The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

[jc456]

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

BTW, I gave you the article that that graph came from and it wasn't WATT. so you don't understand his web site. You think he writes everything on it I supposed. What a loser. I'll accept an apology btw!

Hmm. First you say that you didn't post the graph. Now you are saying that you did. Make up your mind, bubba. The graph that you, or whoever, posted, about which I responded, originated from Anthony Watt's web site, as the link above makes very clear. I posted the ACTUAL graph from the original paper. Next.

where, admit your mistake. be a man for once in your pathetic life.

I see you still haven't gone back and reread the thread. OMG what a lard. please move away from the fire. You might fall in. dude, you stated Watt wrote the paper. you made that statement. Untrue, I showed you it was untrue. I was saving another poster time. Your lie. your post and you can't admit it. lard.

Now look who is lying. I made no statement that Watt wrote anything. I showed unambiguously that that graph originated from his web site. Whether or not he plotted it is irrelevant to the fact that it was not the original graph published in the paper.

ok, I'll repost it for you your words ok?

 

[orogenicman]

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

Then you have no dog in the fight. Go away, now, puppy. Let the adults talk.

you're all miscombobulated now i see. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on. instead you look like a boob.

That graph originated from wattsupwiththat.com. I posted the original. You do this every time you are caught with your pants down and your head up your arse. It must be embarrassing to be you.

Yes it did, very good, but that isn't what you wrote fool. You wrote it was his paper and it wasn't. So you had no idea and talking out your ass. So you can't admit now because you are ashamed of your inability to do research first before spitting out words on a page.

still can't walk the walk.

Post a link to the post where I said Watt wrote that paper. You really are as stupid as they come, dufus.

 

[westwall]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.

Let's see your peer reviewed study that supports it with empirical data and not the computer modeled science fiction they rely on.

 

[jc456]

hey orgman, here you go your post....

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

You realize, of course, that Watt is not a scientist, and has no science degree. Right? Moreover, this is Jouzel's actual graph:

Please note how wrong Watt's claim is regarding the change in temperature. Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. The overall change in temperature on the graph is closer to 12 degrees, not 3.5.

now you fool, it isn't Watt's article. just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

Oh and the article was on his website as I stated. But he didn't write it. My god get some brains already.

Edit 2: and again, you'll see it wasn't me that posted the graph.

 

[jc456]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.

Let's see your peer reviewed study that supports it with empirical data and not the computer modeled science fiction they rely on.

he can't

 

[westwall]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.

I don't have to. To date there is not a single paper that relies on empirical data to support the theory. It is completely made up with computer derived science fiction, ergo it is not real. It is not factual, it is shit...pure and simple.

 

[jc456]

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

Then you have no dog in the fight. Go away, now, puppy. Let the adults talk.

you're all miscombobulated now i see. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on. instead you look like a boob.

That graph originated from wattsupwiththat.com. I posted the original. You do this every time you are caught with your pants down and your head up your arse. It must be embarrassing to be you.

Yes it did, very good, but that isn't what you wrote fool. You wrote it was his paper and it wasn't. So you had no idea and talking out your ass. So you can't admit now because you are ashamed of your inability to do research first before spitting out words on a page.

still can't walk the walk.

Post a link to the post where I said Watt wrote that paper. You really are as stupid as they come, dufus.

just did.

edit: BTW, you are one lazy fool. Make me prove you wrong. all you had to do was just admit it. what a fck

 

[jc456]

no I didn't. Perhaps you should blink and look at the name again on that post. I never posted a graph in this thread.

Then you have no dog in the fight. Go away, now, puppy. Let the adults talk.

you're all miscombobulated now i see. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on. instead you look like a boob.

That graph originated from wattsupwiththat.com. I posted the original. You do this every time you are caught with your pants down and your head up your arse. It must be embarrassing to be you.

Yes it did, very good, but that isn't what you wrote fool. You wrote it was his paper and it wasn't. So you had no idea and talking out your ass. So you can't admit now because you are ashamed of your inability to do research first before spitting out words on a page.

still can't walk the walk.

Post a link to the post where I said Watt wrote that paper. You really are as stupid as they come, dufus.

you should really watch your tongue s0n when you are wrong. You just look more the fool than you really are. Did you reread it yet? going to apologize for your error? be a man already.

