Let the Whistle Blowing Begin....

[mamooth]

Your poster boy for the climate mafia is lying his little butt off. None of his claims are true.

I notice your lack of any support for your whackaloon cult lies. In contrast, we can back up what we write.

It's the same story every time. You and your cult buddies can't ever come up with any actual evidence that supports your sacred cult dogma. All you can do is shriek "LIES! LIES! ALL LIES!" over and over, like the deranged cult loons that you are.

Now, go on and give us your "declare victory and run" speech. After, all the other deniers on this thread have.

 

[jc456]

Your poster boy for the climate mafia is lying his little butt off. None of his claims are true.

I notice your lack of any support for your whackaloon cult lies. In contrast, we can back up what we write.

It's the same story every time. You and your cult buddies can't ever come up with any actual evidence that supports your sacred cult dogma. All you can do is shriek "LIES! LIES! ALL LIES!" over and over, like the deranged cult loons that you are.

Now, go on and give us your "declare victory and run" speech. After, all the other deniers on this thread have.

you wouldn't know science if it fell in your lap. All of those words and I have no fking idea what exactly you're saying. can you settle down and write that in english?

 

[westwall]

Your poster boy for the climate mafia is lying his little butt off. None of his claims are true.

I notice your lack of any support for your whackaloon cult lies. In contrast, we can back up what we write.

It's the same story every time. You and your cult buddies can't ever come up with any actual evidence that supports your sacred cult dogma. All you can do is shriek "LIES! LIES! ALL LIES!" over and over, like the deranged cult loons that you are.

Now, go on and give us your "declare victory and run" speech. After, all the other deniers on this thread have.

No, mammy, it's the other way 'round. It is your hero's who can produce nothing factual to support your "theory". We claim that everything we see is natural variation. Thus we don't need to support ANYTHING. That's how science works. YOU have made a claim. It is thus up to YOU to support it. We claim nothing is happening that is unnatural and we have millenia of observations to support our position.

It is YOU and yours who are making the extraordinary claims. Thus it is up to YOU to support your claims. That's how science works.

 

[SSDD]

Your poster boy for the climate mafia is lying his little butt off. None of his claims are true.

I notice your lack of any support for your whackaloon cult lies. In contrast, we can back up what we write.

It's the same story every time. You and your cult buddies can't ever come up with any actual evidence that supports your sacred cult dogma. All you can do is shriek "LIES! LIES! ALL LIES!" over and over, like the deranged cult loons that you are.

Now, go on and give us your "declare victory and run" speech. After, all the other deniers on this thread have.

No, mammy, it's the other way 'round. It is your hero's who can produce nothing factual to support your "theory". We claim that everything we see is natural variation. Thus we don't need to support ANYTHING. That's how science works. YOU have made a claim. It is thus up to YOU to support it. We claim nothing is happening that is unnatural and we have millenia of observations to support our position.

It is YOU and yours who are making the extraordinary claims. Thus it is up to YOU to support your claims. That's how science works.

We keep asking for them to point to anything that is happening at present that is outside of the limits of natural variability and the best they can do is report the fake news that temperatures are changing 1OX faster today than at any time in history...as if they had a proxy study that could produce that level of resolution...

 

[mamooth]

We claim that everything we see is natural variation.

"Natural variation" does not explain the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

As your theory does not explain the observed data, it is wrong.

Global warming theory is the only theory that _does_ explain _all_ of the observed data, hence it is the accepted theory.

Thus we don't need to support ANYTHING.

Actually, you need a theory that isn't contradicted by the directly observed data. You don't have one. We do. Therefore, our theory is accepted. That's how science works. If you don't want to be laughed at, you need to come up with a theory that isn't contradicted by the observed data.

 

[westwall]

We claim that everything we see is natural variation.

"Natural variation" does not explain the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

As your theory does not explain the observed data, it is wrong.

Global warming theory is the only theory that _does_ explain _all_ of the observed data, hence it is the accepted theory.

Thus we don't need to support ANYTHING.

Actually, you need a theory that isn't contradicted by the directly observed data. You don't have one. We do. Therefore, our theory is accepted. That's how science works. If you don't want to be laughed at, you need to come up with a theory that isn't contradicted by the observed data.

You have no observed data silly girl. That's the whole point. You take actual observations and "adjust" them to match your models. That's called scientific fraud.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We claim that everything we see is natural variation.

"Natural variation" does not explain the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

As your theory does not explain the observed data, it is wrong.

Global warming theory is the only theory that _does_ explain _all_ of the observed data, hence it is the accepted theory.

Thus we don't need to support ANYTHING.

Actually, you need a theory that isn't contradicted by the directly observed data. You don't have one. We do. Therefore, our theory is accepted. That's how science works. If you don't want to be laughed at, you need to come up with a theory that isn't contradicted by the observed data.

You have no observed data silly girl. That's the whole point. You take actual observations and "adjust" them to match your models. That's called scientific fraud.

The deluge of information coming out is huge. In 2013/2014 NOAA/GISS made changes to all data sets.. The results are stunnig..

