AGW: atmospheric physics

[IlarMeilyr]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

 

[SSDD]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

Distilling woud require actually understanding the material. He doesn't. He doesn't have a clue that the material he just posted doesn't answer the question or give a valid, scientifically rational reason for lowering temperatures more than half a century old back to nearly a century and a quarter ago. He simply accepts without rational justification for the change and doesn't grasp the topic enough to wonder why so many months prior to 1960 were cooled while as many months after 1959 were warmed. If he had even an inkling of actual knowledge, he would be asking the question himself.

 

[RollingThunder]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "basis for the "adjustments"" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?".

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......

 

[RollingThunder]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

Distilling woud require actually understanding the material. He doesn't. He doesn't have a clue that the material he just posted doesn't answer the question or give a valid, scientifically rational reason for lowering temperatures more than half a century old back to nearly a century and a quarter ago. He simply accepts without rational justification for the change and doesn't grasp the topic enough to wonder why so many months prior to 1960 were cooled while as many months after 1959 were warmed. If he had even an inkling of actual knowledge, he would be asking the question himself.

Your whole position is based on the rather insane presumption that that tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are all involved in and keeping silent about a conspiracy to deliberately alter the temperature record data but you're too insane to realize that nobody with any brains or good sense believes your paranoid conspiracy theories. If you actually knew any real scientists or knew anything about science in general, you wouldn't be duped by the fossil fuel industry propaganda on this subject. Unfortunately you are a really, really ignorant and extremely retarded rightwingnutjob who is easily fooled by by nonsense so ridiculous that even ordinary morons would recognize it to be total BS.

 

[SSDD]

Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "basis for the "adjustments"" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?".

I would ask you if you even read what you posted but I am sure that you did. To bad you didn't understand it. Here, from your own source:

The unadjusted data clearly indicate that the station at Reno experienced both major step changes (e.g., a move from the city to the airport during the 1930s) and trend changes (e.g., a possible growing urban heat island beginning in the 1970s).

If they know that they had a growing heat island issue in the 70's, why raise post 1960 temperatures and why lower early temperatures prior to any heat island problem?

Further, they state that most of the adustments are necessary due to a change over to electronic instrumentation 25 years ago. I am asking about massive cooling of temperature records prior to 1960...and if 1970 marks the known beginning of a heat island problem, why have so many months post 1960 been warmed? The adjustments being made are the exact opposite of what should be happening. The present is being warmed even though a known heat island problem exists.

Now again, describe a rational, scientifically sound reason for lowering the temperatures prior to 1960 and raising the temperatures post 1959. Here is a clue for you....There is no rational, scientifically sound reason.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......

And you are just stupid with obviousl emotional problems. It isn't funny though.

 

[skookerasbil]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

Distilling woud require actually understanding the material. He doesn't. He doesn't have a clue that the material he just posted doesn't answer the question or give a valid, scientifically rational reason for lowering temperatures more than half a century old back to nearly a century and a quarter ago. He simply accepts without rational justification for the change and doesn't grasp the topic enough to wonder why so many months prior to 1960 were cooled while as many months after 1959 were warmed. If he had even an inkling of actual knowledge, he would be asking the question himself.

Your whole position is based on the rather insane presumption that that tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are all involved in and keeping silent about a conspiracy to deliberately alter the temperature record data but you're too insane to realize that nobody with any brains or good sense believes your paranoid conspiracy theories. If you actually knew any real scientists or knew anything about science in general, you wouldn't be duped by the fossil fuel industry propaganda on this subject. Unfortunately you are a really, really ignorant and extremely retarded rightwingnutjob who is easily fooled by by nonsense so ridiculous that even ordinary morons would recognize it to be total BS.

Thats right s0n......30,000 scientists have taken the oath of secrecy to protect the oil lobbby.


Shit.....they even own decoder rings!!!!!! Heres an ad from their website.........