 

[jc456]

i see the answer is no. You're not a man. figures, most of your type aren't.

 

[jc456]

nope, you see something else that isn't present. Liar, post the article that was Watt's, see the one you claimed was someone else's as I stated. AS I FNNNNN STATED!!!!

Show some integrity!

You posted a graph with an http that linked back to wattsupwiththat. You didn't know this? huh.

Here, take a look at the http for your graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/clip_image004_thumb4.jpg?w=633&h=431

Now, don't you feel silly?

BTW, I gave you the article that that graph came from and it wasn't WATT. so you don't understand his web site. You think he writes everything on it I supposed. What a loser. I'll accept an apology btw!

Hmm. First you say that you didn't post the graph. Now you are saying that you did. Make up your mind, bubba. The graph that you, or whoever, posted, about which I responded, originated from Anthony Watt's web site, as the link above makes very clear. I posted the ACTUAL graph from the original paper. Next.

where, admit your mistake. be a man for once in your pathetic life.

I see you still haven't gone back and reread the thread. OMG what a lard. please move away from the fire. You might fall in. dude, you stated Watt wrote the paper. you made that statement. Untrue, I showed you it was untrue. I was saving another poster time. Your lie. your post and you can't admit it. lard.

Now look who is lying. I made no statement that Watt wrote anything. I showed unambiguously that that graph originated from his web site. Whether or not he plotted it is irrelevant to the fact that it was not the original graph published in the paper.

funny how you compound the lie. you are truly a special liar aren't you?

 

[boedicca]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Indeed. I'll also note that the Medieval Warming Period was very very good for humans.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaryL]

Meanwhile back in REALITY: the overall temps are rising, pole ice sheets are melting. I have seen the weather change from moderate to drying and warming here in the Midwest, overall. Sure, we get a rare gully washer or a blizzard at 5 below. Whistle past the graveyard. Deny the obvious. Bury your head in the sand too, won't change anything.

 

[orogenicman]

hey orgman, here you go your post....

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

You realize, of course, that Watt is not a scientist, and has no science degree. Right? Moreover, this is Jouzel's actual graph:

Please note how wrong Watt's claim is regarding the change in temperature. Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. The overall change in temperature on the graph is closer to 12 degrees, not 3.5.

now you fool, it isn't Watt's article. just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

Oh and the article was on his website as I stated. But he didn't write it. My god get some brains already.

Edit 2: and again, you'll see it wasn't me that posted the graph.

Yes, I said Watt is a not a scientist (which is a true statement). I did not say that he wrote anything relative to that graph or to anything connected with that graph. He posted it on his web site, so I have to assume that he was using it to try to prove a point (I don't go to his web site, because that would lend support to his right wing pundantry). The facts remain, that:

1) The graph originated on his web site:
2) The graph was not the original graph published in the peer reviewed paper;
3) The graph was clearly altered to make it appear to say something it clearly did not say.
4) I posted the original graph from the peer reviewed article, something you have yet to acknowledge.

Now, what were you deniers saying about falsifying data? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[jc456]

Meanwhile back in REALITY: the overall temps are rising, pole ice sheets are melting. I have seen the weather change from moderate to drying and warming here in the Midwest, overall. Sure, we get a rare gully washer or a blizzard at 5 below. Whistle past the graveyard. Deny the obvious. Bury your head in the sand too, won't change anything.

they are? show us!

 

[orogenicman]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.

I don't have to.

Of course you don't. Deniers believe they are special, and can make up all sorts of lies to support their right wing rants, sans any scientific evidence of support, all the while falsifying actual data, and then claiming that the real scientists falsified data. And when the deniers get caught doing just that, well, they lose their fucking minds. Congratulations.

 

[jc456]

hey orgman, here you go your post....

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

You realize, of course, that Watt is not a scientist, and has no science degree. Right? Moreover, this is Jouzel's actual graph:

Please note how wrong Watt's claim is regarding the change in temperature. Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. The overall change in temperature on the graph is closer to 12 degrees, not 3.5.

now you fool, it isn't Watt's article. just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

Oh and the article was on his website as I stated. But he didn't write it. My god get some brains already.

