I am tired of warmers...

[gslack]

That's only your take on the matter. Like the skeptics like to say, climate is complicated. Warming has implications, higher winds, more moisture in the air, leading to changed patterns in weather. About the only thing not said is that when it gets colder that's AGW. I think that's just the result of skeptics/deniers seeing more snow and assuming that means it's colder out. But as anyone who is more concerned about the science than the poltics knows, higher temps can lead to more snow.

So then you just basically said, that the climate can do anything and you would consider it proof of AGW.. Thanks for clarifying the religious aspect again...

No, I didn't. That's what the skeptics/deniers say. Don't tell me what I said. Tell me what you've got to say. You're just foolishlly going back to your original thesis, as if I hadn't said anything at all. That's intellectual dishonesty, IMO, gramps.

ok then junior explain what you DI say then... I asked the question and you at least gave the impression you were answering it. And ya did so by telling me the climate is very complex and blah blah blah. What you did was give no answer just run off at the mouth so I tried to read between the bs.... So then tell me what can the climate do that you will not attribute to AGW? if you say nothing than you just showed its a faith. pal...

 

[konradv]

So then you just basically said, that the climate can do anything and you would consider it proof of AGW.. Thanks for clarifying the religious aspect again...

No, I didn't. That's what the skeptics/deniers say. Don't tell me what I said. Tell me what you've got to say. You're just foolishlly going back to your original thesis, as if I hadn't said anything at all. That's intellectual dishonesty, IMO, gramps.

ok then junior explain what you DI say then... I asked the question and you at least gave the impression you were answering it. And ya did so by telling me the climate is very complex and blah blah blah. What you did was give no answer just run off at the mouth so I tried to read between the bs.... So then tell me what can the climate do that you will not attribute to AGW? if you say nothing than you just showed its a faith. pal...

I'll stand by what I originally said. Say what YOU want to say, not what you IMAGINE I want to say. It just makes you look foolish.

 

[gslack]

Yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. Drought, desertification, melting ice caps, warmer climate, increased storms and increased storm severity, rising ocean levels... None of that cultist stuff has come true...

Westy, you think you're profound, but you're not. You're parroting junk science. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 10 or 100 blockheads on this site to agree with you. You're wrong.

Care to point out where the desertification is at?.... How about those islands that are evacuating due to rising sea levels? Or the arctic being completely free of ice a few years ago..... You algorians have your goalposts on a trolley...

My, my, another 'Conservative' that never reads the newspapers. Where is desertification happening? How about China, India, Africa, just to start?

Nobody stated that they Arctic was to be free of ice a few years ago. In fact, what was stated by most scientists a decade ago was that the Arctic could be free of ice in the summer by 2100. Now, most are stating that it will be free of ice in the summer by 2060. However, by volume decrease, it may well be free of ice in the summer by 2030.

And, given the fact that it seems to decrease stepwise, rather than in a nice straight line, it could happen sooner.

G-string, you can lie all that you want, you can misrepresent what the scientists have stated all you want. However, just as when you lying assholes were shouting, in chorus with the obese junkie, that there was no global warming, the obvious events will overtake you and show you the be lying once again. And you will move on to other false claims. You know no other course.

Desertification as in becoming a desert due to global warming retard. And NOT because it was already a desert... Dude you are completely ignorant of anything outside your approved greenpeace reading list...

And further.. Your scientists did say that....

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 - environment - 25 April 2008 - New Scientist

a small excerpt:

North Pole could be ice free in 2008

16:03 25 April 2008 by Catherine Brahic

You know when climate change is biting hard when instead of a vast expanse of snow the North Pole is a vast expanse of water. This year, for the first time, Arctic scientists are preparing for that possibility.

That is from Newscientist.com one of your kind of scientist sites.... Care to explain that socks? I bet you got a whole list of excuses and nonsense or spam to splatter the thread with now.... LOL

Busted AGAIN!