Now this is what has happened to all 48 CONUS states.. Karl Et Al was a huge destruction of massive amounts of data..

Even more on the David Rose bombshell article: How NOAA Software Spins the AGW Game

 

[SSDD]

We claim that everything we see is natural variation.

"Natural variation" does not explain the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

Your stratospheric cooling stopped a decade ago as CO2 levels climbed merrily along...sorry hairball...your hypothesis is a steaming pile of shit...and there are no measurements of back radiation in any specific band made with instruments at ambient temperature because no such measurements can be made because there is no back radiation...and your outgoing long wave claims are also shit...Here are the graphs of your so called stratospheric cooling and outgoing long wave...as you can see...your claims fail the observation test...

The black line is 1970...the gray line is 1996... where do you see less outgoing IR in the CO2 wavelength>

 

[mamooth]

Ignoring the usual array of desperate denier conspiracy theories, let's get back to the OP. It seems Bates himself says all you deniers are lying about what he supposedly said.

Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
---
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---

Sucks to be you, deniers. The guy you just swore was the most honest person on earth says you're full of shit. How are you going to spin that? I'm guessing your meltdowns here will be even funnier than they usually are.

 

[SSDD]

deny on crazy old cat lady...it is a hoot to watch...I have been waiting a while to see you crazies melt down and you are putting on quite the show...the only thing I wonder about is whether you actually believe all the bullshit you have been spouting or if you are just whistling by the graveyard in an attempt to reassure yourself.

 

[mamooth]

Squirm, SSDD, squirm. It's delightful to watch your little meltdown here.

Bates just busted you as a conspiracy fraud, and you're left flailing, being you just told everyone Bates was perfect.

I'd say your credibility had cratered even more, but that's not possible, being it was already at zero

 

[SSDD]

Squirm, SSDD, squirm. It's delightful to watch your little meltdown here.

Bates just busted you as a conspiracy fraud, and you're left flailing, being you just told everyone Bates was perfect.

I'd say your credibility had cratered even more, but that's not possible, being it was already at zero

You really believe your line of shit cat lady?....I am laughing my ass off at you.....you know what is coming and putting up a brave face is just more stupidity on your part...or maybe you are too damed stupid to even begin to guess what is coming...maybe you are so stupid that you actually do believe your own line of bullshit...

 

[Crick]

Ignoring the usual array of desperate denier conspiracy theories, let's get back to the OP. It seems Bates himself says all you deniers are lying about what he supposedly said.

Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
---
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---

Sucks to be you, deniers. The guy you just swore was the most honest person on earth says you're full of shit. How are you going to spin that? I'm guessing your meltdowns here will be even funnier than they usually are.

Truth will out.

 

[SSDD]

Ignoring the usual array of desperate denier conspiracy theories, let's get back to the OP. It seems Bates himself says all you deniers are lying about what he supposedly said.

Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
---
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---

Sucks to be you, deniers. The guy you just swore was the most honest person on earth says you're full of shit. How are you going to spin that? I'm guessing your meltdowns here will be even funnier than they usually are.

Truth will out.

YEP...it will...too bad you and yours have been lying your asses off for the past couple of decades...

Speaking of being lied to...care to answer a couple of questions regarding the greenhouse effect as described by climate science? Just to be sure we are on the same page...this is from the University of Washington's department of atmospheric sciences.....would you agree that this is an accurate portrayal of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science?

 

[Crick]

If one assumes equilibrium conditions. What's your point?

 

[SSDD]

If one assumes equilibrium conditions. What's your point?

I am trying to ask a question....and can't even get that far because apparently you are going to equivocate over what is or isn't the greenhouse hypothesis....The University of Washington atmospheric sciences department says that the graph above describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....is that true or are they pushing falsehood?

The rest of these seem to be describing the same thing as the graph above....true or false?

this one from Penn State

This one just from the internet...slightly different numbers but seems to be describing the same mechanism

this one from Harvard...again...seems to be describing the same mechanism.

Do these describe the greenhouse effect as described by climate science or not?

 

[Crick]

What's your point?

 

[SSDD]

What's your point?

What's the matter crick...are you afraid to say that the above graphics from various universities atmospheric sciences departments are describing the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science?

It seems that perhaps we have hit on a larger, more important point...those graphs, according to the universities mentioned are describing the basis for the greenhouse effect and you are hesitant to agree with their claims...that is damned surprising...and somehow, not surprising at all.

So I take it that you are not going to agree with Pen State, Harvard, and the University of Washington on the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

 

[Crick]

I simply the haven't inclination to play your infantile games. Make your fucking point or go away.

 

[SSDD]

I simply the haven't inclination to play your infantile games. Make your fucking point or go away.

I get it...if you don't know enough to even identify a graphic depicting the greenhouse effect, you probably wouldn't be able to answer even the most basic question...of course "does this graphic depict the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect" is about as basic a question as is possible and you aren't even able to answer that.....I will take my questions to the larger board...maybe there are some among your number who aren't as milquetoast as you.