 

[skookerasbil]

OK.....denialists must admit......Thunder here has now broken the big secret about the 30,000 scientists having a secret society. Dang.....no wonder he has a magazine in is name!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "basis for the "adjustments"" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?".

I would ask you if you even read what you posted but I am sure that you did. To bad you didn't understand it. Here, from your own source:

The unadjusted data clearly indicate that the station at Reno experienced both major step changes (e.g., a move from the city to the airport during the 1930s) and trend changes (e.g., a possible growing urban heat island beginning in the 1970s).

If they know that they had a growing heat island issue in the 70's, why raise post 1960 temperatures and why lower early temperatures prior to any heat island problem?

Further, they state that most of the adustments are necessary due to a change over to electronic instrumentation 25 years ago. I am asking about massive cooling of temperature records prior to 1960...and if 1970 marks the known beginning of a heat island problem, why have so many months post 1960 been warmed? The adjustments being made are the exact opposite of what should be happening. The present is being warmed even though a known heat island problem exists.

Now again, describe a rational, scientifically sound reason for lowering the temperatures prior to 1960 and raising the temperatures post 1959.

Why would I know that kind of fine detail about the techniques they're using? I don't need to know that stuff to know that all of these many, many scientists all around the world, working for many agencies and governments and universities, are doing the appropriate things for valid scientific reasons. Your conspiracy theory is incredibly absurd and full of holes but you are just too retarded to grasp that fact. The claims you make about the balance of the temperature adjustments may be just more lies and distortions of fact cooked up by the FFI propagandists or they may even be somewhat true but it makes no difference either way to me. You see everything climate scientists do as 'evidence' of this imaginary conspiracy and I think you're a brainwashed, scientifically ignorant , very retarded crackpot who is also a conspiracy theory nutjob. Of course, studies have shown that denial of AGW is strongly linked to belief in wacko conspiracy theories. LOL.

 

[SSDD]

Why would I know that kind of fine detail about the techniques they're using?

Which cuts right to the chase, doesn't it. You don't know. In fact, you know so little that the question never occured to you. You post some drivel that is describing raising modern temperatures when a known warm heat island bias is equally well known...then they lower past temperatures for no apparent reason....the result?....the artifically warmed present looks even warmer when contrasted to the artifically cooled past.

I don't need to know that stuff to know that all of these many, many scientists all around the world, working for many agencies and governments and universities, are doing the appropriate things for valid scientific reasons.

You only need to know if you respect the scientific method and want to understand what is being done and why. Clearly you don't. It is good of you to finally admit, after all this time that you really don't know jack and simply accept what you are being told on faith rather than any actual knowledge.

Of course we already knew that but it is good of you to finally admit the fact.

Your conspiracy theory is incredibly absurd and full of holes but you are just too retarded to grasp that fact.

Interesting that you are calling it a conspiracy theory right after having admitted that you dobn't know jack about the issue. Again, you are making proclamations based on nothing more than your political leanings and faith...not any sort of knowledge.

The claims you make about the balance of the temperature adjustments may be just more lies and distortions of fact cooked up by the FFI propagandists or they may even be somewhat true but it makes no difference either way to me.

We both know that they are true and everyone knows that it makes no difference to you. Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings...not what you know and understand about the science. Of course scientific fact doesn't matter to you. Even a tacit admission on your part that you realize that the present has been artificially warmed and the past has been artifically cooled doesn't matter to you. What matters to you is a political agenda and whatever sees it through is fine with you...even if it sets science back a century.

You see everything climate scientists do as 'evidence' of this imaginary conspiracy and I think you're a brainwashed, scientifically ignorant , very retarded crackpot who is also a conspiracy theory nutjob. Of course, studies have shown that denial of AGW is strongly linked to belief in wacko conspiracy theories. LOL.

I don't see any grand conspiracy. I see a few bad eggs doing bad science that a whole field accepts as good science. The result is an error cascade. That is when bad science is accepted as good science and becomes the basis for most, if not all, future research. It isn't a conspiracy...it is the result of shoddy work, and acceptance of baseless assumptions as fact coupled with a political agenda. It has happened in fields that are rightly classified as hard sciences...it is easy to see how it might happen in a soft science field like climatology.

