To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Old Rocks]

jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant stupes.

The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant stupes.

The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.

^Evidence!!! Real CO2 evidence!

 

[jc456]

jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant stupes.

The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.

hey socks, I'll hit the ball back at ya and state exactly the same thing. You post nothing but nonsense and mumbo jumbo. any time you wish to post up the evidence that 20 PPM of CO2 is dangerous, just go right ahead. But you can't, I know you can't so your dangers are only in your own mind. There is not one scientist that can say what the dangers of CO2 is in the atmosphere. Provide one name for me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still dodging crick? I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

What do you think?

Crick mastered the squid ink defense. He spews out his usual bullshit, calls you stupid then runs away behind the cloud of obfuscation.

 

[mamooth]

After 17 pages of paranoid squealing from the denier cultists, I think everyone agrees that the thread premise is proven conclusively. There's no need for the cultists to provide any more examples of their paranoia.

 

[SSDD]

jc, you have never posted anything but nonsense. Right now, the whole of the scientific community is not only convinced of the reality and danger of AGW, they are sounding the tocsins about what we can expect from AGW. And people like you will do all you can to prevent any measures being taken to alleviate the future affects, or prepare for those we cannot prevent. And then cry like babies when you are affected, and state those damned scientists never warned us. You people are pathetic and ignorant steps.

Tell me rocks...how could a rational scientific community be convinced of either the reality or the danger of AGW when no empirical evidence exists that proves the most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis, i.e. that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in warming? What sort of rationality do you call that. It doesn't smell like science at all but literally reeks of political influence and payola.

The evidence for AGW has been presented for the last 50 years. In scientific journals, in the record of ice and weather. That you deny this is simply an indication of just how truly stupid you are.

Care to present some of that empirical evidence...the actual empirical evidence as opposed to the tired old dogma that you usually put forward....like crick said, those who don't actually post the evidence they claim they have are blowing smoke hoping to fool someone. One of us knows that there is no such evidence and the other either knows as well but is so invested in the lie that he can't bring himself to admit the lie...even to himself....or is so hopelessly duped that he actually does believe such empirical evidence exists whether he has seen it or not.

 

[jc456]

After 17 pages of paranoid squealing from the denier cultists, I think everyone agrees that the thread premise is proven conclusively. There's no need for the cultists to provide any more examples of their paranoia.

we agree your denial is duly noted.

 

[SSDD]

Still dodging crick? I think we need to start a separate thread on this topic and keep bumping it to the top so everyone here can see what a lying sack you are and as a bonus we get to see the other warmer wackos try to defend your obvious lie....they can all jump in and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that there is, in fact, not a shred of empirical evidence out there that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

What do you think?

Crick mastered the squid ink defense. He spews out his usual bullshit, calls you stupid then runs away behind the cloud of obfuscation.

He is quite actively hiding now...dodging at every possible opportunity. He has been manipulated into a corner from which he sees no way out. The quotes are there...he said explicitly that he had empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere caused warming....and he knows perfectly well that no such empirical evidence has ever existed.....he is, I guess, just hoping that it goes away but something tells me that it isn't. He made an explicit claim that he had explicit evidence....not providing it at this point proves beyond doubt that he is a lying sack.

 

[SSDD]

After 17 pages of paranoid squealing from the denier cultists, I think everyone agrees that the thread premise is proven conclusively. There's no need for the cultists to provide any more examples of their paranoia.

we agree your denial is duly noted.

I guess now they will start working out how to deny that crick claimed that empirical evidence exists that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...even though the quotes are right there for anyone to see. That's how deniers work....deny even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.....the lure of all those hundreds of billions of dollars and all that political power is just to much...and sacrificing something like the truth is no big deal since truth never was particularly valuable to liberals anyway.

 

[Stephanie]

 

[Crick]

Stephanie, if I were you and I were interested in protecting my own brand, I would avoid all appearances in threads dealing with the paranoia of AGW deniers. Y'know?

 

[SSDD]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

 

[jc456]

Stephanie, if I were you and I were interested in protecting my own brand, I would avoid all appearances in threads dealing with the paranoia of AGW deniers. Y'know?

Crick, it is truly you who are paranoid. It is obvious in every thread you post in jack!, Just this one post is clearly your desperation, can't compete at any level of discussion, so you use your paranoia in an attempt to distract, but you fail. you fail cause you're a dumb fk. you are the fourth string in here. You trip over yourself and over every other poster in the forum.

WE all see your paranoia as well, stephanie was flippin spot on. How much more funny can one event be then having a ship stuck in ice looking for ice. Dude, it is like the most hilarious story in the world. And not only did it happen once, nope.........wait for it.......it happened twice! OMG

We are all still laughing at it, and Stephanie presented it beautifully. And then the ding, ding, ding moment of crick, yep, the jump all in with your paranoia. You don't seem to understand that a fact is a fact. We all know you have problems with facts, you chase them like a greased pig never grasping the concept. hahahahhahaahahahhahaha

 

[Crick]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

 

[jc456]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

CO2 does what? Post the empirical evidence don't give me a summary, post the evidence let's see it Bubba. You still haven't posted it Frank's asked Frank asked and Frank has asked. I see you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

 

[jc456]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

BYW, outside the front door isn't part of the AR5 report. You know that right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

CO2 does what? Post the empirical evidence don't give me a summary, post the evidence let's see it Bubba. You still haven't posted it Frank's asked Frank asked and Frank has asked. I see you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

The ipcc models are not empirical evidence of anything. he is unable to admit that simple point. Yet the empirical evidence shows no MMGW signal at all. His religious dogma blinds him to reality.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

^^^^^^^

More squid defense .....

 

[SSDD]

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

Sorry guy....like you said, those who claim to have evidence but can't produce it are just talking shit. There are no experiments that prove that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming otherwise you would be able to provide the peer reviewed empirical evidence. Clearly you can't. The most basic tenet of the AGW hypothesis is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming...lets see the empirical evidence that proves that claim. Either you can produce it or you can't...you make the claim that you could and that you have and yet, you don't seem to be able to provide any at all....that makes you a lying sack.

If the empirical evidence is 100 years old, then lets see that. Surely there is some evidence from somewhere that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming...lets see it. Or wouldn't it just be easier to admit to being a lying sack and talking out your ass when you already knew that there was no such empirical evidence in existence?

 

[SSDD]

What a dodge you are crick....what's the matter. Can't bring yourself to admit under any conditions that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence showing that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in warming? Can't bring yourself to admit that your belief in AGW is based on faith....Can't face the fact that in light of there not being any empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and you remaining unskeptical of the whole farce in the face of that fact does indeed make you gullible?

I already told you the empirical evidence is right outside your door. Note the difference between the actual temperature and the SB-predicted temperature. And then there are the dozens of experiments conducted over the last hundred years or so and every CO2 absorption spectra shows the effect as well as does the correlation between CO2 and temperature That AR5 doesn't bother to repeat science accepted as fact a century ago would only interest someone as ignorant as you.

^^^^^^^

More squid defense .....

He is a lying sack....and you see the empirical proof of it....the more he talks the more undeniable proof he provides. This object lesson really needs to be made into a separate thread....the dangers of putting your words in writing when you are a lying sack.