October 'Noreaster!

[gslack]

What you claim to "recall" is just another lie!!!

The "website" I linked to is the website to get the article from "Science." You know, the mag by date and name you blindly accepted without a link. So I am the ONLY person to provide a link for getting the actual article from "Science." And the dishonestly edited quote of the "Science" article did not come from "Science," it came from a George Will "The Shill" article in the Washington Post. An article that was totally debunked when it was published, but dishonest deniers continue to cite to this day, so your bullshit that the dishonestly edited quote was not contested by either side is just another lie!

I know CON$ like to play dumb because they have convinced themselves that if they are too stupid to know they are lying then they are not lying, but no one is as stupid as you pretend to be.

Just to show what a nice guy I am, I got a copy of the article just for you, but I bet you won't bother to read it so you can continue to pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf

I am referring to the part I made bold in your post above.... WHAT LINK???

Seriously you have no link in that.. Now if you are referring to the post you claimed I let him slide with, What part of "he cited the magazine name and date" do you not understand?

Did you cite a specific science journal date and time? No all you did was provide a link. When we are given a link and see a excerpt we expect to see more on that excerpt or the full article it refers to. Not a page telling us we need a subscription.

He didn't have the link for it at the time I figure he didn't know where to get it online and seeing as it came from 1976 I could hardly blame him for that..

You linked to a subscription page and not to your claimed article. A new and relatively modern paper as well..

Also, I remember when i was in grade school being told scientists were believing we had an ice age coming and attributed it to among many things CO2... That I remembered so I saw little reason to doubt his cited article..

YOU can claim its was something else ALL YOU WANT TO SHITHEAD! it will not matter, he cited his source and if George Will referred to the same article or not I do not care. He cited his source, and his source was accurate for the time... YOU SIR ARE A LYING LITTLE POS!!!!!

Now onto your little cherry picked source....

You cherry picked the paper why?

the title: "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages"

Whats that tell you moron? Why it tells me the paper is making a case for the earths orbit in climate change... You cherry picked a simple line meant to protect themselves from backlash from the psychos like you..

Lets see if we get this, the paper claims the orbit of the earth is the cause of climate changes all through the past and into the future and it still controls the climate now. Yet for some odd reason man made CO2 is now the driving force?? Yeah... Right... More science punctuated with a kiss ass/save ass line to keep from offending the ecomentalist psychos and keep funding coming..

The entire paper tells us how the earths orbit dictates climate and makes one little comment to prevent eco- backlash and you cherry pick that to try and change it all???

Who is the dishonest one here??

Look, playing dumb is not going to make you any less of a liar, so stop the act.

I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from. The liar you defend didn't have a link to the 1976 "Science" article because he didn't get it from "Science," not because it was a 1976 article as you rationalize.

I linked to the source of the original 1976 "Science" article, not "a new and relatively modern paper" that you fabricated!

And you "remember" bullshit! I have already shown that your recollections are just more lies, and he didn't cite his source, which was George Will "The Shill" who cited the "Science" article "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that he dishonestly edited.

Here is "The Shill's" column where he lies his denier's ASS (Anti-Science Syndrome) off.

George F. Will - Dark Green Doomsayers
In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively).

And here is the full quote in context that "The Shill" deliberately misrepresented from the already linked to Dec 10, 1976 "Science" article.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf
"Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends -- and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

So that "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" is supposed to happen "over the next 20,000 years", not imminently, and more importantly: it's a prediction that does not take into account anthropogenic changes in climate, like those "due to the burning of fossil fuels."


The George Will Scandal

ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...


you said above:

"I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from."

Really ED? You did cite the "specific journal date and time".. or did you post a link to a page asking for a subscription to see it? Come on ed we already know what it was and where it went stop lying.. You are busted thats lie number 1...

now you said above. "the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from."

REALLY ED????? you sure about that? Lets review....

YOU CITED "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that was the name of his cited source... before it was George Will so which is it now?????

And he cited it so what? What does that change about YOUR LINK? he cited it, you just showed he did, and now you are crying because he did or because you didn't or what?

Ed you want to defend YOUR citation or not? All you have done so far is cry that someone else cited a source and you even showed his claim was accurate.. he didn't have a link for whatever reason, and you just provided a link to show he was in fact correct in his citing it... And this defends your cited source how??

Seriously ED pleas explain how his accurate citation which you verified, defends your citing a science journal which we cannot verify at all??? Please ed explain this to me....

