Where is the confession?

[Crick]

SSDD, you gave us a joke you lacked the intellect to comprehend. You made the idiotic claim that AR5 had NO empirical data. Idiot.

 

[SSDD]

So now describing the future plan is proof the plan was carried out?

You really are a f'ing idiot aren't you....I guess you are exactly as stupid as I have always though that you are. The email was sent in November of 1996 and speaks to all the fun they had inventing the 1995 temperatures. Are you really unaware of the difference between past and future?....not that it would surprise me if you weren't.

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones,

“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones,

It would be interesting to study the correlation between denialism and early onset dementia. SSDD clearly isn't playing with a full deck.

Sys the idiot who thought that an email sent in 1996 talking about deeds done in 1995 were talking about future plans. You are pathetic old woman...absolutely pathetic.

 

[SSDD]

You gave us a joke you lacked the intellect to comprehend. You made the idiotic claim that AR5 had NO empirical data. Idiot.

And now the lying sack brings his lies to this thread....how desperate are you bucky? Here, lets review what was said so that once again we can make it clear that you are a lying sack and that you can't provide the empirical evidence you claimed that you could.

You said:

When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something.

Clearly you are saying that people who make claims that data exists but don't post it are full of shit.

To which I said:

That's like when you claim that the empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming has already been posted or that you have posted it already but when asked point blank, you can never seem to manage to provide it? Like that bucky?

That is me pointing out that you do the same thing which by your own admission means that you don't have shit....I go on to state precisely the claim you made to which you have never provided the evidence....SPECIFICALLY the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

To which you said"

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

That's you telling, yet another bald faced lie. Again, you make the claim that you have provided empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming. Then when confronted with what you claimed and asked to provide the empirical evidence that you claimed that you had posted, you then, realizing that you have made a claim that you can't possibly back up )because you know as well as I do that no such empirical data exist even though hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on the AGW hoax) you then change gears, hoping that no one will notice and start providing observed evidence that the climate changes which was never in question. We all agree that the climate changes....especially when the planet is exiting an ice age...

So again crick....lets see the empirical data that you claim that you have posted proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase. I find it hilarious that you have been caught up on the most basic, foundational question possible in the AGW debate...a question so important that a failure to adequately answer it...to which, if there is no actual empirical data to back up the claim, renders the rest of the argument highly questionable.

I started at the beginning and listed graphs containing empirical data.

You stated to me that you had posted "abundant" empirical data that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause warming. You lied....you never posted any such data because no such data exists. Again....you are a lying sack...and now you are again trying to offer up your red herring of observed data that the climate changes which does not answer the question of whether or not adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

You know as well as I do that evidence that the climate changes is not evidence that the change is due to more CO2 in the atmosphere....or maybe you don't know that in which case, that would make you quite STUPID wouldn't it? We already know that you are stupid enough to make a claim, in writing that you could never back up.

So lets go back to your original statement....

When people tell me to go hit Google, it tells me they haven't got shit and they're just hoping I'll find something

When people tell you to go look for the data that they claim exists, but don't post it, you are smart enough to know that they don't have it and are just taking out of their asses....fast forward to now....you are still talking out of your ass and lying in your typical manner because we both know that you don't have shit. You have probably looked everywhere for it but, alas, it is no where to be found....not one scrap of actual empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming.

Now what strikes me as funny, and puts you squarely in the category clearly labeled STUPID is the fact that even when you come face to face with the reality that there isn't a single shred of empirical evidence, anywhere, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you still believe it because you have been told to believe it. You aren't skeptical in the least even though you now know that no such foundational empirical data exists....the most basic question possible has not been empirically answered and you still believe. No skepticism at all...you exemplify the opposite of skepticism...and you know what that is because I already told you....the opposite of skeptical is gullible. Even when you come face to face with the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you remain a believer. PATHETIC.

Now you've opted to throw in this non-existent claim in a desperate attempt to avoid looking like a complete idiot but it's had the unfortunate effect of showing everyone here on top of being precisely that stupid, you're a completely amoral, unethical LIAR.

And when confronted with his lies, what does a genuine, dyed in the wool lying sack to....hell, he tells more lies. Even when your quote in which you said clearly that you have provided empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, you claim that you never said it or that I never asked it. How does one ever get to be such a liar crick. I mean, there are liars here on this board, but you are the king of them....you have assumed the crown and are the reigning KING OF THE LIARS. Tell me your maggoty...er....majesty, how does it feel to be the biggest liar on the board?

Here, just to make sure you see your claim, let me post it again.....You said:

I've provided it to you on multiple occasions. It goes like this: www.ipcc.ch, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis. Familiar? Everyone here knows I've given it to you and a dozen other deniers before now and they all wonder why you're not addressing the empirical evidence it provides - in abundance - that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.

