, numbnuts, just what "decline" do you imagine climate scientists are "hiding" by "changing the colours" on a chart of the different satellite measurements? Sea levels? LOL. Who do you think changed the colors? Checking the sources of the two charts you posted, the top one is the original chart from a reputable source and the bottom one is an altered version coming from Steve Goddard's website. He changed the colors. The different colors refer to different satellite mission series and Goddard just changed which color is assigned to which mission. Jeez, you're gullible. You do realize, don't you, that Goddard is not a climate scientist, he is a discredited reporter, who has been caught repeatedly lying about climate issues. Or could it be that you're just clueless and flailing about mindlessly, as usual. You certainly can't mean a decline in temperatures. No decline there. 2010 was tied as the second warmest year on record, the eleven warmest years on record all occurred in the last 13 years, the last three decades have each been, in turn, the warmest decade on record.

RollingThunder- I think YOU are the one who is a bit confused. all the plots on those graphs ARE satellite radar altimetry measurements! and while we can debate the effectiveness of plotting lines in different colours, I believe most people would agree with me that showing the Envisat data in purple instead of yellow makes a difference in what the eye picks up at a glance.

and you do know that the satellite measurements are calibrated against tide gages, right? do you think there is any wiggle room in deciding which gages to use? hmmm....

and why are you concerned about Goddard? he linked to a govt produced graph, then he changed the colours of the different plots. where is the lying and deception there? only in your fevered imagination.

 

[polarbear]

Wow, 6 cm of sea level rise that has been observed huh? Where is it? The fountain in the employee lounge?

Half-wit humor is always so pathetic. You don't even know enough to realize how idiotic you sound.

What was that blunder? Were you saying something?

It never fails. If the cartoons in the funny pages in today`s papers are too lame for a good "lol" laugh, then all You have to do is come here and read this stuff here.

What this Rol-lol-lol-lol-lolling fart writes here is even funnier than anything his asylum room mates like "OldRocks" are posting here...

Nope, wrong again, P-IanInaAzz. The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say that sea level rise is accelerating and is currently rising at twice the rate that scientists measured it at 50 years ago.

Perhaps you're moronically trying to refer to the OP but that study being cited is not at all about the "newest and best technonogy", it is about a study of a limited set of tide gauges (really old and limited technology) just around some of the US coastlines only.

No decline there. 2010 was tied as the second warmest year on record,.

Don`t even try reply to what I`m writng to Wetswall & IanC,.... not to You fucking retarded farting assholes, "OldRocks"& "thunderfarts" etc. etc I am talking to Westall & IanC here...You are just way too retarded and have a pea brain`s chance of knowing what a Fourier transformation is...
Fuck this moron actually said that...:

The newest and best technology is satellite radar altimetry measurements and they say that sea level rise is accelerating

Maybe the guys that designed the Poseidon Sat designers should ask him for advice how to solve these problems

Improvements in altimetry performances: Aviso

The best they can do so far is after tidal,moisture and negative barometric pressure "corrections" in their computer model
for accuracy was > 10 cm in 1992 and > 6 cm (standard deviation) in 2006.

Here is their problem, maybe this retard know a computer algorithm they can`t figure out..:

The only place where they get errors less than 20 cm is in the Mediterranean...
every where else the errors are 60 to 100 cm with Satellite RADAR altimeters

And that`s after the data was washed

* On the satellite:
o A water vapour radiometer to measure the amount of water vapour between the satellite and the sea surface (the water vapour slows down the radar pulse, causing the raw measurement to be too long)
o Measurement of the range at two frequencies to estimate the "ionospheric correction" - that is, the degree to which the radar pulse is slowed down by free electrons in the ionosphere
o The troughs of waves contribute more to the radar reflection than the crests, so we need a corection for this. This is estimated from the wind speed and the wave height, both of which can be estimated from the characteristics of the returned radar pulse.

* On the ground:
o Ocean tide models to convert the raw altimeter measurement to the "detided" SSH
o Estimates (from a model) of the atmospheric pressure. This is used to calculate a correction to the radar range to compensate for the fact that the atmosphere slows down the radar pulse
o A correction is made for the "inverse barometer" effect, where sea level is depressed in areas of high atmospheric pressure, and vice versa

And the GW clowns "produce data" like this..:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.