BTW, ed your crying makes your posts hard to follow.. you linked to a PDF file verifying wirebender's (sorry for mistaking the name for westwall earlier my bad) citation, at first I assumed it was to verify your cited science journal...

So ed, you gonna verify your previous link to the science journal with a real source which we can verify or not? Its fine to verify wirebender's and all, but we already knew that article existed from before, hell man I remember the claims when I was a kid anyway. SO now its your cited paper... Gonna verify it now?

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

 

[westwall]

LOL. OK, so I can say that any magazine I please to post said anything that I please to post without a link and you will take it as gospel, G-vig? You fellows are a hoot. What a bunch of lying, willfully ignorant asses.

Yeah, but we at least practice what we preach, you gross polluter you!

 

[edthecynic]

I am referring to the part I made bold in your post above.... WHAT LINK???

Seriously you have no link in that.. Now if you are referring to the post you claimed I let him slide with, What part of "he cited the magazine name and date" do you not understand?

Did you cite a specific science journal date and time? No all you did was provide a link. When we are given a link and see a excerpt we expect to see more on that excerpt or the full article it refers to. Not a page telling us we need a subscription.

He didn't have the link for it at the time I figure he didn't know where to get it online and seeing as it came from 1976 I could hardly blame him for that..

You linked to a subscription page and not to your claimed article. A new and relatively modern paper as well..

Also, I remember when i was in grade school being told scientists were believing we had an ice age coming and attributed it to among many things CO2... That I remembered so I saw little reason to doubt his cited article..

YOU can claim its was something else ALL YOU WANT TO SHITHEAD! it will not matter, he cited his source and if George Will referred to the same article or not I do not care. He cited his source, and his source was accurate for the time... YOU SIR ARE A LYING LITTLE POS!!!!!

Now onto your little cherry picked source....

You cherry picked the paper why?

the title: "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages"

Whats that tell you moron? Why it tells me the paper is making a case for the earths orbit in climate change... You cherry picked a simple line meant to protect themselves from backlash from the psychos like you..

Lets see if we get this, the paper claims the orbit of the earth is the cause of climate changes all through the past and into the future and it still controls the climate now. Yet for some odd reason man made CO2 is now the driving force?? Yeah... Right... More science punctuated with a kiss ass/save ass line to keep from offending the ecomentalist psychos and keep funding coming..

The entire paper tells us how the earths orbit dictates climate and makes one little comment to prevent eco- backlash and you cherry pick that to try and change it all???

Who is the dishonest one here??

Look, playing dumb is not going to make you any less of a liar, so stop the act.

I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from. The liar you defend didn't have a link to the 1976 "Science" article because he didn't get it from "Science," not because it was a 1976 article as you rationalize.

I linked to the source of the original 1976 "Science" article, not "a new and relatively modern paper" that you fabricated!

And you "remember" bullshit! I have already shown that your recollections are just more lies, and he didn't cite his source, which was George Will "The Shill" who cited the "Science" article "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that he dishonestly edited.

Here is "The Shill's" column where he lies his denier's ASS (Anti-Science Syndrome) off.



And here is the full quote in context that "The Shill" deliberately misrepresented from the already linked to Dec 10, 1976 "Science" article.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf
"Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends -- and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

So that "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" is supposed to happen "over the next 20,000 years", not imminently, and more importantly: it's a prediction that does not take into account anthropogenic changes in climate, like those "due to the burning of fossil fuels."


The George Will Scandal

ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...


you said above:

"I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from."

Really ED? You did cite the "specific journal date and time".. or did you post a link to a page asking for a subscription to see it? Come on ed we already know what it was and where it went stop lying.. You are busted thats lie number 1... [The link I provided not only gave that information, but also the name of the "Science" article, the author, the volume and the article number and the pages it appeared in "Science" mag.]

now you said above. "the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from."

REALLY ED????? you sure about that? Lets review....

YOU CITED "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that was the name of his cited source... before it was George Will so which is it now????? [No, I said the liar you defend PRETENDED to cite "Science" when his actual source was "the Shill." But you knew that all along.]

