And POOF, it was gone....

[Crick]

Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.

All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.

And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...

OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?

But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..

- ocean acidification isn't data[/quot

Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.

More bullshit...there isn't the first proxy study that could support such a claim...not nearly enough resolution...but then bullshit is all you have...isn't it?

The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

More bullshit...as you have already demonstrated...you can't come up with the first piece of observed, measured, quantified empirical data to support the claim...all you have is failed computer models...

The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.

And yet more bullshit...no proxy study supports the claim...not nearly enough resolution...you are nothing more than a useful idiot parrot spouting what you have been told to spout without regard to whether you can support the statements.

It is not and you have no evidence that it is.

Of course it's true...you just wish it weren't.

Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.

Doesn't really matter since CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.

And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the whole steaming pile to support the AGW hypothesis...I am afraid that it is you who doesn't have jack shit...and are a f'ing idiot for being so thoroughly duped...

Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.

that is all climate science has...not the first shred of actual evidence of causation.

You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.

Sorry crick..that statement is a bald faced lie...but it has been well established that you are a bald faced liar without the first shred of anything that resembles actual character...you are a useful idiot..nothing more.

I named my empirical science. Where is yours?

 

[SSDD]

Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.

All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.

And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...

OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?

But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..

- ocean acidification isn't data[/quot

Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.

More bullshit...there isn't the first proxy study that could support such a claim...not nearly enough resolution...but then bullshit is all you have...isn't it?

The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

More bullshit...as you have already demonstrated...you can't come up with the first piece of observed, measured, quantified empirical data to support the claim...all you have is failed computer models...

The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.

And yet more bullshit...no proxy study supports the claim...not nearly enough resolution...you are nothing more than a useful idiot parrot spouting what you have been told to spout without regard to whether you can support the statements.

It is not and you have no evidence that it is.

Of course it's true...you just wish it weren't.

Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.

Doesn't really matter since CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.

And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the whole steaming pile to support the AGW hypothesis...I am afraid that it is you who doesn't have jack shit...and are a f'ing idiot for being so thoroughly duped...

Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.

that is all climate science has...not the first shred of actual evidence of causation.

You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.

Sorry crick..that statement is a bald faced lie...but it has been well established that you are a bald faced liar without the first shred of anything that resembles actual character...you are a useful idiot..nothing more.

I named my empirical science. Where is yours?

Funny crick... for all your "empirical" evidence...you don't seem to be able to pull a single shred of such evidence supporting your failed hypothesis....you are laughing stock...and it is only going to get worse over the coming years....

 

[Olde Europe]

Why commend someone who failed at every point...all he has is opinion as evidenced by the fact that he produced nothing whatsoever to support his baseless claims...such is the nature of you warmer wackos...you are told to believe by people who share your political leanings so you believe.

You know, Crick pegged you perfectly. Where he finds the stamina to do what he does I cannot fathom, since taking you seriously and attempting to debate you, a seemingly inexhaustible, endlessly repetitive fount of ignorance and disinformation, is not just pointless, it's a monument to pointlessness. Last I checked, you've run the very same shtick since at least 2012 / 2013, pretty much since you alighted on here. It takes more than just determination not to learn a single thing in all these years (except perhaps for becoming even more unpleasant than you were back then), though I am at pains to explain what that would be. Have a good life!

 

[SSDD]

You know, Crick pegged you perfectly. Where he finds the stamina to do what he does I cannot fathom, since taking you seriously and attempting to debate you, a seemingly inexhaustible, endlessly repetitive fount of ignorance and disinformation, is not just pointless, it's a monument to pointlessness. Last I checked, you've run the very same shtick since at least 2012 / 2013, pretty much since you alighted on here. It takes more than just determination not to learn a single thing in all these years (except perhaps for becoming even more unpleasant than you were back then), though I am at pains to explain what that would be. Have a good life!

Funny thing...I believe that you actually believe what you said...Tell you what.. since crick can't produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...how about you provide one...just one...doesn't even have to be proof...just a real piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

And you know what...you can't do it either because none exists...there is plenty of half assed correlation that you people apparently believe is evidence, but actual evidence...not a whit...