 

[gslack]

No, I didn't. That's what the skeptics/deniers say. Don't tell me what I said. Tell me what you've got to say. You're just foolishlly going back to your original thesis, as if I hadn't said anything at all. That's intellectual dishonesty, IMO, gramps.

ok then junior explain what you DI say then... I asked the question and you at least gave the impression you were answering it. And ya did so by telling me the climate is very complex and blah blah blah. What you did was give no answer just run off at the mouth so I tried to read between the bs.... So then tell me what can the climate do that you will not attribute to AGW? if you say nothing than you just showed its a faith. pal...

I'll stand by what I originally said. Say what YOU want to say, not what you IMAGINE I want to say. It just makes you look foolish.

LOL junior you didn't say anything that was an answer so i had to guess what you meant if i was wrong then show me. And since you obviously cannot tell me what the climate could do that wouldn't be proof of AGW, you are in fact implying that no matter what it does you will consider it evidence, and thats a relgious view not a scientific one... TY for the time junior..

 

[konradv]

ok then junior explain what you DI say then... I asked the question and you at least gave the impression you were answering it. And ya did so by telling me the climate is very complex and blah blah blah. What you did was give no answer just run off at the mouth so I tried to read between the bs.... So then tell me what can the climate do that you will not attribute to AGW? if you say nothing than you just showed its a faith. pal...

I'll stand by what I originally said. Say what YOU want to say, not what you IMAGINE I want to say. It just makes you look foolish.

LOL junior you didn't say anything that was an answer so i had to guess what you meant if i was wrong then show me. And since you obviously cannot tell me what the climate could do that wouldn't be proof of AGW, you are in fact implying that no matter what it does you will consider it evidence, and thats a relgious view not a scientific one... TY for the time junior..

If you understood the subject, you wouldn't have to guess. I've made myself perfectly clear. If there's any confusion, it's because you're always rewording what I said to conform to a pre-prepared response. If you did that by editing my post, it would be against the board rules. Doing it the your way may not be exactly the same, but ethically there's no difference, IMO.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'll stand by what I originally said. Say what YOU want to say, not what you IMAGINE I want to say. It just makes you look foolish.

LOL junior you didn't say anything that was an answer so i had to guess what you meant if i was wrong then show me. And since you obviously cannot tell me what the climate could do that wouldn't be proof of AGW, you are in fact implying that no matter what it does you will consider it evidence, and thats a relgious view not a scientific one... TY for the time junior..

If you understood the subject, you wouldn't have to guess. I've made myself perfectly clear. If there's any confusion, it's because you're always rewording what I said to conform to a pre-prepared response. If you did that by editing my post, it would be against the board rules. Doing it the your way may not be exactly the same, but ethically there's no difference, IMO.

BWAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

You jutht aren't capable of underthtanding the TERROR! THE HORROR!!!

You thtupid person! You are threatening uth all!!!! You are jutht too dumb to realithe the thignificanth

WHY WON'T YOU BELIEVE!!!! MORONTH! YOU'RE TOO THTUPID TO UNDERTHAND!

TERRORITHTTH!!!!

WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Why won't you believe my thienthe??!!??

ATHHOLETH!!

 

[konradv]

LOL junior you didn't say anything that was an answer so i had to guess what you meant if i was wrong then show me. And since you obviously cannot tell me what the climate could do that wouldn't be proof of AGW, you are in fact implying that no matter what it does you will consider it evidence, and thats a relgious view not a scientific one... TY for the time junior..

If you understood the subject, you wouldn't have to guess. I've made myself perfectly clear. If there's any confusion, it's because you're always rewording what I said to conform to a pre-prepared response. If you did that by editing my post, it would be against the board rules. Doing it the your way may not be exactly the same, but ethically there's no difference, IMO.

BWAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

You jutht aren't capable of underthtanding the TERROR! THE HORROR!!!