And he cited it so what? What does that change about YOUR LINK? he cited it, you just showed he did, and now you are crying because he did or because you didn't or what? [Skreek English, please]

Ed you want to defend YOUR citation or not? All you have done so far is cry that someone else cited a source and you even showed his claim was accurate.. he didn't have a link for whatever reason, and you just provided a link to show he was in fact correct in his citing it... And this defends your cited source how?? [No, I cited a link to show it was DISHONESTLY EDITED. Your Straw Men do not hold up]

Seriously ED pleas explain how his accurate citation which you verified, defends your citing a science journal which we cannot verify at all??? Please ed explain this to me.... [That lie is priceless! I linked to the "Science" article twice already, predicting that you would not read it so you could continue to lie and play dumb. Thank you for again proving me right. and here is the link one more time. http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf ]

BTW, ed your crying makes your posts hard to follow.. you linked to a PDF file verifying wirebender's (sorry for mistaking the name for westwall earlier my bad) citation, at first I assumed it was to verify your cited science journal...

So ed, you gonna verify your previous link to the science journal with a real source which we can verify or not? Its fine to verify wirebender's and all, but we already knew that article existed from before, hell man I remember the claims when I was a kid anyway. SO now its your cited paper... Gonna verify it now? []

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...[]

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

 

[westwall]

Look, playing dumb is not going to make you any less of a liar, so stop the act.

I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from. The liar you defend didn't have a link to the 1976 "Science" article because he didn't get it from "Science," not because it was a 1976 article as you rationalize.

I linked to the source of the original 1976 "Science" article, not "a new and relatively modern paper" that you fabricated!

And you "remember" bullshit! I have already shown that your recollections are just more lies, and he didn't cite his source, which was George Will "The Shill" who cited the "Science" article "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that he dishonestly edited.

Here is "The Shill's" column where he lies his denier's ASS (Anti-Science Syndrome) off.



And here is the full quote in context that "The Shill" deliberately misrepresented from the already linked to Dec 10, 1976 "Science" article.
So that "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" is supposed to happen "over the next 20,000 years", not imminently, and more importantly: it's a prediction that does not take into account anthropogenic changes in climate, like those "due to the burning of fossil fuels."


The George Will Scandal

ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...


you said above:

"I provided the link to the "specific journal date and time" the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from."

Really ED? You did cite the "specific journal date and time".. or did you post a link to a page asking for a subscription to see it? Come on ed we already know what it was and where it went stop lying.. You are busted thats lie number 1... [The link I provided not only gave that information, but also the name of the "Science" article, the author, the volume and the article number and the pages it appeared in "Science" mag.]

now you said above. "the liar you are defending pretended to cite. "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" was the name of the article in the Dec 10, 1976 issue of "Science" the dishonestly edited quote you defend came from."

REALLY ED????? you sure about that? Lets review....

YOU CITED "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages" that was the name of his cited source... before it was George Will so which is it now????? [No, I said the liar you defend PRETENDED to cite "Science" when his actual source was "the Shill." But you knew that all along.]

And he cited it so what? What does that change about YOUR LINK? he cited it, you just showed he did, and now you are crying because he did or because you didn't or what? [Skreek English, please]

Ed you want to defend YOUR citation or not? All you have done so far is cry that someone else cited a source and you even showed his claim was accurate.. he didn't have a link for whatever reason, and you just provided a link to show he was in fact correct in his citing it... And this defends your cited source how?? [No, I cited a link to show it was DISHONESTLY EDITED. Your Straw Men do not hold up]

Seriously ED pleas explain how his accurate citation which you verified, defends your citing a science journal which we cannot verify at all??? Please ed explain this to me.... [That lie is priceless! I linked to the "Science" article twice already, predicting that you would not read it so you could continue to lie and play dumb. Thank you for again proving me right. and here is the link one more time. http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf ]

BTW, ed your crying makes your posts hard to follow.. you linked to a PDF file verifying wirebender's (sorry for mistaking the name for westwall earlier my bad) citation, at first I assumed it was to verify your cited science journal...

So ed, you gonna verify your previous link to the science journal with a real source which we can verify or not? Its fine to verify wirebender's and all, but we already knew that article existed from before, hell man I remember the claims when I was a kid anyway. SO now its your cited paper... Gonna verify it now? []

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...[]

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

Yeah, we know. The truth hurts don't it? Tell you what junior, when you can carry on a discussion without resorting to calling names we'll welcome you with open arms, but buddy, till you grow up a little, you should stay out on the playground like a good little fella...

 

[gslack]

hes an idiot LOL

he is completely ignoring his link that started the entire argument and claiming all of what I say is about that PDF file he linked to... WTF?