And pretending that it has been presented...or that you have seen it..or that anyone has seen it is the schtick of every warmer out there...actually providing such evidence..unfortunately isn't the schtick of any of you.

 

[Crick]

Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.

All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.

And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...

OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?

But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..

- ocean acidification isn't data[/quot

Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.

More bullshit...there isn't the first proxy study that could support such a claim...not nearly enough resolution...but then bullshit is all you have...isn't it?

The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

More bullshit...as you have already demonstrated...you can't come up with the first piece of observed, measured, quantified empirical data to support the claim...all you have is failed computer models...

The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.

And yet more bullshit...no proxy study supports the claim...not nearly enough resolution...you are nothing more than a useful idiot parrot spouting what you have been told to spout without regard to whether you can support the statements.

It is not and you have no evidence that it is.

Of course it's true...you just wish it weren't.

Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.

Doesn't really matter since CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.

And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the whole steaming pile to support the AGW hypothesis...I am afraid that it is you who doesn't have jack shit...and are a f'ing idiot for being so thoroughly duped...

Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.

that is all climate science has...not the first shred of actual evidence of causation.

You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.

Sorry crick..that statement is a bald faced lie...but it has been well established that you are a bald faced liar without the first shred of anything that resembles actual character...you are a useful idiot..nothing more.

I named my empirical science. Where is yours?

Funny crick... for all your "empirical" evidence...you don't seem to be able to pull a single shred of such evidence supporting your failed hypothesis....you are laughing stock...and it is only going to get worse over the coming years....

Again, I named my empirical evidence; several thousand pages of it. Where is yours?

 

[SSDD]

Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable. It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try). Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming. The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed. To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence. You're the denier.

All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm. I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.

And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...

OLR is increasing? What a surprise. Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT. The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space. And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute. Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?

But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..

- ocean acidification isn't data[/quot

Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2. On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.

More bullshit...there isn't the first proxy study that could support such a claim...not nearly enough resolution...but then bullshit is all you have...isn't it?

The world is warming. That warming (like any change) has a cause. All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

More bullshit...as you have already demonstrated...you can't come up with the first piece of observed, measured, quantified empirical data to support the claim...all you have is failed computer models...

The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial. And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming. And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.

And yet more bullshit...no proxy study supports the claim...not nearly enough resolution...you are nothing more than a useful idiot parrot spouting what you have been told to spout without regard to whether you can support the statements.

It is not and you have no evidence that it is.

Of course it's true...you just wish it weren't.

Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel. Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability. To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.

Doesn't really matter since CO2 doesn't cause temperature change.

Yes, you lying piece of shit. He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based. You, on the other hand, DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT.

And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from the whole steaming pile to support the AGW hypothesis...I am afraid that it is you who doesn't have jack shit...and are a f'ing idiot for being so thoroughly duped...

Science has never relied on the correlation. But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.

that is all climate science has...not the first shred of actual evidence of causation.

You are an ignorant liar. That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.

Sorry crick..that statement is a bald faced lie...but it has been well established that you are a bald faced liar without the first shred of anything that resembles actual character...you are a useful idiot..nothing more.

I named my empirical science. Where is yours?

Funny crick... for all your "empirical" evidence...you don't seem to be able to pull a single shred of such evidence supporting your failed hypothesis....you are laughing stock...and it is only going to get worse over the coming years....

Again, I named my empirical evidence; several thousand pages of it. Where is yours?

According to you...anyone who sends people off to a web address...or a great big pile of information hoping that they find something that satisfies them is just talking out of their ass...people who have actual data, bring it forward and post it in the faces of those they are arguing with....so lets see it...that single piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in those thousands of pages that support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Crick]

You are tiresome and you have absolutely nothing to bring to this conversation. Nighty night

 

[SSDD]

You are tiresome and you have absolutely nothing to bring to this conversation. Nighty night

No crick... as you have proven repeatedly, it is you who has absolutely nothing to bring to the conversation...observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would damned sure be something to talk about...something important to talk about...but you don't seem to be able to produce it even though you say that there are thousands of pages of actual observed, empirical data supporting said hypothesis...all you have is claims that you can't back up which is, in fact, nothing. I keep asking for something to talk about and you keep not delivering....