There is no conspiracy...there is an error cascade. Learn the difference.

 

[Saigon]

Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings.

Says the person flat out refusing to read a scientific article on ocean temperatures.

Give it up, SSDD, you won't read science. Fact.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "basis for the "adjustments"" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?".

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......

Stop. You're making an even more enormous fool of yourself.

It's just a fact. You could post the same information without making the font so large. Doing it the way you do is visual clutter. But it serves no legitimate purpose. You are no more persuasive.

And the fact that you won't distill the torrent of words down to a more discreet snippet is indeed an indication tht you simply lack the ability to understand (or explain) what the words you post mean.

Have you failed , even at this late moment, to realize how silly you come across? Nobody with a working brain cell buys the bullshit you attempt to re-sell. You are pretty poor at marketing that AGW nonsense since you don't even understand the most basic of flaws in the "science" it "uses."

 

[RollingThunder]

Large font does not serve to make your posts any more informative or reliable, Rolling Thunder. In fact, your font size manipulation makes your posts more difficult to wade through.

Have you ever heard of distilling?

Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "basis for the "adjustments"" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?".

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......

Stop. You're making an even more enormous fool of yourself.

I suppose it is just another symptom of how extremely delusional you are, IlieMostly, that you can't see you are the one making "an even more enormous fool of yourself" with every braindead post you make. I just help that process along by debunking the misinformation, lies, conspiracy theory nonsense, and rightwingnut denier cult myths you parrot on this forum.

It's just a fact. You could post the same information without making the font so large. Doing it the way you do is visual clutter. But it serves no legitimate purpose. You are no more persuasive.

I do certain things to the information that I am citing as evidence in order to emphasize the fact that it is actual EVIDENCE and not just my own words. Although I speak accurately about the science in my own words, many people, like you and the other denier cultists, just try to push a lot of hot air based on nothing but your own very ignorant opinions. I back up what I say with citations and quotes from reputable scientific sources or from mainstream news articles about scientific studies and reports with quotes from the scientists and links to the original research. If you and the other denier dimwits even bother to try to include 'evidence' to support your blather, you quote denier cult blogs or articles from some worthless third rate rag of a tabloid written by some notorious denier cult reporter.

Because you and the other denier nutjobs are so stupid and misinformed and seem to have such thick skulls, I format the info I quote in a similar manner to a newspaper or magazine article, with a headline and an emphasized body of text, to try and drive the points home. I guess you're unfamiliar with this style because you're too retarded to ever read magazines or newspapers. Or else this is just another of your attempts to divert attention to something irrelevant right after your lies get debunked. Too bad you don't like emphasized facts, you pathetic little cretin, 'cause I do like doing it this way and I'm going to continue.

And the fact that you won't distill the torrent of words down to a more discreet snippet is indeed an indication tht you simply lack the ability to understand (or explain) what the words you post mean.

You know, I think you're actually sooooo stupid you don't comprehend the point of posting supporting evidence from actual scientific sources. I understand what the articles and reports I cite mean, which is why I can match the material I use to debunk your lies to the specific lie you're trying to push at the time. I'm providing evidence from the sources to counter the pseudo-scientific drivel you post but you'll have to find someone else to dumb down the scientific reports enough for you to understand them (if that's even humanly possible).

Have you failed , even at this late moment, to realize how silly you come across?

Are you still in high school? We're debating the validity of modern climate science, not trying to win a popularity contest.

Nobody with a working brain cell buys the bullshit you attempt to re-sell.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is just so ironically humorous.....and you're soooo blind to the humor.....

You are pretty poor at marketing that AGW nonsense since you don't even understand the most basic of flaws in the "science" it "uses."