The PDF was in reference to wirebenders cited magazine article, But his ORIGINAL LINK (that started the argument here) was to a science journal that we could not see to verify what he quoted from it.. Yet that moron thinks he can divert from it by pretending I am only talking about the PDF or Wirebenders citation of it or science magazines article (take your pick)..

What a useless POS...

 

[edthecynic]

ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

Yeah, we know. The truth hurts don't it? Tell you what junior, when you can carry on a discussion without resorting to calling names we'll welcome you with open arms, but buddy, till you grow up a little, you should stay out on the playground like a good little fella...

 

[skookerasbil]

You know the deniers are dominating when every response by the nutters is a pissed off rant illustrated by gay smiley anger.

 

[edthecynic]

hes an idiot LOL

he is completely ignoring his link that started the entire argument and claiming all of what I say is about that PDF file he linked to... WTF?

The PDF was in reference to wirebenders cited magazine article, But his ORIGINAL LINK (that started the argument here) was to a science journal that we could not see to verify what he quoted from it.. Yet that moron thinks he can divert from it by pretending I am only talking about the PDF or Wirebenders citation of it or science magazines article (take your pick)..

What a useless POS...

The original link was to the science journal that published wirebinder's out of context quote that came from George F Will "The Shill's" column.

Wirebinder gave no link at all, though you "recall" one, so we could verify if the quote was in context. If you subscribed to "Science" you would be able to see from my link that the dishonestly edited quote was so far out of context as to imply the exact opposite of what was said in "Science." But the truth is worthless to CON$ and certainly not worth the price of a subscription to "Science" magazine. Wirebinder gave nothing, subscriber or not, to verify the context of the quote because he, like all denier, knew it was being misrepresented, but he is not condemned. I am condemned for providing a path to the truth simply because the truth costs a tiny bit of money!

 

[gslack]

hes an idiot LOL

he is completely ignoring his link that started the entire argument and claiming all of what I say is about that PDF file he linked to... WTF?

The PDF was in reference to wirebenders cited magazine article, But his ORIGINAL LINK (that started the argument here) was to a science journal that we could not see to verify what he quoted from it.. Yet that moron thinks he can divert from it by pretending I am only talking about the PDF or Wirebenders citation of it or science magazines article (take your pick)..

What a useless POS...

The original link was to the science journal that published wirebinder's out of context quote that came from George F Will "The Shill's" column.

Wirebinder gave no link at all, though you "recall" one, so we could verify if the quote was in context. If you subscribed to "Science" you would be able to see from my link that the dishonestly edited quote was so far out of context as to imply the exact opposite of what was said in "Science." But the truth is worthless to CON$ and certainly not worth the price of a subscription to "Science" magazine. Wirebinder gave nothing, subscriber or not, to verify the context of the quote because he, like all denier, knew it was being misrepresented, but he is not condemned. I am condemned for providing a path to the truth simply because the truth costs a tiny bit of money!

ED was I talking to you? You aren't trolling blunder and hes not you remember? Then how the hell do you know what his first link was?

WRONG!!!!!!

His first link the one that started the argument, that caused him to go and bring up wirebenders old post, was in fact TROLLING BLUNDERS LINK TO A SUBSCRIPTION PAGE FOR A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!!

I responded to that by explaining that link did not verify what he quoted and cited it was only to a subscription page and we couldn't see what he quoted...

PLEASE READ BEFORE RUNNING YOUR IGNORANT MOUTH AT ME AGAIN!

 

[gslack]

I will be waiting for your apology now ED....

 

[edthecynic]

Can you post anything without lying, Walleyes? Or do you get your science from Newsweek and Time?

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

hes an idiot LOL

he is completely ignoring his link that started the entire argument and claiming all of what I say is about that PDF file he linked to... WTF?

The PDF was in reference to wirebenders cited magazine article, But his ORIGINAL LINK (that started the argument here) was to a science journal that we could not see to verify what he quoted from it.. Yet that moron thinks he can divert from it by pretending I am only talking about the PDF or Wirebenders citation of it or science magazines article (take your pick)..

What a useless POS...

The original link was to the science journal that published wirebinder's out of context quote that came from George F Will "The Shill's" column.

Wirebinder gave no link at all, though you "recall" one, so we could verify if the quote was in context. If you subscribed to "Science" you would be able to see from my link that the dishonestly edited quote was so far out of context as to imply the exact opposite of what was said in "Science." But the truth is worthless to CON$ and certainly not worth the price of a subscription to "Science" magazine. Wirebinder gave nothing, subscriber or not, to verify the context of the quote because he, like all denier, knew it was being misrepresented, but he is not condemned. I am condemned for providing a path to the truth simply because the truth costs a tiny bit of money!