Edit 2: and again, you'll see it wasn't me that posted the graph.

Yes, I said Watt is a not a scientist (which is a true statement). I did not say that he wrote anything relative to that graph or to anything connected with that graph. He posted it on his web site, so I have to assume that he was using it to try to prove a point (I don't go to his web site, because that would lend support to his right wing pundantry). The facts remain, that:

1) The graph originated on his web site:
2) The graph was not the original graph published in the peer reviewed paper;
3) The graph was clearly altered to make it appear to say something it clearly did not say.
4) I posted the original graph from the peer reviewed article, something you have yet to acknowledge.

Now, what were you deniers saying about falsifying data? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

god you're a liar. again, look real hard at the comment Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. What is this if you didn't imply he wrote it? Dude get out of the hole and admit you made a mistake. Another thing on this new post, if you don't go there, how do you know it came from there?

Wow, just wow dude. busted. must be afraid you'll get fired from your cozy job on an internet web forum.

 

[jc456]

Excellent point.
I will wait for the warmers to provide both numbers.

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.

I don't have to.

Of course you don't. Deniers believe they are special, and can make up all sorts of lies to support their right wing rants, sans any scientific evidence of support, all the while falsifying actual data, and then claiming that the real scientists falsified data. And when the deniers get caught doing just that, well, they lose their fucking minds. Congratulations.

what data are skeptics falsifying? They don't even have it.

 

[orogenicman]

hey orgman, here you go your post....

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

You realize, of course, that Watt is not a scientist, and has no science degree. Right? Moreover, this is Jouzel's actual graph:

Please note how wrong Watt's claim is regarding the change in temperature. Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. The overall change in temperature on the graph is closer to 12 degrees, not 3.5.

now you fool, it isn't Watt's article. just admit you were wrong and let's move on.

Oh and the article was on his website as I stated. But he didn't write it. My god get some brains already.

Edit 2: and again, you'll see it wasn't me that posted the graph.

Yes, I said Watt is a not a scientist (which is a true statement). I did not say that he wrote anything relative to that graph or to anything connected with that graph. He posted it on his web site, so I have to assume that he was using it to try to prove a point (I don't go to his web site, because that would lend support to his right wing pundantry). The facts remain, that:

1) The graph originated on his web site:
2) The graph was not the original graph published in the peer reviewed paper;
3) The graph was clearly altered to make it appear to say something it clearly did not say.
4) I posted the original graph from the peer reviewed article, something you have yet to acknowledge.

Now, what were you deniers saying about falsifying data? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

god you're a liar. again, look real hard at the comment Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. What is this if you didn't imply he wrote it? Dude get out of the hole and admit you made a mistake. Another thing on this new post, if you don't go there, how do you know it came from there?

Wow, just wow dude. busted. must be afraid you'll get fired from your cozy job on an internet web forum.

I don't know where the graph came from, whether Watt plotted it, or someone else plotted it. The fact remains that the graph originated from his site (and he doesn't post anything there that doesn't meet with his approval), was not the original graph from the peer reviewed paper, and was altered to make it appear that the original graph said something it clearly did not, as demonstrated in the original graph that I posted. This behavior is unethical, in the extreme, and unscientific, which, of course, is why this crap never gets published in any peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[orogenicman]

One can guarantee no deniers will put forth any numbers, whilst ignoring the 100 year history of approx 1 °C per century. It's what they do.

Funny how you ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. We are STILL recovering from that low temperature. But never let a anti science silly person acknowlege real facts.

Gee, another denialist talking point. Now, let's see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that your claim refutes AGW.

I don't have to.

Of course you don't. Deniers believe they are special, and can make up all sorts of lies to support their right wing rants, sans any scientific evidence of support, all the while falsifying actual data, and then claiming that the real scientists falsified data. And when the deniers get caught doing just that, well, they lose their fucking minds. Congratulations.

what data are skeptics falsifying? They don't even have it.

The graph that your buddy posted, and that was published on his (Watt's) web site, was altered from the original. It is a fraud, as are your denier buddies.

 

[MaryL]

This isn't a war, by the by. We may disagree, we are not enemies. I hope that is understood.