I guess our newest asshole her does not understand the definition of synthesize

And fuck, do they ever synthesize

They claim they can do it using the same source data as the guys who designed the RADAR Altimeter Sats but with a + or - 0.4 mm "precision"

That tells it all...the whole fucking "Copenhagen Diagnosis" is the usual GW "data synthesis"...meant for politicians, who like the morons here have no concept of the scope of this fraud..:

The engineers who design and build Satellite based Altimeters and write the software attempting to get the most out of the raw data can do it only down to a 100 cm =1000 millimeters accuracy...then along comes a "Global Warming Scientist" and takes their data and "improves it" to get a +/- 0.4 mm "precision" which is 2500 times better than the Satellite design engineers could do it..

And after he "improved it" 2500 times he could show the IPPC that the oceans "rise at an alarming average rate of 0.4 mm per year"

Then he multiplies his .4 mm by 10 and that`s exactly how this graph here was "synthesized"


And using Fourier transformations more than 15 times he finally got what he wanted..!
A Fourier transformation can make a square out of a circle, a sinus or cosine, shit it won`t matter what You start out with function if you run the transform often enough

Here is a sine wave washed 15 times by a Fourier equation..I put it in the composite with the black background..:

And if You keep going the ripples which are the "errors" disappear down to nothing


After that You make your graph, present it as the "Copenhagen diagnose" and every fucking dumb moron who doesnt` know shit from brains keeps quoting it...

By the way IanC You might be interested in this...



A lot of web pages wont let You copy & paste for quoting purposes and embed a java script which disables a right click...so now You are not supposed to be able to download pictures either...
like this fucking "Copenhagen Diagnosis" web page this fucking asshole keeps quoting, ..

No matter which browser You use just download as "whole web page" to any folder...
Then say the web page name was "Copenhagen" or whatever, You`ll always find another folder that has for ex. a folder name "Copenhagenfiles".
Normally all pictures etc are in that folder, but not when mouse right clicks where disabled..
So what You do now is look at the java script files in this folder, ....open them with "Notepad"...
In this case the file I was looking for had the name " bookSettings.js"

And in there You will find ...:
(I wont paste the entire set, just some...)

"pages/page-001.jpg",
"pages/page-002.jpg",
"pages/page-003.jpg",
"pages/page-004.jpg",
"pages/page-005.jpg",
"pages/page-006.jpg",
"pages/page-007.jpg",
"pages/page-008.jpg",
"pages/page-009.jpg",
"pages/page-010.jpg",
"pages/page-011.jpg",
"pages/page-012.jpg",
"pages/page-013.jpg",
"pages/page-014.jpg",
"pages/page-015.jpg",
"pages/page-016.jpg",
"pages/page-017.jpg",
"pages/page-018.jpg",
"pages/page-019.jpg",
"pages/page-020.jpg",
"pages/page-021.jpg",
"pages/page-022.jpg",
"pages/page-023.jpg",
"pages/page-024.jpg",
"pages/page-025.jpg",
"pages/page-026.jpg",
"pages/page-027.jpg",

It continues all the way up to 64..

So what You do know is look in the other java scripts how the web page build the URL links for the media their own web page designer has to use...

And in this case I see that it was :
["http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com"] + [ "pages/page-001.jpg"]

Every web page that disables right clicks does it that way, and that`s how You can hack by it and get directly at their media files...
These bastards won`t let You copy anything, anything else You try they wanna send You to an "online print shop" ....which wants to get paid...
but no matter what they have You can have it too...:

[http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/pages/page-026.jpg]

will give You ...:

and building the URlinks with " pages/page-001.jpg" to 064.jpg gives you access to the media they don`t want you to copy...but now you can...

"Yes we can..! ...Yes we can ! "...even works with porno by the way ...
Skookerasbil collects pretty girly pictures pass it on

[

]




[http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/pages/page-064.jpg]

Have fun with it..!

shit, I forgot to mention this...the "Copenhagen diagnosis" also claims that "the ice keeps shrinking" and that each year less ice remains after the polar summer is over...
what a fucking lie...
Look at the JAXA.cvs Polar ice data from 2007 to present..:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
2007 Year average:_ 9962870 ice remaining : 4254531 minimum ice cover date 09/24/2007
2008 Year average: 10460711 ice remaining : 4707813 minimum ice cover date 09/09/2008
2009 Year average: 10430959 ice remaining : 5249844 minimum ice cover date 09/13/2009
2010 Year average: 10197327 ice remaining : 4813594 minimum ice cover date 09/18/2010

It all shows on the composite graph my program puts out...and which I also posted here already...2007 had the longest "melting season" it started 03/10/2007 and was 2 weeks longer than all the other years except 2010, but 2010 was also 6 days shorter than 2007
and every fucking GW graph on the Internet concerning the "shrinking ice caps" stops at 2007 and uses GW "computer models" after 2007/...now You know why

 

[Old Rocks]

Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.