So go ahead crick....lie some more since is is becoming more abundantly clear with every post you make that lying is about all you are capable of.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, you gave us a joke you lacked the intellect to comprehend. You made the idiotic claim that AR5 had NO empirical data. Idiot.

You are as pathetic as mammoth...the only joke in that email was the joke that the data fabricator was quite sure that people like you would continue to believe no matter what they say or do and they were right....you and yours are a joke.

 

[Crick]

Global CEO's, looking for redistributed US wealth, believe in Global Warming!

Why would the richest of the rich want to redistribute their wealth?

 

[SSDD]

Global CEO's, looking for redistributed US wealth, believe in Global Warming!

Why would the richest of the rich want to redistribute their wealth?

For the same reason as always you idiot...it isn't their wealth that is being redistributed.....it is the power to do the redistributing that they want....and you poor dupe, it is your money that they want. Interesting that you don't seem to be able to grasp such a fundamental fact....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global CEO's, looking for redistributed US wealth, believe in Global Warming!

Why would the richest of the rich want to redistribute their wealth?

Same reason the insurance companies are jumping on the AGWCult wagon, they want the US Taxpayer to aid their bottom line

 

[Crick]

That's not the story that your brethren have been pushing. It's to be a massive shift of wealth from the first world to the third. Don't you recall Edenhofer's statement you've been claiming was the IPCC's raison d'etre?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's not the story that your brethren have been pushing. It's to be a massive shift of wealth from the first world to the third. Don't you recall Edenhofer's statement you've been claiming was the IPCC's raison d'etre?

Ottmar never said WHO was going to get $, did he? Can you link to where he said he was Robin Hood?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Abstract of Karl et al, 2015 [Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Full text of Karl et al 2015
Science Magazine: Sign In

When you call me a liar, asshole, you better have something better than the gelid tripe you keep between your ears to do it with.

And fix your quotes, dipshit.

The latest "corrected analysis". LOL!
Stop it, you're killing me. ROFLMAO!

 

[Crick]

Show us some science Todd.

 

[SSDD]

Show us some science Todd.

Speaking of showing us some science...where is that empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would resulting warming that you claim to have posted? Or do you maybe have some more lies to tell regarding your claims?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

PROGRESSIVE (Dictionary.com)
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties inpolitics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

This is the definition of Progressive?

Yes

Why did they leave out being handsome and full of wit?

Because it's an actual definition from an actual dictionary.

So how are Progressives reforming the government today I wonder?

Are you presuming progressives are in control?

What is being reformed? Is corruption being rooted out?
Are they being held accountable for how they are spending our money? Who was arrested for the credit crisis? Who was arrested for the VA scandal? Who was arrested for the IRS scandal? In fact, no one was.

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 was most certainly not the work of progressives. It was caused by deregulation of the financial industry by those perfect friends of business and profits, the Republican Party.

On the VA Scandal:
Dr. Robert Petzel, retired early at the request of Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki.[9][10]On May 30, 2014, Secretary Shinseki resigned from office amid the fallout from the controversy.[11][12]
...
An internal VA audit released June 9, 2014 found that more than 120,000 veterans were left waiting or never got care and that schedulers were pressured to use unofficial lists or engage in inappropriate practices to make waiting times appear more favorable.[18]

On June 11, 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a criminal investigation of the VA.[19]

President Barack Obama ordered a White House investigation. On June 27, 2014, Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, Rob Nabors, reported "significant and chronic system failures" and a "corrosive culture" inside the Veterans Health Administration.[20]

In August 2014, Obama signed Congressional legislation regarding funding and reform of the Veterans Health Administration. [Wikipedia]

The poor continue to become poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.

The gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically, but most of the change was on the high side.

The government passes about 40,000 new regulations and laws every single day as it gets harder and harder to start a new business.

Bullshit. Let's see your source for that nonsense.

The President now goes to war when he feels like it and without declaring war.

Did you realize the last time the United States formally declared war was 11 December 1941? So, don't try to suggest this is something Obama or progressives have brought about.

The President now signs Executive Orders even though they may conflict with existing laws.

Wrong.

The President now creates Treaties and renames it an Executive Agreement, all in an effort to bypass Congress. We have a king, not a President

Presidents have been making executive agreements since the US Constitution was ratified. Again, your suggestion that this is something that has happened recently (ie, under Obama) is a falsehood. The predominance of executive agreements over Senate-approved treaties began before WWII.

In fact, look at Congress. They continually delegate their Constitutional obligations to the Executive Branch so that now nonelected bureaucrats are essentially writing our laws now via regulations.