You thtupid person! You are threatening uth all!!!! You are jutht too dumb to realithe the thignificanth

WHY WON'T YOU BELIEVE!!!! MORONTH! YOU'RE TOO THTUPID TO UNDERTHAND!

TERRORITHTTH!!!!

WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Why won't you believe my thienthe??!!??

ATHHOLETH!!

Isn't there an "Anti-Moron" rule on this board?!?!

 

[Big Fitz]

If you understood the subject, you wouldn't have to guess. I've made myself perfectly clear. If there's any confusion, it's because you're always rewording what I said to conform to a pre-prepared response. If you did that by editing my post, it would be against the board rules. Doing it the your way may not be exactly the same, but ethically there's no difference, IMO.

BWAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

You jutht aren't capable of underthtanding the TERROR! THE HORROR!!!

You thtupid person! You are threatening uth all!!!! You are jutht too dumb to realithe the thignificanth

WHY WON'T YOU BELIEVE!!!! MORONTH! YOU'RE TOO THTUPID TO UNDERTHAND!

TERRORITHTTH!!!!

WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Why won't you believe my thienthe??!!??

ATHHOLETH!!

Isn't there an "Anti-Moron" rule on this board?!?!

You're allowed to post here, so the answer must be no.

Don't worry, Santa's coming to save you.

 

[gslack]

I'll stand by what I originally said. Say what YOU want to say, not what you IMAGINE I want to say. It just makes you look foolish.

LOL junior you didn't say anything that was an answer so i had to guess what you meant if i was wrong then show me. And since you obviously cannot tell me what the climate could do that wouldn't be proof of AGW, you are in fact implying that no matter what it does you will consider it evidence, and thats a relgious view not a scientific one... TY for the time junior..

If you understood the subject, you wouldn't have to guess. I've made myself perfectly clear. If there's any confusion, it's because you're always rewording what I said to conform to a pre-prepared response. If you did that by editing my post, it would be against the board rules. Doing it the your way may not be exactly the same, but ethically there's no difference, IMO.

OK junior ya got one more chance to answer it then. Man up and answer or be a little wuss and don't, either way we all know you don't understand what you were arguing against...

Come on you can do it... Just say it... We all know what your answer is.... LOL you algorians crack me up...

 

[westwall]

I wish just one of you warmers can tell me what exactly the climate can do that you wouldn't consider proof of man-made climate change.. Seriously by changing the name from global warming to climate change you guys made the ultimate goal post stretch.. If it gets colder than a polar bears butt, you guys can say "see there is my proof" and if it gets hotter than Satan's sauna you will say the same thing... Too funny you guys would even bring up moving the goal posts lol....

That's only your take on the matter. Like the skeptics like to say, climate is complicated. Warming has implications, higher winds, more moisture in the air, leading to changed patterns in weather. About the only thing not said is that when it gets colder that's AGW. I think that's just the result of skeptics/deniers seeing more snow and assuming that means it's colder out. But as anyone who is more concerned about the science than the poltics knows, higher temps can lead to more snow.

What was that parrot? I seem to remember you saying the exact same thing. The only problem you have is yes with more water vapor you get rain but, to get snow it takes the absence of heat....aaanndd I believe that's called COLD!

"And we do know that Montana’s flooding was caused by record rainfall and by runoff from heavy snowfall. Though climate deniers (some of them funded by Exxon) love to point to freak snowstorms as “proof” that the planet isn’t warming, the opposite is often true: In some places, the warmer the air, the more water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere and the more moisture comes down in the form of rain or snow."


Climate change: Montana's flooding, oil spill spotlight fossil fuel dangers - latimes.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Care to point out where the desertification is at?.... How about those islands that are evacuating due to rising sea levels? Or the arctic being completely free of ice a few years ago..... You algorians have your goalposts on a trolley...

My, my, another 'Conservative' that never reads the newspapers. Where is desertification happening? How about China, India, Africa, just to start?

