Our Sun Isn’t Burning So Hot

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

You are a liar. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, there was 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Today, there is over 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know exactly how much we have put into the atmosphere because we have records of the out put of the mines and wells. Were it not for the absorption of the CO2 by the oceans, thereby increasing acidity, and by the permafrost regions, there would be far more CO2 in the oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

I have one of the Warmers on record stating that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat water than air. So how hot must the atmosphere be in order to raise the ocean temperature even 1/10th of a degree?

The thing that gets me is how the AGW religious nuts refuse to understand the real data that has been collected. Like for instance that once the earth had more than ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but yet the planet was a ball of ice at the time. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas with 4,000 ppm then why wasn't the earth warm enough to melt ice?

Back in medieval times and Roman times the earth had lower CO2 but yet the earth was warmer. How can they explain that? The historical data clearly shows that CO2 level lags temperature increases.

The reason these nut cases have to make up data and corrupt science is because their theory that man is creating enough CO2 to change the climate of the earth doesn't hold up to any real scientific scrutiny.

All they have are their shitty computer models that don't correlate to any real world climate. That is why they have to invent data and they have been caught doing it several times.

When it gets damn cold in the next few years because of the solar minimum these Moon Bats will be damn glad they have fossil fuels to heat their homes because the Solyndra solar cells ain't gonna do jackshit. Obama lied to them.

This chart based on Ice core data, from C3 Headlines:

View attachment 196635
Look at all those temperature swings while CO2 barely moved.

Climate Conservative Consumer. Might as well quote the National Enquirer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

What the fuck are you yapping about? Dumb ass, what matters is the absorption spectra of the GHG's. That bunch of shit you just spewed is meaningless.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

I have yet to see anything factual that shows CO2 increasing warming in any way. The GHG effect of CO2 in this atmosphere is quite simply smothered by water vapor.

Any increase in the postulated CO2 warm forcing increase is always getting overcome by the increase rate of energy leaving the planet, CO2 simply doesn't produce enough warming to generate a real warming trend that can be measured.

This was pointed out a few years ago from The Inconvenient Skeptic:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

Worth reading it all.

LOL Yet it just keeps warming;

 

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Well now, if the warming continues, then it cannot possibly be the sun that is doing the warming, can it.

What a dumb statement since the Sun provides 99% of the total energy to the planet.

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content
Author:
LuAnn Dahlman
July 14, 2015

The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature. This tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to; most of the excess heat is being stored in the upper ocean. As a result, upper ocean heat content has increased significantly over the past two decades.

Explore this interactive graph: Click and drag to display different parts of the graph. To squeeze or stretch the graph in either direction, hold your Shift key down, then click and drag. This graph (source data) shows differences from the long-term average global ocean heat content (1955-2006) in the top 700 meters of the ocean.

How heat moves
The main source of ocean heat is sunlight. Additionally, clouds, water vapor, and greenhouse gases emit heat that they have absorbed, and some of that heat energy enters the ocean. Waves, tides, and currents constantly mix the ocean, moving heat from warmer to cooler latitudes and to deeper levels.

Heat absorbed by the ocean is moved from one place to another, but it doesn’t disappear. The heat energy eventually re-enters the rest of the Earth system by melting ice shelves, evaporating water, or directly reheating the atmosphere. Thus, heat energy in the ocean can warm the planet for decades after it was absorbed. If the ocean absorbs more heat than it releases, its heat content increases. Knowing how much heat energy the ocean absorbs and releases is essential for understanding and modeling global climate.

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov

There you go.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

I have yet to see anything factual that shows CO2 increasing warming in any way. The GHG effect of CO2 in this atmosphere is quite simply smothered by water vapor.

What abysmal stupidity. Here is a Phd Meteorologist, Dr. Francis, explaining just how ridiculous that statement is. A real Phd, not an internet board one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.

Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean

One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.

That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.

I have one of the Warmers on record stating that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat water than air. So how hot must the atmosphere be in order to raise the ocean temperature even 1/10th of a degree?

The thing that gets me is how the AGW religious nuts refuse to understand the real data that has been collected. Like for instance that once the earth had more than ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but yet the planet was a ball of ice at the time. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas with 4,000 ppm then why wasn't the earth warm enough to melt ice?

Back in medieval times and Roman times the earth had lower CO2 but yet the earth was warmer. How can they explain that? The historical data clearly shows that CO2 level lags temperature increases.

The reason these nut cases have to make up data and corrupt science is because their theory that man is creating enough CO2 to change the climate of the earth doesn't hold up to any real scientific scrutiny.

All they have are their shitty computer models that don't correlate to any real world climate. That is why they have to invent data and they have been caught doing it several times.

When it gets damn cold in the next few years because of the solar minimum these Moon Bats will be damn glad they have fossil fuels to heat their homes because the Solyndra solar cells ain't gonna do jackshit. Obama lied to them.

This chart based on Ice core data, from C3 Headlines:

View attachment 196635
Look at all those temperature swings while CO2 barely moved.

Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIPdata) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy(based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show. Here’s his conclusion:

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age(Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing.

1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.

The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

Dr. Alley is the author of the "Two Mile Time Machine". One of the premier experts on glaciers, arctic, and antarctic ice in the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

I have yet to see anything factual that shows CO2 increasing warming in any way. The GHG effect of CO2 in this atmosphere is quite simply smothered by water vapor.

Any increase in the postulated CO2 warm forcing increase is always getting overcome by the increase rate of energy leaving the planet, CO2 simply doesn't produce enough warming to generate a real warming trend that can be measured.

This was pointed out a few years ago from The Inconvenient Skeptic:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

Worth reading it all.