ED was I talking to you? You aren't trolling blunder and hes not you remember? Then how the hell do you know what his first link was?

WRONG!!!!!!

His first link the one that started the argument, that caused him to go and bring up wirebenders old post, was in fact TROLLING BLUNDERS LINK TO A SUBSCRIPTION PAGE FOR A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!!

I responded to that by explaining that link did not verify what he quoted and cited it was only to a subscription page and we couldn't see what he quoted...

PLEASE READ BEFORE RUNNING YOUR IGNORANT MOUTH AT ME AGAIN!

This from the who confused wirebinder with westwall!
Rolling Thunder was not involved at all!! It was Old Rocks and wirebinder and me.

Originally Posted by gslack
ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

 

[edthecynic]

I will be waiting for your apology now ED....

Only because you are an

 

[gslack]

It is you who is dishonest rocks.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

ED was I talking to you? You aren't trolling blunder and hes not you remember? Then how the hell do you know what his first link was?

WRONG!!!!!!

His first link the one that started the argument, that caused him to go and bring up wirebenders old post, was in fact TROLLING BLUNDERS LINK TO A SUBSCRIPTION PAGE FOR A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!!

I responded to that by explaining that link did not verify what he quoted and cited it was only to a subscription page and we couldn't see what he quoted...

PLEASE READ BEFORE RUNNING YOUR IGNORANT MOUTH AT ME AGAIN!

This from the who confused wirebinder with westwall!
Rolling Thunder was not involved at all!! It was Old Rocks and wirebinder and me.

Originally Posted by gslack
ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

You seem to like big fonts (both of you) so...

YOU ARE AN IDIOT ED! TROLLINGBLUNDERS FIRST LINK HERE IN THIS THREAD YOU IMBECILE! I GIVE TWO SHITS WHICH ONE OF YOU TWO CLONES WAS INVOLVED IN THE THE OTHER THREAD. TROLLS FIRST LINK THE ONE I COMMENTED WE COULDNT SEE DUE TO A REQUIRED SUBSCRIPTION THAT HE CITED IN HIS POST AND QUOTED FROM IS WHAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT.

DAMN YOU NINCOMPOOP CAN'T YOU EVEN FOLLOW A THREAD YOU NON-READING DIPSHIT??

BIG ENOUGH?

 

[edthecynic]

CON$ are my favorite liars. I can't begin to tell you how much money I've made off them on sucker bets when they swallow bullshit like that!!!
That "warning" was for the next 20,000 years! That's right 20K years!!!!
What s

The full quote:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Subscription required.

“Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends — and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

This from the who confused wirebinder with westwall!
Rolling Thunder was not involved at all!! It was Old Rocks and wirebinder and me.

Originally Posted by gslack
ED THE TROLLING BLUNDER.. I am officially tired of your bullshit, and now I am going to systematically show what lying little weasel you are...

ED you whiny little clone, you have not verified your own claim. All you did was verify wirebender's claim from a while back.. In your temper tantrum you seemed to have the two issues confused... We need YOUR citation verified moron, not his...

Now count to ten, before you post again crybaby...

You seem to like big fonts (both of you) so...

YOU ARE AN IDIOT ED! TROLLINGBLUNDERS FIRST LINK HERE IN THIS THREAD YOU IMBECILE! I GIVE TWO SHITS WHICH ONE OF YOU TWO CLONES WAS INVOLVED IN THE THE OTHER THREAD. TROLLS FIRST LINK THE ONE I COMMENTED WE COULDNT SEE DUE TO A REQUIRED SUBSCRIPTION THAT HE CITED IN HIS POST AND QUOTED FROM IS WHAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT.

DAMN YOU NINCOMPOOP CAN'T YOU EVEN FOLLOW A THREAD YOU NON-READING DIPSHIT??

BIG ENOUGH?

RollingThunder has never posted in this thread.
But keep making a fool of yourself!

 

[westwall]

This from the who confused wirebinder with westwall!
Rolling Thunder was not involved at all!! It was Old Rocks and wirebinder and me.

You seem to like big fonts (both of you) so...