I understand that you are a brainwashed retard who's been duped into seeing some supposed "flaws" in a vast body of intensively well researched science that is supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community. I understand that you are a poor deluded nutjob who believes in the most absurd conspiracy theories. I understand that you and the other AGW denier cultists are the present day equivalent of the 'Flat Earth Society' in terms of your rejection of science and evidence in favor of faith based circular thinking. I understand that you and the other crackpot deniers are a joke to almost everyone with any knowledge of science or an IQ higher than room temperature.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Denier cult dweeb demands to know the "basis for the "adjustments"" and then, when shown some of the detailed scientific reasons for the temperature record adjustments, he screams: "Oh my God, you make the font a size four instead of a size three, how can I be expected to read that! Can't you shorten it to some kind of summary using really short words so I can understand it?".

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you nitwits are just toooo funny......

Stop. You're making an even more enormous fool of yourself.

I suppose it is just another symptom of how extremely delusional you are, IlieMostly, that you can't see you are the one making "an even more enormous fool of yourself" with every braindead post you make. I just help that process along by debunking the misinformation, lies, conspiracy theory nonsense, and rightwingnut denier cult myths you parrot on this forum.






I do certain things to the information that I am citing as evidence in order to emphasize the fact that it is actual EVIDENCE and not just my own words. Although I speak accurately about the science in my own words, many people, like you and the other denier cultists, just try to push a lot of hot air based on nothing but your own very ignorant opinions. I back up what I say with citations and quotes from reputable scientific sources or from mainstream news articles about scientific studies and reports with quotes from the scientists and links to the original research. If you and the other denier dimwits even bother to try to include 'evidence' to support your blather, you quote denier cult blogs or articles from some worthless third rate rag of a tabloid written by some notorious denier cult reporter.

Because you and the other denier nutjobs are so stupid and misinformed and seem to have such thick skulls, I format the info I quote in a similar manner to a newspaper or magazine article, with a headline and an emphasized body of text, to try and drive the points home. I guess you're unfamiliar with this style because you're too retarded to ever read magazines or newspapers. Or else this is just another of your attempts to divert attention to something irrelevant right after your lies get debunked. Too bad you don't like emphasized facts, you pathetic little cretin, 'cause I do like doing it this way and I'm going to continue.





You know, I think you're actually sooooo stupid you don't comprehend the point of posting supporting evidence from actual scientific sources. I understand what the articles and reports I cite mean, which is why I can match the material I use to debunk your lies to the specific lie you're trying to push at the time. I'm providing evidence from the sources to counter the pseudo-scientific drivel you post but you'll have to find someone else to dumb down the scientific reports enough for you to understand them (if that's even humanly possible).







Are you still in high school? We're debating the validity of modern climate science, not trying to win a popularity contest.

Nobody with a working brain cell buys the bullshit you attempt to re-sell.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is just so ironically humorous.....and you're soooo blind to the humor.....

You are pretty poor at marketing that AGW nonsense since you don't even understand the most basic of flaws in the "science" it "uses."

I understand that you are a brainwashed retard who's been duped into seeing some supposed "flaws" in a vast body of intensively well researched science that is supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community. I understand that you are a poor deluded nutjob who believes in the most absurd conspiracy theories. I understand that you and the other AGW denier cultists are the present day equivalent of the 'Flat Earth Society' in terms of your rejection of science and evidence in favor of faith based circular thinking. I understand that you and the other crackpot deniers are a joke to almost everyone with any knowledge of science or an IQ higher than room temperature.

You suppose? Your suppositions are all you have. And one is worse than another.

You are living proof of life after brain death.

SSDD has thoroughly kicked your ass and you are too dumb to realize how badly you lost.

And I just play with you like a cat plays with a grasshopper, just to see you wet yourself. You are far too verbose and way the hell too easily rattled.

 

[RollingThunder]

Stop. You're making an even more enormous fool of yourself.

I suppose it is just another symptom of how extremely delusional you are, IlieMostly, that you can't see you are the one making "an even more enormous fool of yourself" with every braindead post you make. I just help that process along by debunking the misinformation, lies, conspiracy theory nonsense, and rightwingnut denier cult myths you parrot on this forum.






