Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[del]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

 

[del]

So you've been gassing on in this thread for days and for pages, and you don't even know if there are peer reviewed articles that claim that global warming is human caused.

That is an incredible admission.

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming, your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

now you're just lying, as well as failing to provide any proof of your claim(s).

jesus kills a kitten by slowly increasing its core temperature every time you lie.

did you know that, SAT?

why do you hate kittens?

 

[SAT]

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance.

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow.

But that's still not good enough for you.

You still want more proof.

You claim he's not really a skeptic.

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.

 

[SAT]

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming, your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

now you're just lying, as well as failing to provide any proof of your claim(s).

jesus kills a kitten by slowly increasing its core temperature every time you lie.

did you know that, SAT?

why do you hate kittens?

I'm lying that there are such articles?

 

[del]

I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance.

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow.

But that's still not good enough for you.

You still want more proof.

You claim he's not really a skeptic.

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.

put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing

 

[del]

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming, your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

now you're just lying, as well as failing to provide any proof of your claim(s).

jesus kills a kitten by slowly increasing its core temperature every time you lie.

did you know that, SAT?

why do you hate kittens?

I'm lying that there are such articles?

you're lying when you say si modo's answer was "i don't know"


you're not particularly bright, are you?

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

 

[SAT]

deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.

It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance.

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow.

But that's still not good enough for you.

You still want more proof.

You claim he's not really a skeptic.

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.

put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing

If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles.

Thanks.

 

[del]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

that's nice rock head.

reread the thread and see where you've failed


again

 

[Si modo]

So you've been gassing on in this thread for days and for pages, and you don't even know if there are peer reviewed articles that claim that global warming is human caused.

That is an incredible admission.

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming", your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

Dayum! It wants me to prove a void again!

 

[Si modo]

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming

Is that true?

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

 

[SAT]

I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science. That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.

You haven't admitted to much, that is true.

The reason for that? You don't know much.

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time.

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook.

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming", your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in.

There are many such peer reviewed articles.

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW?

I look forward to your answer.

Dayum! It wants me to prove a void again!

You cannot read. I'm asking for a link to a peer reviewed article that rebuts AGW.

I'm not asking you to prove it yourself.

Do you grasp the difference?

 

[SAT]

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW.

Thanks.

 

[del]

It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance.

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow.

But that's still not good enough for you.

You still want more proof.

You claim he's not really a skeptic.

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.

put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing

If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles.

Thanks.

if you're trying to support your claim, i'd suggest you post a link to a peer reviewed study that says what you claim it says, rather than persisting in your rather puerile demands that others do your work for you.

the only thing i'm trying to do is amuse myself, and you've been good for a couple of minutes of diversion.

unfortunately, you just don't have the intellectual horsepower to hold my attention. you remind me of another poster here who makes claims and then attempts to baffle the board with bullshit.

thanks. it's been real.

have a pleasant evening

 

[Si modo]

It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance.

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow.

But that's still not good enough for you.

You still want more proof.

You claim he's not really a skeptic.

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.

put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing

If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles.

Thanks.

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

 

[del]

if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

blogs aren't science!

hide the children

 

[Si modo]

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW.

Thanks.

Rebut what?

 

[del]

put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing

If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles.

Thanks.

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

i see what you did there.

 

[Si modo]

Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.

blogs aren't science!

hide the children

Oh, the childrennnnnnnn!

I'm expecting Hitler or the Nazis to pop in any second now.

 

[Si modo]

If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles.

Thanks.

And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron. Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.

i see what you did there.