To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[mamooth]

Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all

Sure.

That's yet another data point displaying that how those who fall for one conspiracy theory, like denialism, tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories. A person who thinks irrationally can't confine their irrational thinking to just one area.

Look at Skook talking about chemtrails.

Elektra babbling about windmills leaking vast quantities of oil.

jc declaring the earth is shifting on its axis.

Flac's TWA flight 800 conspiracies.

And so on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all

Sure.

That's yet another data point displaying that how those who fall for one conspiracy theory, like denialism, tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories. A person who thinks irrationally can't confine their irrational thinking to just one area.

Look at Skook talking about chemtrails.

Elektra babbling about windmills leaking vast quantities of oil.

jc declaring the earth is shifting on its axis.

Flac's TWA flight 800 conspiracies.

And so on.

I missed the part where you posted the experiment controlling for varying amount of CO2

 

[jc456]

Yeah, a bunch of camel fuckers living in a cave in Pashtun planned and executed 9/11 without any outside help at all

Sure.

That's yet another data point displaying that how those who fall for one conspiracy theory, like denialism, tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories. A person who thinks irrationally can't confine their irrational thinking to just one area.

Look at Skook talking about chemtrails.

Elektra babbling about windmills leaking vast quantities of oil.

jc declaring the earth is shifting on its axis.

Flac's TWA flight 800 conspiracies.

And so on.

crap, Frank beat me to it. So nice diatribe, now where is the evidence that supports what you say? You post quite a bit in here and nothing that ever directly validates what you say. And the earth axis is shifting, one merely has to do research. Try it, you may educate yourself. BTW, the Poles will never have the same ice melt or ice increases at the same time, they both will always be opposite. Do you know why? if you say the axis of the earth, well you'd be right. wow.

 

[mamooth]

The earth's axis is shifting alright, by centimeters. Yet you claimed the axial change was the cause of the polar melt. That's kookery.

 

[jc456]

The earth's axis is shifting alright, by centimeters. Yet you claimed the axial change was the cause of the polar melt. That's kookery.

I have more links that will back my story up then you have to back yours. Are you ready, I'll start with one:

Here from nasa:

NASA - Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

"Scientists have long known that the magnetic pole moves. James Ross located the pole for the first time in 1831 after an exhausting arctic journey during which his ship got stuck in the ice for four years. No one returned until the next century. In 1904, Roald Amundsen found the pole again and discovered that it had moved--at least 50 km since the days of Ross.

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades."

now your turn, post up the experiment about what adding 120 PPM of CO2 does

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The earth's axis is shifting alright, by centimeters. Yet you claimed the axial change was the cause of the polar melt. That's kookery.

Incremental change adds up over time.

Did you know that, manboob?

And if the change in the axis does not explain everything, cool. Nobody ever said it did. There are assloads of factors that all have some degree of responsibility for consequences.

What CrusaderFrank and others have consistently asked for you AGW Faithers to provide is some scientific evidence supporting your premise (and conclusion) that a minor increase in an already trace atmospheric element has the capacity to alter the climate of the planet.

 

[mamooth]

Incremental change adds up over time

Did you know that, manboob?

Do you know how stupid you look now?

Incremental changes in centimeters over a hundred years would add up to ... a few meters.

So, according to your moron theory, an axis shift of a few meters has drastically changed the climate of the entire globe. Failing that hard can mean only one thing, that you're a denier cultist.

And if the change in the axis does not explain everything, cool. Nobody ever said it did. There are assloads of factors that all have some degree of responsibility for consequences.

What CrusaderFrank and others have consistently asked for you AGW Faithers to provide is some scientific evidence supporting your premise (and conclusion) that a minor increase in an already trace atmospheric element has the capacity to alter the climate of the planet.

And we've done so, many times. Thus, all you're doing now is putting your cult's dishonesty on open display.

And jc? The magnetic pole and rotation pole are very different things, meaning you failed hard as well.

 

[jc456]

Incremental change adds up over time

Did you know that, manboob?