LOL Yet it just keeps warming;

^ Chart shows a 2 decade pause

 

[Flash]

Read this:

As I mentioned in a post earlier in May, there are indications that this upcoming solar minimum could be particularly deep.

Hmmm. “Solar minimum.” Am I getting the wrong impression?

Yes, the sun has something to do with global warming. Agreed. Weather has always been a fickle thing, butterfly effect and all that. But huge output of man made co2 is a recent event, and the heat island effect in modern cities is unprecedented in history. To pretend weather extremes tied to global climate change is JUST caused by solar variables, is a tad bit deluded. Don't you think?

Man is responsible for slightly less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. Not massive at all. Not even close.

The CHANGE is the "heat budget" is also very small.

I have yet to see anything factual that shows CO2 increasing warming in any way. The GHG effect of CO2 in this atmosphere is quite simply smothered by water vapor.

What abysmal stupidity. Here is a Phd Meteorologist, Dr. Francis, explaining just how ridiculous that statement is. A real Phd, not an internet board one.

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming.

Especially knowing that there have been times when CO2 has substantially higher and the earth was cooler and when the CO2 levels were lower and the earth was warmer. That doesn't pass the snicker test and that is why the scammers have to manipulate the data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And so how do you see that buffer behaving during a solar minimum?

We tried this once before... Paradoxical Presentations of the Earth.

As you do not understand what a "ring back" is, you are incapable of understanding why we have had two large El Niño oscillations since the onset of cooling back in 1996 and solar output reduction began rapidly decreasing.. The earth is trying to maintain temperature by releasing energy back into the atmosphere. Once that energy is gone it will cool rapidly..

Were 20 years into this cooling cycle and the residual ocean heat is now spent... The deep polar jet intrusions are just more evidence of rapid cooling and heat release. The Ocean battery is gone as the -0.02deg C drop gets bigger.

Whats coming is going to surprise a whole lot of people.. The next two to three years are going to stun you alarmists..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kilauea is causing a 500-1000 mile region of plume shade cooling of the equatorial flow. The effect is killing the current upwelling of warm water at 155 longitude. Its cooling the flows into the 3-4 region... This one volcano could easily dwarf any slight warming that might of been found with this.. The cooling is shifting flows in and around Hawaii.

Tsunami buoys are telling the tale... Add this to decreased solar output and you can see a wild swing to cooling happening very quickly.

That is not going to happen, no matter how many of you uneducated slobs get together and stroke each other.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

 

[Flash]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

The environmental wacko scientists understand it very well. They just don't like the reality and that is why they manipulate the data.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

The environmental wacko scientists understand it very well. They just don't like the reality and that is why they manipulate the data.

They manipulate no data. You know less than nothing about any of these fields. To impy that an uneducated slob like you has outsmarted the people who have dedicated their lives to this is laughable, and you should feel embarrassed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

The environmental wacko scientists understand it very well. They just don't like the reality and that is why they manipulate the data.

They manipulate no data. You know less than nothing about any of these fields. To impy that an uneducated slob like you has outsmarted the people who have dedicated their lives to this is laughable, and you should feel embarrassed.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla...Zzzzz…..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

The environmental wacko scientists understand it very well. They just don't like the reality and that is why they manipulate the data.

They manipulate no data. You know less than nothing about any of these fields. To impy that an uneducated slob like you has outsmarted the people who have dedicated their lives to this is laughable, and you should feel embarrassed.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla...Zzzzz…..

Well, I never had any delusions that you were a rational person, open to new information
I mean, look at you...you made your determinations on a comlplicated scientific topic by reading some piece of shit blog that only existed to affirm your emotional fetishes anyway....

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

The environmental wacko scientists understand it very well. They just don't like the reality and that is why they manipulate the data.

They manipulate no data. You know less than nothing about any of these fields. To impy that an uneducated slob like you has outsmarted the people who have dedicated their lives to this is laughable, and you should feel embarrassed.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla...Zzzzz…..

Well, I never had any delusions that you were a rational person, open to new information
I mean, look at you...you made your determinations on a comlplicated scientific topic by reading some piece of shit blog that only existed to affirm your emotional fetishes anyway....

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla...Zzzzz…..

 

[Flash]

It's hard to fathom that .00015 more CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the disaster that ll these stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats are claiming

Oh, well then, there you have it. If some uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any of these fields can't understand it, then it couldn't POSSIBLY be true.!

The environmental wacko scientists understand it very well. They just don't like the reality and that is why they manipulate the data.

They manipulate no data. You know less than nothing about any of these fields. To impy that an uneducated slob like you has outsmarted the people who have dedicated their lives to this is laughable, and you should feel embarrassed.

Go read the Climategate emails and then get back to me.

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Climategate is a nothing burger. AGW is the most robustly supported scientific theory in history. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive data across all fields of physical science. Denier fools don't get this.

But all of you dishonest, uneducated slobs are invited to step up to the plate and do some science. That's the beauty of science...it invites any and all challenges.

So, go ahead, you cackling pinheads...do some science. Put some work and evidence behind those big claims of yours.

Haha...yeah right. See, that's the problem: you deniers are uneducated slobs that don't know anything about science.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Climategate is a nothing burger. AGW is the most robustly supported scientific theory in history. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive data across all fields of physical science. Denier fools don't get this.

But all of you dishonest, uneducated slobs are invited to step up to the plate and do some science. That's the beauty of science...it invites any and all challenges.

So, go ahead, you cackling pinheads...do some science. Put some work and evidence behind those big claims of yours.

Haha...yeah right. See, that's the problem: you deniers are uneducated slobs that don't know anything about science.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla...Zzzzz…..