Nobody stated that they Arctic was to be free of ice a few years ago. In fact, what was stated by most scientists a decade ago was that the Arctic could be free of ice in the summer by 2100. Now, most are stating that it will be free of ice in the summer by 2060. However, by volume decrease, it may well be free of ice in the summer by 2030.

And, given the fact that it seems to decrease stepwise, rather than in a nice straight line, it could happen sooner.

G-string, you can lie all that you want, you can misrepresent what the scientists have stated all you want. However, just as when you lying assholes were shouting, in chorus with the obese junkie, that there was no global warming, the obvious events will overtake you and show you the be lying once again. And you will move on to other false claims. You know no other course.

Desertification as in becoming a desert due to global warming retard. And NOT because it was already a desert... Dude you are completely ignorant of anything outside your approved greenpeace reading list...

And further.. Your scientists did say that....

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 - environment - 25 April 2008 - New Scientist

a small excerpt:

North Pole could be ice free in 2008

16:03 25 April 2008 by Catherine Brahic

You know when climate change is biting hard when instead of a vast expanse of snow the North Pole is a vast expanse of water. This year, for the first time, Arctic scientists are preparing for that possibility.

That is from Newscientist.com one of your kind of scientist sites.... Care to explain that socks? I bet you got a whole list of excuses and nonsense or spam to splatter the thread with now.... LOL

Busted AGAIN!

God, G-string, you are so fucking dishonest. Read the article, and they are talking about the site of the north pole itself, not the whole of the Arctic Ice Cap.

 

[Old Rocks]

I wish just one of you warmers can tell me what exactly the climate can do that you wouldn't consider proof of man-made climate change.. Seriously by changing the name from global warming to climate change you guys made the ultimate goal post stretch.. If it gets colder than a polar bears butt, you guys can say "see there is my proof" and if it gets hotter than Satan's sauna you will say the same thing... Too funny you guys would even bring up moving the goal posts lol....

That's only your take on the matter. Like the skeptics like to say, climate is complicated. Warming has implications, higher winds, more moisture in the air, leading to changed patterns in weather. About the only thing not said is that when it gets colder that's AGW. I think that's just the result of skeptics/deniers seeing more snow and assuming that means it's colder out. But as anyone who is more concerned about the science than the poltics knows, higher temps can lead to more snow.

What was that parrot? I seem to remember you saying the exact same thing. The only problem you have is yes with more water vapor you get rain but, to get snow it takes the absence of heat....aaanndd I believe that's called COLD!

"And we do know that Montana’s flooding was caused by record rainfall and by runoff from heavy snowfall. Though climate deniers (some of them funded by Exxon) love to point to freak snowstorms as “proof” that the planet isn’t warming, the opposite is often true: In some places, the warmer the air, the more water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere and the more moisture comes down in the form of rain or snow."


Climate change: Montana's flooding, oil spill spotlight fossil fuel dangers - latimes.com

LOL. Montana, in the winter, is almost always very cold. So a warming there of about 10 degrees would still equal snow in the winter. But that is something that a politically driven liar like you would deny, Walleyes.

Speaking of politically driven;

Montana Legislator Introduces Bill To Declare Global Warming ‘Natural’ And ‘Beneficial’ | ThinkProgress

A bill has been introduced in the Montana state legislature to declare global warming a “natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it,” and that it is “beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana.” State Rep. Joe Read (R-MT), a farmer and emergency firefighter who unseated a Democratic incumbent in 2010, introduced HB 549 “to ensure economic development in Montana”:

The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana’s natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.

(2) The legislature finds:

(a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;

(b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and

(c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.

In an exclusive interview with the ThinkProgress Wonk Room, the 55-year-old first-time legislator explained why he filed this bill to outlaw science, which even he admitted was a “radical” act. Read did not consult any climate scientists — including Montana’s own experts, who warn of drought, infestation, wildfires and “large economic impacts” — in the drafting of this bill. Instead he relied on his own experience and understanding of the issues at play. He told us:

If you follow the money, the science has been pushed toward where the money is coming from. The money is coming from the federal government. I believe global science is an ideal, not a true science

 

[gslack]

My, my, another 'Conservative' that never reads the newspapers. Where is desertification happening? How about China, India, Africa, just to start?