Do you know how stupid you look now?

Incremental changes in centimeters over a hundred years would add up to ... a few meters.

So, according to your moron theory, an axis shift of a few meters has drastically changed the climate of the entire globe. Failing that hard can mean only one thing, that you're a denier cultist.

And if the change in the axis does not explain everything, cool. Nobody ever said it did. There are assloads of factors that all have some degree of responsibility for consequences.

What CrusaderFrank and others have consistently asked for you AGW Faithers to provide is some scientific evidence supporting your premise (and conclusion) that a minor increase in an already trace atmospheric element has the capacity to alter the climate of the planet.

And we've done so, many times. Thus, all you're doing now is putting your cult's dishonesty on open display.

And jc? The magnetic pole and rotation pole are very different things, meaning you failed hard as well.

You read my link? It's all about axis and magnetic poles. Please do us a favor and educate yourself

 

[mamooth]

You read my link? It's all about axis and magnetic poles. Please do us a favor and educate yourself

Your link was about the magnetic pole moving, which has absolutely nothing to do with the earth's axis moving.

jc, your side wishes you'd shut up, because you always embarrass them so badly. They can't say that, because cult rules prevent them from criticizing a fellow cultist, so I'm saying it for them.

 

[jc456]

You read my link? It's all about axis and magnetic poles. Please do us a favor and educate yourself

Your link was about the magnetic pole moving, which has absolutely nothing to do with the earth's axis moving.

jc, your side wishes you'd shut up, because you always embarrass them so badly. They can't say that, because cult rules prevent them from criticizing a fellow cultist, so I'm saying it for them.

Again, look up magnetic waves, just saying. I'm still waiting on your evidence. Now in year three.

 

[mamooth]

You babbling about mythical magnetic waves is some fine reinforcement of my point that deniers tend to be conspiracy nutters on a wide range of topics.

And you lying about not getting evidence is some fine reinforcement of my point that you're a pathologically dishonest cultist. Remember, the Baby Jesus hates liars, and will send you to Hell for it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You babbling about mythical magnetic waves is some fine reinforcement of my point that deniers tend to be conspiracy nutters on a wide range of topics.

And you lying about not getting evidence is some fine reinforcement of my point that you're a pathologically dishonest cultist. Remember, the Baby Jesus hates liars, and will send you to Hell for it.

Snagletooth goes totally mental case!!! Brings out the denigration of Jesus to top of its liar rant!.. There is a reason real scientists ignore little liars like you..

 

[mamooth]

That's right, Billy was the other big believer in magical magnetic waves and all that other woo.

Billy, go put on a magnetic bracelet. The healing power of magnetism will surely make you feel better.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Incremental change adds up over time

Did you know that, manboob?

Do you know how stupid you look now?

Incremental changes in centimeters over a hundred years would add up to ... a few meters.

So, according to your moron theory, an axis shift of a few meters has drastically changed the climate of the entire globe. Failing that hard can mean only one thing, that you're a denier cultist.

And if the change in the axis does not explain everything, cool. Nobody ever said it did. There are assloads of factors that all have some degree of responsibility for consequences.

What CrusaderFrank and others have consistently asked for you AGW Faithers to provide is some scientific evidence supporting your premise (and conclusion) that a minor increase in an already trace atmospheric element has the capacity to alter the climate of the planet.

And we've done so, many times. Thus, all you're doing now is putting your cult's dishonesty on open display.

And jc? The magnetic pole and rotation pole are very different things, meaning you failed hard as well.

But I didn't contend that the change in the axis accounted for any alleged global warmering, you tool. So in the end as always, it remains you who looks foolish. That's largely because you are a fool.

And you ignored the balance of what I said, you imbecile. A typical of you tactic when you lack the ability to make valid intelligent arguments.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Question: Will the AGW Faith Based Ministries EVER attempt to offer any experimental evidence for their rather silly contention that an incremental increase in a trace atmospheric "greenhouse gas" has the actual ability to cause global warming?

