Two Theories

[SSDD]

you're what's wrong with social promotions. you never learned anything

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

kay thanks history's trash

So why can't you post an experiment? Have you ever wondered about that?

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

 

[Foxfyre]

kay thanks history's trash

So why can't you post an experiment? Have you ever wondered about that?

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it. Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I studied hard in school.

I learned the difference between sedimentary rocks and igneous rocks.

This makes me an Earth scientist!

And, naturally, being a scientist and an Earth scientist at that, I must be a climatologist! Err. Pardon me. A CLIMATE scientist.

Yes. That must be it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No, Pricky. I am not unhappy at all. I have a GOOD time pointing out how dishonest you are.

That should be entertaining. So... when are you going to start?

Already have and I will continue. As you knew when you asked that faux question, you dishonest mindless hack cultist.

Heck, I have even gotten you to ADMIT that you cultists HAVE claimed that the so-called greenhouse gasses have "trapped" heat in the atmosphere right after you (being a dishonest hack cultist shit ball) had denied that this was your cultist claim.

I'm good at exposing shit balls like you for the turds you are. But I have to confess, you make it easy, you are SUCH a fucking stupid little ball of shit.

 

[Crick]

English is your second language, isn't it. What did you speak growing up? Quechua?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

English is your second language, isn't it. What did you speak growing up? Quechua?

Babbling Bullshit is your mother tongue, pricky.

Whassa matta?

Mad bro?

 

[Crick]

So why can't you post an experiment? Have you ever wondered about that?

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it. Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.

But you never succeed in challenging the science.

 

[Foxfyre]

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it. Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.

But you never succeed in challenging the science.

I don't waste my time challenging big blocks of cut and pasted 'science' that the person posting it couldn't explain in plain language if his/her life depended on it. And I have a really difficult time respecting the use of that tactic in lieu of reasoned debate. I look to the scientists who don't have a personal dog in the fight to explain the basic necessary science involved in the debate, and otherwise prefer to look at the politics, economics, and behavior/tactics of those involved to inform me who is likely to have the more credible argument.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it. Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.

But you never succeed in challenging the science.

pointing to the weather channel and saying "eeeeeeek manmade global climate disruption" is not science

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

Frank, I'm real close to putting you back on ignore.

AR5 is not the Weather Channel. When you have one tenth as much peer reviewed science as may be found in AR5, I might think about listening to what you've got to say. Till then, everything I know and everything I read and every authority I trust tells me you folks are simply wrong. Whether it's because you're really, really, really stupid or because your politics won't let you get on the same bandwagon as Al Gore and all us huge-penised-liberals or because your religious cult-leader told you that god told him the Earth was ours to hose up howe'er we wish - whatever the reason you've chosen to hold to what you hold - you're completely wrong.

 

[SSDD]

They never "wonder" about anything except why we skeptics can't see the emperor's beautiful new clothes.

At least we skeptics usually understand the stuff we post and don't post huge blocks of cut and pasted scientific looking stuff copied from some pro AGW site that the poster couldn't explain in his own words if their lives depended on it. Once I see somebody doing that, I know he or she doesn't have a clue.

But you never succeed in challenging the science.

There is little effort required to defeat your pseudoscience.....propaganda on a large scale aided by the mainstream media, on the other hand is difficult to defeat...it takes time and many failures on your part before that can happen. Luckily, much time has passed and climate pseudoscience has provided many failures....that is why your side is losing...and will lose even larger during the next presidential election season. Global warming is a political third rail issue and the increasing prices due the hoax are creating a backlash that will soon come home to roost.

 

[SSDD]

Frank, I'm real close to putting you back on ignore.

AR5 is not the Weather Channel. When you have one tenth as much peer reviewed science as may be found in AR5, I might think about listening to what you've got to say. Till then, everything I know and everything I read and every authority I trust tells me you folks are simply wrong. Whether it's because you're really, really, really stupid or because your politics won't let you get on the same bandwagon as Al Gore and all us huge-penised-liberals or because your religious cult-leader told you that god told him the Earth was ours to hose up howe'er we wish - whatever the reason you've chosen to hold to what you hold - you're completely wrong.

True...ar5 is even more of a joke.

by the way...ignore is the refuge of blatant cowards....you did it when you were abe and now you are doing as lying crick. Does the fact that you are telling a lie every time you post under that name have any effect on you at all?...or is lying so natural to you that you can do it with no feelings about it whatsoever?

 

[Crick]

Does it bother you that you're apparently so dense you don't see my sig reading "formerly Abraham3"?

AR5 is collected across the entire spectrum of peer-reviewed climate research for a period of several years. Compared to AR5, you haven't got a Dick and Jane reading book.

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation. The evidence is irrefutable. The science is widely accepted. Global warming denialism is rationally unsupportable. It fits EVERY qualification for pseudo science and bunkum. Why else would you have to shift from character assassination to false testimony to bad science to creating false controversy to erecting straw men to throwing up red herrings and finally back to character assassination? Why is it you can't make a rational, evidence-supported argument for your position? Think hard. It'll come to you eventually.

 

[SSDD]

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation.

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the past 150 years is data tampering. The evidence is irrefutable.


Why is it that you can't provide any evidence that adding 100 or even 200ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause anything at all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I'm real close to putting you back on ignore.

AR5 is not the Weather Channel. When you have one tenth as much peer reviewed science as may be found in AR5, I might think about listening to what you've got to say. Till then, everything I know and everything I read and every authority I trust tells me you folks are simply wrong. Whether it's because you're really, really, really stupid or because your politics won't let you get on the same bandwagon as Al Gore and all us huge-penised-liberals or because your religious cult-leader told you that god told him the Earth was ours to hose up howe'er we wish - whatever the reason you've chosen to hold to what you hold - you're completely wrong.

Hey before you go, please post that elusive experiment showing a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2

As an added bonus, post the one that shows a drop in pH from 8.25 to 8.15 from the same increase in CO2

 

[Crick]

Hey Frank

Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump. I want to see if it improves our view.

 

[Crick]

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation.

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the past 150 years is data tampering. The evidence is irrefutable.


Why is it that you can't provide any evidence that adding 100 or even 200ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause anything at all?

How is it you all so easily lie?

 

[SSDD]

Hey Frank

Before YOU go, stick your head up your ass and jump. I want to see if it improves our view.

No experimental evidence? Complete absence of anything even resembling the scientific method where climate science is concerned?

Of course, insult is all you would have....and you aren't even good at that.

 

[SSDD]

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation.

The primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the past 150 years is data tampering. The evidence is irrefutable.


Why is it that you can't provide any evidence that adding 100 or even 200ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause anything at all?

How is it you all so easily lie?

Is projection the only tool you have in your toolbox? We produce evidence upon evidence of data tampering within the climate science community showing a serious warming bias in the temperature adjustments.

Now, at long last, NOAA has released data from its CRN network. A state of the art, triple redundant, meticulously placed network that requires absolutely no adjustment of its data and guess what, it doesn't show the warming that is claimed by every other network here in the US. In fact, it shows a cooling trend of .68 degrees per century. Further, when one looks at the global mean as reported, one sees a few very warm spots that create the illusion of warming and those very warm spots are invariably in locations where large areas are very poorly covered and present the greatest opportunity for infilling and when that happens, climate science can't help but introduce a warming bias.

It is climate science that is the liar and it is supported by liars such as yourself.

 

[Crick]

Why no link to this earth-shattering news?

The CRN first phase wasn't completed till 2008. Where, precisely, are you getting century long data trends?