What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

[SSDD]

I'm not lying. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it. You've never presented on shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

comparing one's opponent to a four year old exposes oneself as a person of inferior intelligence, what is it you hate about four year old's that you think they can be used to disparage one you hate?

He projects a lot.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not lying. I am telling the truth and everyone here knows it. You've never presented on shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

comparing one's opponent to a four year old exposes oneself as a person of inferior intelligence, what is it you hate about four year old's that you think they can be used to disparage one you hate?

I have to tell you that you talk like a kid in junior high school trying to sound grown up. It's one of the the reasons I find debating you of such little value.

 

[Abraham3]

You know perfectly well that I am not lying. You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well. You've never presented one shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

You know perfectly well that I am not lying.

You are delusional if you believe that crap.

You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well.

You are delusional if you believe that crap. The only way that I will believe that crap that you believe is for me to drink the Kool-Aid and to accept the lies of global warming as fact, which isn't going to happen.

You've never presented one shred of evidence.

That's a lie.

We both know that whatever anybody posts which contradicts the lies and misinformation that you faithfully believe in, accept, and support about global warming, you will automatically reject it.

For christ's sake: STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID

Over and over and over again you verify my charges. You present no evidence. All we ever get from you is "No you can't"!, "Yes I can"!, "Yes you are"!, "No you aren't"! and "Liar, liar, liar"! Good grief, if poster Elektra is in the 8th grade, you're in the 4th and you've got anxiety issues.

 

[Abraham3]

Let's see... any evidence in that post? Nope,

Any hollering, screaming and insults in that post, like a 4-year old in a tantrum? Yup.

Which post, quote what your talking about, idiot.

I was talking to Wildcard and my comments were in response to his post immediately above the one of mine that you quoted. Are you unfamiliar with that practice? I believe it is called a "conversation".

 

[Abraham3]

You know perfectly well that I am not lying. You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well. You've never presented one shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

Actually, we all know that you are a big fat liar...or one of the stupidest dolts to have ever walked the surface of earth.

As to evidence, all you have to do is look around to see that the AGW hypothesis has failed...and on only look at what you have presented as "evidence" to know that you have presented none. The responsibility of proving a case doesn't rest on skeptics...all we have to do is show one failure of the hypothesis and that is enough to trash it if climate science were actually about science. Clearly it isn't.

If only just saying it would make it so. But it doesn't.

 

[Kosh]

I see the AGW cult is still spreading their religion and pushing real science aside.

Come on you cultists post one link that has datasets with source code that proves your religion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I see the AGW cult is still spreading their religion and pushing real science aside.

Come on you cultists post one link that has datasets with source code that proves your religion.

Be fair. A basic precept of these religious types is that the fundamentals of their various religions often have to be "taken on faith."

If one accepts that global warmering/coolering/moderating and/or climate change is taking place and THEN one takes it on faith that such warmering/coolering/moderating and/or climate change is taking place based on human activity, then everything else follows.

Got it now?

No dataset needed or even much tolerated, you infidel

 

[Wyld Kard]

Let's see... any evidence in that post? Nope,

Any hollering, screaming and insults in that post, like a 4-year old in a tantrum? Yup.

Let's see... is Dishonest Abe a liar who doubles as a kool-aid drinking gullible idiot who believes and accepts the lies and misinformation of global warming, then spews the same bullshit over and over hoping that someone will believe and accept what he faithfully follows and serves.? Yup.

 

[Wyld Kard]

You know perfectly well that I am not lying. You know that I am telling the truth and everyone else here knows it as well. You've never presented one shred of evidence. You simply scream and holler like a four year old in a tantrum that we don't accept your idiocy on face value (the Joker's face, I presume). For christ's sake, grow up.

You are delusional if you believe that crap.

You are delusional if you believe that crap. The only way that I will believe that crap that you believe is for me to drink the Kool-Aid and to accept the lies of global warming as fact, which isn't going to happen.

You've never presented one shred of evidence.

That's a lie.

We both know that whatever anybody posts which contradicts the lies and misinformation that you faithfully believe in, accept, and support about global warming, you will automatically reject it.