I do certain things to the information that I am citing as evidence in order to emphasize the fact that it is actual EVIDENCE and not just my own words. Although I speak accurately about the science in my own words, many people, like you and the other denier cultists, just try to push a lot of hot air based on nothing but your own very ignorant opinions. I back up what I say with citations and quotes from reputable scientific sources or from mainstream news articles about scientific studies and reports with quotes from the scientists and links to the original research. If you and the other denier dimwits even bother to try to include 'evidence' to support your blather, you quote denier cult blogs or articles from some worthless third rate rag of a tabloid written by some notorious denier cult reporter.

Because you and the other denier nutjobs are so stupid and misinformed and seem to have such thick skulls, I format the info I quote in a similar manner to a newspaper or magazine article, with a headline and an emphasized body of text, to try and drive the points home. I guess you're unfamiliar with this style because you're too retarded to ever read magazines or newspapers. Or else this is just another of your attempts to divert attention to something irrelevant right after your lies get debunked. Too bad you don't like emphasized facts, you pathetic little cretin, 'cause I do like doing it this way and I'm going to continue.





You know, I think you're actually sooooo stupid you don't comprehend the point of posting supporting evidence from actual scientific sources. I understand what the articles and reports I cite mean, which is why I can match the material I use to debunk your lies to the specific lie you're trying to push at the time. I'm providing evidence from the sources to counter the pseudo-scientific drivel you post but you'll have to find someone else to dumb down the scientific reports enough for you to understand them (if that's even humanly possible).







Are you still in high school? We're debating the validity of modern climate science, not trying to win a popularity contest.






LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is just so ironically humorous.....and you're soooo blind to the humor.....

You are pretty poor at marketing that AGW nonsense since you don't even understand the most basic of flaws in the "science" it "uses."

I understand that you are a brainwashed retard who's been duped into seeing some supposed "flaws" in a vast body of intensively well researched science that is supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community. I understand that you are a poor deluded nutjob who believes in the most absurd conspiracy theories. I understand that you and the other AGW denier cultists are the present day equivalent of the 'Flat Earth Society' in terms of your rejection of science and evidence in favor of faith based circular thinking. I understand that you and the other crackpot deniers are a joke to almost everyone with any knowledge of science or an IQ higher than room temperature.

You suppose? Your suppositions are all you have. And one is worse than another.

You are living proof of life after brain death.

SSDD has thoroughly kicked your ass and you are too dumb to realize how badly you lost.

And I just play with you like a cat plays with a grasshopper, just to see you wet yourself. You are far too verbose and way the hell too easily rattled.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....just more of your delusional twaddle.....and just as completely meaningless as the rest of your nonsense......poor little retarded troll.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I suppose it is just another symptom of how extremely delusional you are, IlieMostly, that you can't see you are the one making "an even more enormous fool of yourself" with every braindead post you make. I just help that process along by debunking the misinformation, lies, conspiracy theory nonsense, and rightwingnut denier cult myths you parrot on this forum.






I do certain things to the information that I am citing as evidence in order to emphasize the fact that it is actual EVIDENCE and not just my own words. Although I speak accurately about the science in my own words, many people, like you and the other denier cultists, just try to push a lot of hot air based on nothing but your own very ignorant opinions. I back up what I say with citations and quotes from reputable scientific sources or from mainstream news articles about scientific studies and reports with quotes from the scientists and links to the original research. If you and the other denier dimwits even bother to try to include 'evidence' to support your blather, you quote denier cult blogs or articles from some worthless third rate rag of a tabloid written by some notorious denier cult reporter.

Because you and the other denier nutjobs are so stupid and misinformed and seem to have such thick skulls, I format the info I quote in a similar manner to a newspaper or magazine article, with a headline and an emphasized body of text, to try and drive the points home. I guess you're unfamiliar with this style because you're too retarded to ever read magazines or newspapers. Or else this is just another of your attempts to divert attention to something irrelevant right after your lies get debunked. Too bad you don't like emphasized facts, you pathetic little cretin, 'cause I do like doing it this way and I'm going to continue.