YOU ARE AN IDIOT ED! TROLLINGBLUNDERS FIRST LINK HERE IN THIS THREAD YOU IMBECILE! I GIVE TWO SHITS WHICH ONE OF YOU TWO CLONES WAS INVOLVED IN THE THE OTHER THREAD. TROLLS FIRST LINK THE ONE I COMMENTED WE COULDNT SEE DUE TO A REQUIRED SUBSCRIPTION THAT HE CITED IN HIS POST AND QUOTED FROM IS WHAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT.

DAMN YOU NINCOMPOOP CAN'T YOU EVEN FOLLOW A THREAD YOU NON-READING DIPSHIT??

BIG ENOUGH?

RollingThunder has never posted in this thread.
But keep making a fool of yourself!

In the First Person that may be true but his sock is well represented, or is trolling blunder the sock? I lose track these days, they all sound alike.

 

[edthecynic]

You seem to like big fonts (both of you) so...

YOU ARE AN IDIOT ED! TROLLINGBLUNDERS FIRST LINK HERE IN THIS THREAD YOU IMBECILE! I GIVE TWO SHITS WHICH ONE OF YOU TWO CLONES WAS INVOLVED IN THE THE OTHER THREAD. TROLLS FIRST LINK THE ONE I COMMENTED WE COULDNT SEE DUE TO A REQUIRED SUBSCRIPTION THAT HE CITED IN HIS POST AND QUOTED FROM IS WHAT STARTED THE ARGUMENT.

DAMN YOU NINCOMPOOP CAN'T YOU EVEN FOLLOW A THREAD YOU NON-READING DIPSHIT??

BIG ENOUGH?

RollingThunder has never posted in this thread.
But keep making a fool of yourself!

In the First Person that may be true but his sock is well represented, or is trolling blunder the sock? I lose track these days, they all sound alike.

Any rationalization is preferable to deniers than admitting they are wrong.
Thank you.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Big Snowstorm Headed for the Northeast This Weekend

Read it and weep my fellow New Englanders ..... cuz it's coming.

Can anyone remember a Halloween when kids went trick-or-treating when there was snow on the ground? I can't.

1. Oh sure all the global warming, brought about this cooling and artic conditions.
2. Got it! Thanks, Al Gore!



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[gslack]

I see the problem now... EDTHETROLLINGBLUNDEREUNICH is confused....

Look tool stop playing both roles I won't get you two idiots mixed up.. Simple as that..

I will continue to call the two of you variations of both names until the two (or one) of you stop answering for each other. You want me to recognize two people? Than act like separate people, stop answering for him and tell him to stop answering for you. You do that obviously don't even realize you changed characters before you do it.. You start arguing as ed, then go to the troll and forget yourself and answer as the troll. or vice-versa...

You do this all the time, get your head out of your ass and I won't confuse the two of you so much. Well might want to work on separating the two personalities too.. its like twins here, its creepy...

 

[edthecynic]

I see the problem now... EDTHETROLLINGBLUNDEREUNICH is confused....

Look tool stop playing both roles I won't get you two idiots mixed up.. Simple as that..

I will continue to call the two of you variations of both names until the two (or one) of you stop answering for each other. You want me to recognize two people? Than act like separate people, stop answering for him and tell him to stop answering for you. You do that obviously don't even realize you changed characters before you do it.. You start arguing as ed, then go to the troll and forget yourself and answer as the troll. or vice-versa...

You do this all the time, get your head out of your ass and I won't confuse the two of you so much. Well might want to work on separating the two personalities too.. its like twins here, its creepy...

 

[gslack]

I see the problem now... EDTHETROLLINGBLUNDEREUNICH is confused....

Look tool stop playing both roles I won't get you two idiots mixed up.. Simple as that..

I will continue to call the two of you variations of both names until the two (or one) of you stop answering for each other. You want me to recognize two people? Than act like separate people, stop answering for him and tell him to stop answering for you. You do that obviously don't even realize you changed characters before you do it.. You start arguing as ed, then go to the troll and forget yourself and answer as the troll. or vice-versa...

You do this all the time, get your head out of your ass and I won't confuse the two of you so much. Well might want to work on separating the two personalities too.. its like twins here, its creepy...

BTW clone, your alter ego seems to have lost his (or your) mind in another thread.. I am pretty sure he won't be here much longer after that one.. He made a dandy comment about my mother months ago that was bad enough, now this latest one... Well if there is any justice he will in the very least be gone from here, If it were me I would contact his service provider.. Now quick go run and bury it under spam...