For christ's sake: STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID

Over and over and over again you verify my charges. You present no evidence. All we ever get from you is "No you can't"!, "Yes I can"!, "Yes you are"!, "No you aren't"! and "Liar, liar, liar"! Good grief, if poster Elektra is in the 8th grade, you're in the 4th and you've got anxiety issues.

You present no evidence.

Really? You are a goddamn liar as usual!

It's not my fault you are too ignorant to comprehend the evidence that is posted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its odd that we're still testing Relativity 100 years later but the warmers are declaring settled science 20 years after switching from global cooling to warming

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[elektra]

Let's see... any evidence in that post? Nope,

Any hollering, screaming and insults in that post, like a 4-year old in a tantrum? Yup.

Which post, quote what your talking about, idiot.

I was talking to Wildcard and my comments were in response to his post immediately above the one of mine that you quoted. Are you unfamiliar with that practice? I believe it is called a "conversation".

abraHAM, wrong again.

Conversation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

con·ver·sa·tion noun \ˌkän-vər-ˈsā-shən\
: an informal talk involving two people or a small group of people : the act of talking in an informal way

: something that is similar to a spoken conversation

You had a conversation? Are you sure?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Its odd that we're still testing Relativity 100 years later but the warmers are declaring settled science 20 years after switching from global cooling to warming

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

... but ...

CONSENSUS!!

!

 

[Abraham3]

You think no one is doing climate research?

And do you think people are doing experiments to determine whether or not relativity is real?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Experimentation and observation regarding the theory of relativity advances science.

Self-serving, politically-motivated declarations that "AGW" is "settled 'science'" and that it is supported (!) by "consensus" (!!) is neither scientific nor is it the kind of thing that advances science.

Warming (at present) might be under way. Even that is not entirely certain. And yes, it IS ok to admit as much.

But even if "warming" is actually still happening, the connection between mankind's increased release of so-called "green house gasses" into the atmosphere and that alleged "warming" has never been validly demonstrated.

 

[Abraham3]

First, experimentation on relativity and global warming are still under way. "Settled science" simply indicates that the majority (the vast majority) of climate scientists have accepted the basics of AGW: it's getting warmer and the primary causes are hunan GHG emissions and human deforestation.

The connections between GHG's and warming has been made in numerous ways. But tell us, what would you accept as an experiment that would demonstrate that connection? This is a good questions for the lot of you. Many of you have frequently complained that no connection has been made between human GHG emissions and warming. What experiment do YOU believe would tell us whether or not a connection existed?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

First, experimentation on relativity and global warming are still under way.

First, nobody cares. Testing and experimentation as to relativity is appropriate science and doing such things furthers science. Nobody is "testing" AGW.

"Settled science" simply indicates that the majority (the vast majority) of climate scientists have accepted the basics of AGW:

Wrong. The use of the irrational phrase "settled science" is a misnomer (it isn't settled and it isn't real science). But worse it's intended purpose is to dispute that any challenge to it (since it's all "settled" and shit) is ridiculous. But it isn't . Challenging that specious and utterly unproven theory is appropriate.

it's getting warmer and the primary causes are hunan GHG emissions and human deforestation.

Wrong. Over the past 20 years it has NOT been getting warmer. And why it WAS getting warmer, for a while, before that, is NOT established to have been related to human green house gas emissions or deforestation. You just keep restating your desired conclusion as though your mere repetition alone "settle" the matter. It doesn't. Never has.

The connections between GHG's and warming has been made in numerous ways.

False. Within the context of a very limited and simple closed condition (like a fucking actual green house or an aquarium) the green house effect is certainly a rational statement of science. But to generalize it to a complex, planetary, and a largely-open climate system is non scientific. You are preaching a belief, your faith, as though it were even remotely akin to "science." It isn't. You are flatly wrong.

But tell us, what would you accept as an experiment * * * *[/QUOTE]

Wrong question. The better question is what specious crap are you unwilling to accept in the name of your faith? Gaia be praised.

 

[Abraham3]

It is science and it is settled.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its odd that we're still testing Relativity 100 years later but the warmers are declaring settled science 20 years after switching from global cooling to warming

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

... but ...

CONSENSUS!!

!

I have peer reviewed the above post and find that it is awesome out to Six Sigma

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is science and it is settled.

The Roman Centurion at Capernaum had less faith than you

 

[jc456]

It is science and it is settled.

Prove it!