 

[westwall]

Half-wit humor is always so pathetic. You don't even know enough to realize how idiotic you sound.

What was that blunder? Were you saying something?

Yeah, I was saying what an ignorant, half-witted, brainwashed fool, walleyed is. I didn't think you could hear me. Good ears, dude.

Nah, it's just hard to hear Gerbils.

 

[westwall]

Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.

Not true at all. He has posted some incredibly good stuff. You're not educated enough to understand it but it is quite good.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ah, the master of the 'Blizzard of Bullshit' dumps another load of crazy crap, misinformation and nonsense on the thread. PB has got to be one of the biggest retards in the denier cult lineup and that's really saying something given how retarded the rest of the deniers are. Most of his bs is too silly and stupid to bother with but let's look at a few of PB's moronic mistakes just to get an idea of how deluded he is.

And on the Maldives, which are supposed to sink first according to these "measurements" You can see on the beach that the seal level has fallen ~ 40 cm in the last 10 years.

SAARC Meteorological Research Center - The Maldives
(excerpt)

The results show that Maldives coastal sea level is rising in the same way (rising trend) as the global sea level. The mean tidal levels (MTL) at stations located in the northern hemisphere, Hanimaadhoo and Male, have shown an increasing trend of about 4.9 and 4.1 mm/year respectively. Similarly Gan, near the Equator, has also registered a positive trend of about 3.9 mm/year.


BBC News - How sea level rise has affected the Maldives

And from were was all this extra water that these frauds claim to have "litered" it with 2/100 .th of an inch precision supposed to have come from...?
There is fuck all ice missing in the arctic or the antarctic to account for that..

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
(excerpt)

Average ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), 2.14 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average....The linear rate of decline of September ice extent over the period 1979 to 2010 is now 81,400 square kilometers (31,400 square miles) per year, or 11.5% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average....At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s).

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data. — Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Figure 3. Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 11.5% per decade. — Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

...and then one single line for 2011 which leaves out the maximum ice coverage which always happens end of February/beginning of March... they simply flatten it out, averaging it with the minimum,...and 2007 had the lowest minimum in the entire data set...

NSIDC - April 2011
March 2011 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month in the satellite record, after 2006. Including 2011, the March trend in sea ice extent is now at -2.7 percent per decade.

***

Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study
(excerpt)

The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study. Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.


***

 

[RollingThunder]

Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.

Not true at all. He has posted some incredibly good stuff. You're not educated enough to understand it but it is quite good.

You only say that because you're about as retarded and clueless as PoledBare is. Neither of you could find your ass if you sat on it.

 

[westwall]

Fun with what, BiPolar. Nobody bothers to read your so long winded rants.

Not true at all. He has posted some incredibly good stuff. You're not educated enough to understand it but it is quite good.

You only say that because you're about as retarded and clueless as PoledBare is. Neither of you could find your ass if you sat on it.

I do find it amusing that you constantly resort to grade school insults in an effort to bolster your ego. Sad. I would hope that you would have grown up since you were last here but no, you're the same ignorant young boy you've allways been.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

"I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." - Climate change: A record-making effort | The Economist

Koch-Funded Climate Skeptic's Own Data Confirms Warming

 

[RollingThunder]

Not true at all. He has posted some incredibly good stuff. You're not educated enough to understand it but it is quite good.

You only say that because you're about as retarded and clueless as PoledBare is. Neither of you could find your ass if you sat on it.

I do find it amusing that you constantly resort to grade school insults in an effort to bolster your ego. Sad. I would hope that you would have grown up since you were last here but no, you're the same ignorant young boy you've allways been.

I find it very amusing that you continue to post the same old, thoroughly debunked denier cult myths and lies over and over again, long after anyone with even a minimal level of intelligence would have seen through the pathetically lame pseudo-science coming from the fossil fuel industry. Sad. I had hoped that you would have overcome the brainwashing you've received and would have started to look at the actual evidence by now but I guess that would have involved growing a brain and that's something you've never yet managed to do so unfortunately you remain the same ignorant, clueless, idiotic numbskull you've always been.

And BTW, I'm older than you are, punk.