 

[Crick]

You're stupid and you lie. That's about all there is to say about it.

 

[SSDD]

You're stupid and you lie. That's about all there is to say about it.

Projecting your flaws and shortcomings on me hardly changes the fact that you ca't bring a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to the table that supports your hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Crick]

You're stupid and you lie... and you have presented ZERO evidence to support your position.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

 

[SSDD]

You're stupid and you lie... and you have presented ZERO evidence to support your position.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

My position, you idiot is that you can't produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....and every time you fail to do so, you present more evidence in support of my position...

And again.....you merely post up a steaming pile of shit hoping that I might go there and find what you seem to be completely unable to find...and once again, by your own standards, people who send others off to find what they are unable to bring here for themselves are just talking out of their asses...

If there is something there, then bring it here and lets see it....I understand your hesitance...after all, every time you have brought something forward that passed for actual evidence in your mind, you have got bitch slapped down over your stupidity...but try again if you like...just for our amusement.

 

[Crick]

I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

 

[SSDD]

I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

So you claim..but you don't seem to be able to find a single item to bring here....not a single item....your claims of thousands of pages of evidence stinks of evasion...if there were anything there, you certainly would bring it here to slap me down with it...instead, you get bitch slapped with everything you bring that passes for evidence in your mind....showing mainly that you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on the ass...

 

[Crick]

I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

 

[SSDD]

I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

I have proven conclusively that you are unable to bring forward a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability from your steaming pile of thousands of pages...NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED...

I understand your hesitance to bring anything from that big pile of pseudoscientific bullshit here....getting slapped around for being so easily fooled can't be fun.

 

[Crick]

You are a bald-faced liar. And a complete ass to boot.

 

[SSDD]

You are a bald-faced liar. And a complete ass to boot.

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from your thousand pages of shit....because there is nothing there that you aren't afraid to bring here for fear of being laughed at...or you know yourself that there is nothing there supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

in either case, you are afraid to bring it here.

 

[Crick]

Why don't you pull something from that link and prove it false?

 

[skookerasbil]

lol.....the alarmists are in complete denial. I sure do get a kick out of it in here!! Their crusade is not only a derailment at this point. Its a complete train off the tracks...volumes of evidence to support that already very well documented in just the threads you see on Page 1 of this forum.

Coal miners projected to go back to work

By John Siciliano • 2/7/17 2:24 PM

"The new short-term forecast shows coal mines rising from their lowest production numbers in nearly 40 years to experiencing a 3 percent increase in production in 2017 due to a surge in demand from coal power plants, the agency said. The forecast shows coal mining production increasing by 1 percent in 2018 as power plant demand continues to increase."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/coal-miners-projected-to-go-back-to-work/article/2614154



Meanwhile, Scott Pruitt is taking a baseball bat to the heads at the EPA. The goofball Paris agreements are fucked and the goals completely obliterated without US full participation.

DUH!

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603582/how-much-damage-could-scott-pruitt-really-do-at-epa/?set=603597



Like Ive been saying.........the k00k warmist contingent can scream from every mountaintop abut how locktight the "consensus" is. But spiking the football in internet forums is ghey. The "consensus" is having absolutely zero impact outside the little hamlet of the bogus science........energy policy makers aren't caring for dick. Paris exists to line the pockets of the DUMS at election time from the green industry profiteers. Again..................DUH!

In the real world, you meatheads are not winning..........even a little bit.

We cant even get a single link from these bozo's when asked, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?". Not a single link



Now to the mental case part...............

We have a couple of board members in here that don't even acknowledge the reality of the situation. They keep on debating the science only. Its fascinating. And they've been doing it for years and years in here and the football hasn't moved a single yard beyond the journal stage. For ten years, I keep seeing a link posted up about THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT by these people. Ten years!! And the silly Arctic Ice graph.....over and over for ten years!! Think about this.........the intellectual equivalent is running your car into a thick steel wall 100 times and heading back to see if you can finally break through the next time!!



Time for a Plan B s0ns.........been saying it a long time!! Your Plan A is proving to be profoundly ghey.