Nobody stated that they Arctic was to be free of ice a few years ago. In fact, what was stated by most scientists a decade ago was that the Arctic could be free of ice in the summer by 2100. Now, most are stating that it will be free of ice in the summer by 2060. However, by volume decrease, it may well be free of ice in the summer by 2030.

And, given the fact that it seems to decrease stepwise, rather than in a nice straight line, it could happen sooner.

G-string, you can lie all that you want, you can misrepresent what the scientists have stated all you want. However, just as when you lying assholes were shouting, in chorus with the obese junkie, that there was no global warming, the obvious events will overtake you and show you the be lying once again. And you will move on to other false claims. You know no other course.

Desertification as in becoming a desert due to global warming retard. And NOT because it was already a desert... Dude you are completely ignorant of anything outside your approved greenpeace reading list...

And further.. Your scientists did say that....

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 - environment - 25 April 2008 - New Scientist

a small excerpt:

North Pole could be ice free in 2008

16:03 25 April 2008 by Catherine Brahic

You know when climate change is biting hard when instead of a vast expanse of snow the North Pole is a vast expanse of water. This year, for the first time, Arctic scientists are preparing for that possibility.

That is from Newscientist.com one of your kind of scientist sites.... Care to explain that socks? I bet you got a whole list of excuses and nonsense or spam to splatter the thread with now.... LOL

Busted AGAIN!

God, G-string, you are so fucking dishonest. Read the article, and they are talking about the site of the north pole itself, not the whole of the Arctic Ice Cap.

Thats it pal go the semantics route to excuse it.... LOL

You continually make absolute statements without knowing squat to defend this AGW theory and the claims made, and when they blow up in your face you go and make some semantic excuse like this....

Can you get any more pathetic??

Its okay tool, I already know you lack the spine to admit your mistakes. I just wanted to make sure everyone else sees it too... Thank you for helping....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Isn't there an "Anti-Moron" rule on this board?!?!

Why? You want Sucks Old Cocks banned?

 

[Old Rocks]

More from an idiot child. Ah well, the dumb asses we always have with us.

The Arctic ice area is just barely above what it was this time of year in 2007.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

The volume is lower

Polar Science Center » Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2

Model Validation and UncertaintyPIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered. From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade. The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 103 km3. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 103 km3 . Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain. Details on model validation can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011 (pdf) and (here). Additional information on PIOMAS can be found (here)

 

[Uncensored2008]

More from an idiot child. Ah well, the dumb asses we always have with us.

You misunderstand, Sucks Old Cocks - I don't want you banned. That was your buddy. Watching you smear yourself with feces is oddly entertaining....

 

[konradv]

Isn't there an "Anti-Moron" rule on this board?!?!

Why? You want Sucks Old Cocks banned?

No, I'm not one of your fascist friends.

 

[Big Fitz]

Isn't there an "Anti-Moron" rule on this board?!?!

Why? You want Sucks Old Cocks banned?

No, I'm not one of your fascist friends.

fascist eh? Who's trying to use the force of government to take away our freedom to use the lightbulb, car and standard of living of our choice? Who likens deniers of global warming to holocaust deniers?

Little hypocrisy here, like Idi Amin telling Ghandi "You are too intense".

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I'm not one of your fascist friends.

You are a fascist - but not my friend, that much is true.

But the point was your "anti-moron" rule, which would ban Sucks Old Cocks; why do you want to deny him the ability to post? Sure, he's a drooling idiot, but the best course of action is to let him demonstrate that fact.

 

[gslack]

Kronhole is a juvenile delinquent trying to play big and smart in a web forum. Maybe he is trolling blunder or oldsocks kid... LOL