You really need some lessons in American Government. The unelected bureaucrats currently most involved in writing our laws are the staff of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). That IS a scandal. Look them up. If is NOT a result of progressive action or the work of the Obama administration.

With a Congress having an approval rating hovering about 10% for decades, for the life of me, I don't understand how this is Progress or even democracy.

Because it is not.

This is America being held hostage.

By the moneyed interests of capitalism.

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 was most certainly not the work of progressives. It was caused by deregulation of the financial industry by those perfect friends of business and profits, the Republican Party.

Which supposed deregulation did that?

Was it one that forced banks to lend to poor credit risks?
Was it pushed by community organizers who wanted banks to lend to more unqualified minorities?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Votto, you are more and more coming off as another dumb fuck. Solar and wind are right now cheaper to install and maintain than even dirty coal or natural gas. And, with the grid scale batteries now being manufactured, they will cease to be intermittant power source. We have yet to really start developing geo-thermal resources, but that will happen also. And, yes, that will redistribute wealth. Like it has for the wheat farmers in the Colombia Gorge. As it will for the third world nations rich in wind, solar, or geo-thermal potential. Energy is a very important commodity in modern manufacturing. But the re-distribution will be done by market forces, not governments. And that is what the fossil fuel people fear the most. As for the 'Conservatives', they just fear anything at all that they don't understand, which is most of the world.

Solar and wind are right now cheaper to install and maintain than even dirty coal or natural gas.

Especially when you ignore the times they don't generate any power.
And you have to ignore the subsidies.

 

[Crick]

Show us some science Todd.

Speaking of showing us some science...where is that empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would resulting warming that you claim to have posted? Or do you maybe have some more lies to tell regarding your claims?

When you have apologized for having LIED about what I have and have not said, when you've admitted that AR5 has more empirical data than you ever dreamed of, when you've admitted that you're a fool who doesn't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about, I might condescend to respond to more of your ignorant bile. Till then, pack sand asshole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Deniers are the ones without Science ...conventional Science ...the 97 % agree with my views...as do CEO s and Religious leaders...who you all got ? LOL

the 97 % agree with my views

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive!

 

[mamooth]

You really are a f'ing idiot aren't you....I guess you are exactly as stupid as I have always though that you are.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to _not_ be a piss-guzzling cult moron. That's why I can do it, but you can't.

The email was sent in November of 1996 and speaks to all the fun they had inventing the 1995 temperatures. Are you really unaware of the difference between past and future?....not that it would surprise me if you weren't.

---
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls [/quote]
---

"Should". "Could". "Can". All indicating future actions. Holy shit, you're stupid. You're actually denying it was a plan for the future, when it's right there in front of you.

Now, tell us again. Was that cunning plan for the future ever carried out? No, it wasn't. Because it was a joke. And every human of normal intelligence instantly understands that upon reading it.

You're one of the few morons on the planet who can't figure out it was a joke. Even at the height of ClimateGate hysteria, nobody was pretending otherwise. That's because deniers then weren't desperate enough to stoop that low. However, things have changed, and some deniers are now that desperate.

You are pathetic old woman...absolutely pathetic.

You know I'm a guy, as a I've told you many time, so stop your gayass passes at me. An ugly old queer like you stalking me is just creepy. Just go back to abusing whatever substance it was that rotted your brain and brought about the early dementia, and leave the normal people alone.

 

[SSDD]

When you have apologized for having LIED about what I have and have not said, when you've admitted that AR5 has more empirical data than you ever dreamed of, when you've admitted that you're a fool who doesn't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about, I might condescend to respond to more of your ignorant bile. Till then, pack sand asshole.

The only liar here is you crick....I have the quotes to prove it. Maybe we really should start a whole thread on the topic and show everyone here what a lying sack you really are. Would you like that bucky?

 

[SSDD]

You really are a f'ing idiot aren't you....I guess you are exactly as stupid as I have always though that you are.

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to _not_ be a piss-guzzling cult moron. That's why I can do it, but you can't.

The email was sent in November of 1996 and speaks to all the fun they had inventing the 1995 temperatures. Are you really unaware of the difference between past and future?....not that it would surprise me if you weren't.

---
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

Just go back to abusing whatever substance it was that rotted your brain and brought about the early dementia, and leave the normal people alone.[/QUOTE]

And another lying sack steps up....deliberately editing the email in an attempt to make it say something that it doesn't......There is a word for that....any idea what it is and what that makes you.

The whole quote is as follows...

“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.” “We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls

Context is everything you lying sack....the quote was not a joke but it was a confession that they fabricated data....you are one pathetic old woman....what does it feel like to be such a miserably human being that you would deliberately alter a quote like that in an effort to defend the indefensible?

 

[Crick]

I've got a question for you SID. What was the PURPOSE of Jenkins' email to Jones?