Or, will we confront another Ice Age before they admit that they are unable and unwilling to even try?

 

[mamooth]

But I didn't contend that the change in the axis accounted for any alleged global warmering, you tool. So in the end as always, it remains you who looks foolish. That's largely because you are a fool.

We get it. You jumped in to back up jc's stupidity, got slammed for it, and now you're pretending you didn't do it. Very convincing.

And you ignored the balance of what I said, you imbecile. A typical of you tactic when you lack the ability to make valid intelligent arguments.

If you werent' such a slow learner, and therefore a denier, you'd have learned that crying at me just encourages me.

Now, Mr. "There's no evidence", how about you explani for us the directly measured decrease in outgoing longwarve radiation, the increase in backradiation, and the stratospheric warming? Those are all smoking guns for greenhouse gas caused warming, and no "natural cycles" theory can explain them.

You can't answer, of course, as you're way out of your league here. You know jack about the science, and you're just motivated by butthurt now to rage at people.

 

[jc456]

But I didn't contend that the change in the axis accounted for any alleged global warmering, you tool. So in the end as always, it remains you who looks foolish. That's largely because you are a fool.

We get it. You jumped in to back up jc's stupidity, got slammed for it, and now you're pretending you didn't do it. Very convincing.

And you ignored the balance of what I said, you imbecile. A typical of you tactic when you lack the ability to make valid intelligent arguments.

If you werent' such a slow learner, and therefore a denier, you'd have learned that crying at me just encourages me.

Now, Mr. "There's no evidence", how about you explani for us the directly measured decrease in outgoing longwarve radiation, the increase in backradiation, and the stratospheric warming? Those are all smoking guns for greenhouse gas caused warming, and no "natural cycles" theory can explain them.

You can't answer, of course, as you're way out of your league here. You know jack about the science, and you're just motivated by butthurt now to rage at people.

no one is measuring back radiation. Nice try. And you're right, the LWIR is down, meaning so are temperatures. Like when the truth actually comes out.

 

[mamooth]

no one is measuring back radiation.

That's a particularly stupid, crazy and dishonest thing to say, being anybody can measure it by pointing a FLIR unit or IR spectrometer at the sky.

Just like denier Roy Spencer does here. Are you claiming Dr. Spencer is a liar and fraud?

Imaging the Greenhouse Effect with a FLIR i7 Thermal Imager « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[SSDD]

no one is measuring back radiation.

That's a particularly stupid, crazy and dishonest thing to say, being anybody can measure it by pointing a FLIR unit or IR spectrometer at the sky.

Just like denier Roy Spencer does here. Are you claiming Dr. Spencer is a liar and fraud?

Imaging the Greenhouse Effect with a FLIR i7 Thermal Imager « Roy Spencer, PhD

Fooling yourself with instrumentation is one of the stupidest things warmer wackos do....You don't think the flir measures outgoing radiation?....and the IR spectrometer is nothing more than a mathematical model...it is most definitely not measuring downward radiation....the only devices that actually measure downwelling radiation at ambient temperature are devices that are cooled to a temperature far lower than the atmosphere...but go ahead and fool yourself all you like hairball...you have been doing it so long now, I doubt that you know any other way to be.

 

[jc456]

no one is measuring back radiation.

That's a particularly stupid, crazy and dishonest thing to say, being anybody can measure it by pointing a FLIR unit or IR spectrometer at the sky.

Just like denier Roy Spencer does here. Are you claiming Dr. Spencer is a liar and fraud?

Imaging the Greenhouse Effect with a FLIR i7 Thermal Imager « Roy Spencer, PhD

ahhhhhh, your magical back radiation that is more powerful than the sun. That has yet to be proven as warmth in the atmosphere. And again, less LWIR less temperatures. So, to finagle the populace, the folks at NASA and NOAA have to manipulate the data to make the results line up with talking points. I know all of this already. But even if there was back radiation, the back radiation would be a result of LWIR that you agree is less. so again, even using your stupid logical fallacy, you can't justify warming up.