You know, I think you're actually sooooo stupid you don't comprehend the point of posting supporting evidence from actual scientific sources. I understand what the articles and reports I cite mean, which is why I can match the material I use to debunk your lies to the specific lie you're trying to push at the time. I'm providing evidence from the sources to counter the pseudo-scientific drivel you post but you'll have to find someone else to dumb down the scientific reports enough for you to understand them (if that's even humanly possible).







Are you still in high school? We're debating the validity of modern climate science, not trying to win a popularity contest.






LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is just so ironically humorous.....and you're soooo blind to the humor.....





I understand that you are a brainwashed retard who's been duped into seeing some supposed "flaws" in a vast body of intensively well researched science that is supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community. I understand that you are a poor deluded nutjob who believes in the most absurd conspiracy theories. I understand that you and the other AGW denier cultists are the present day equivalent of the 'Flat Earth Society' in terms of your rejection of science and evidence in favor of faith based circular thinking. I understand that you and the other crackpot deniers are a joke to almost everyone with any knowledge of science or an IQ higher than room temperature.

You suppose? Your suppositions are all you have. And one is worse than another.

You are living proof of life after brain death.

SSDD has thoroughly kicked your ass and you are too dumb to realize how badly you lost.

And I just play with you like a cat plays with a grasshopper, just to see you wet yourself. You are far too verbose and way the hell too easily rattled.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....just more of your delusional twaddle.....and just as completely meaningless as the rest of your nonsense......poor little retarded troll.....

You remain WAY too verbose and you are still much too easily agitated.

I'll have a visiting nurse bring you some Midol, you poor pathetic substance-lacking dishonest AGW cult full of faith believer whack job.

 

[SSDD]

Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings.

Says the person flat out refusing to read a scientific article on ocean temperatures.

Give it up, SSDD, you won't read science. Fact.

I read the paper...the entire paper which you clearly didn't otherwise you would have realized that it was typical climate science slop and was in essence a statement on the output of computer models as I stated originally.

I provided plenty of information about your substandard paper on the thread where it was posted.

 

[SSDD]

You remain WAY too verbose and you are still much too easily agitated.

Like a train wreck isn't he. He has these great big red buttons that are so easy to push. Push the button and watch the monkey over react. I have seen it for quite some time now and it just never gets boring.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOLOL.....just more of your delusional twaddle.....and just as completely meaningless as the rest of your nonsense......poor little retarded troll.....

You remain WAY too verbose and you are still much too easily agitated.

I'll have a visiting nurse bring you some Midol, you poor pathetic substance-lacking dishonest AGW cult full of faith believer whack job.

Don't look now but you're starting to lose it, little retard. Watch out, you might have another spaz attack and start twitching and gibbering. Oh, wait, I forgot, that's how you act all the time.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

LOLOLOLOLOL.....just more of your delusional twaddle.....and just as completely meaningless as the rest of your nonsense......poor little retarded troll.....

You remain WAY too verbose and you are still much too easily agitated.

I'll have a visiting nurse bring you some Midol, you poor pathetic substance-lacking dishonest AGW cult full of faith believer whack job.

Don't look now but you're starting to lose it, little retard. Watch out, you might have another spaz attack and start twitching and gibbering. Oh, wait, I forgot, that's how you act all the time.

Progress. I got the idiot to cut down his ***** bitching to just a few lines.

He still has nothing of any value to say. But now it takes fewer words for him to say nothing.

 

[SSDD]

Progress. I got the idiot to cut down his ***** bitching to just a few lines.

He still has nothing of any value to say. But now it takes fewer words for him to say nothing.

I sort of enjoy the near panicked handwaving, big letters and all. It is as if he is wearing a clown costume over a monkey costume. Great entertainment...and the fact that he actually believes he is making a good impression is......well, its just priceless.