Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[RollingThunder]

What do you do for a living? What's your education and training?

Yo, RT, you missed this post. I expect deliberately.

That's right, davedumb, I do deliberately ignore most of your drivel because it is just too retarded and pointless to bother with. Like this post of yours. You apparently are so extremely stupid that you can't comprehend that this is an anonymous forum. Anyone can say anything about their personal lives, like what they "do for a living" or what their "education and training" are, and nobody can check on their honesty so it is meaningless. The only things relevant or meaningful to this debate are the facts that can be verified or supported with evidence. But you like to deflect the debate into irrelevancies and unprovable personal details because the actual verifiable scientific evidence is all against your denier cult fantasies and lies. So no, bozo, I'm not going to respond to your idiocies and attempts to derail the thread into pointless unprovable personal claims. Troll elsewhere, retard.

 

[Si modo]

I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...

And, you win the bet!

 

[gslack]

I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...

And, you win the bet!

I think dave hit a sore spot....

 

[SAT]

Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.

Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.

But thanks to you and I, now they know.

 

[Si modo]

Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.

Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.

But thanks to you and I, now they know.

When you have some science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, you'll post it, right?

 

[SAT]

Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.

Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.

But thanks to you and I, now they know.

When you have some science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, you'll post it, right?

I have posted it. You make excuses, recite cliches, and mangle jargon in response.

Earlier in the thread, I posted information on CO2, and that scientists can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.

 

[Si modo]

Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.

Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.

But thanks to you and I, now they know.

When you have some science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, you'll post it, right?

I have posted it. You make excuses, recite cliches, and mangle jargon in response.

Earlier in the thread, I posted information on CO2, and that scientists can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.

No you haven't. You posted a scholarly article from a philosopher on policy.

You need science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

 

[SAT]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

 

[Si modo]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

That's a post on a blog.

If you want to talk science, then use science. Show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

 

[SAT]

When you have some science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, you'll post it, right?

I have posted it. You make excuses, recite cliches, and mangle jargon in response.

Earlier in the thread, I posted information on CO2, and that scientists can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.

No you haven't. You posted a scholarly article from a philosopher on policy.

You need science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I've posted several links. You are getting them mixed up in your mind. This is the link I'm referring to:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As the EPA link states, scientists are not in the dark about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Done.

 

[westwall]

Being vile doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any science demonstrating the magnitude and/or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Do so, and I'll stop saying that.

Or be vile, but that's all it will be.

I treat you like the little lying shithead that you are because you've been shown the science and the evidence many times and you refuse to deal with the evidence you've been shown. You've got nothing but hot air and mindless denial of reality.

Once you start being honest about this and start debating the actual scientific evidence rather than side stepping it with lame excuses, I will stop "being vile", you sorry-ass denier cult troll.

Yup. When you don't have any science, being vile is the way to go.

It's all he's got. He's got the intellect of a gnat.

 

[SAT]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

That's a post on a blog.

If you want to talk science, then use science. Show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

That's a link to a science blog, written by a climatologist. If you'll examine the article, you'll find that the original piece was too technical for the average reader-which means that scientifically, it was well over your head, and my head. So they made it more accessible to the average person-which means you and me.

It has been established that your demands are a way of avoiding the facts.

Now read the link.

 

[Si modo]

I have posted it. You make excuses, recite cliches, and mangle jargon in response.

Earlier in the thread, I posted information on CO2, and that scientists can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.

No you haven't. You posted a scholarly article from a philosopher on policy.

You need science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I've posted several links. You are getting them mixed up in your mind. This is the link I'm referring to:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As the EPA link states, scientists are not in the dark about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Done.

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

 

[westwall]

Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE. Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go **** yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

What do you do for a living? What's your education and training?

He's a grade school dropout and works as a stable boy.

 

[SAT]

No you haven't. You posted a scholarly article from a philosopher on policy.

You need science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I've posted several links. You are getting them mixed up in your mind. This is the link I'm referring to:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As the EPA link states, scientists are not in the dark about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Done.

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

 

[westwall]

Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go **** yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists 'just went along with the consensus', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.

You know blunder I really do not know why the admins of this board tolerate you.. Makes no sense to me. You are astroturfing, its plain as day.. From your obvious scripted postings using popular blog formatting, to your multiple identities with near word for word repetition among them, and your continued answering for your other identities in arguments, you are astroturfing... in fact whenever you do have to post your own words and don't have your script we see above what happens...

Your words above...

"Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go **** yourself with something sharp."

I am not sure but I really do think that violates some rule here.. If not it should... You made a comment before about my mother as well..

You had better thank your lucky stars I am not an admin here.. If I were I wouldn't stop with banning you. Matter of fact your service provider would be made aware of your abuse of their service as well... You are a disgusting piece of trash, and the sooner this forum gets rid of you the better it will be...

Hey, **** you too, you retarded troll, and the horse you rode in on!!! You are a liar and most likely a paid agent of disinformation trolling forums with your ignorant, anti-science bullshit.

Ooooh poow wittle troll got his feewings hurted.

 

[westwall]

Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.

Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.

But thanks to you and I, now they know.

So Rwatt, are you trolling blunders sock or are you his? You are priceless! Creating a sock to support yourself! What a loser!

 

[Si modo]

I've posted several links. You are getting them mixed up in your mind. This is the link I'm referring to:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As the EPA link states, scientists are not in the dark about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Done.

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.










Idiot.

 

[westwall]

I've posted several links. You are getting them mixed up in your mind. This is the link I'm referring to:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As the EPA link states, scientists are not in the dark about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Done.

None of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

When you come up with something worthy of discussion we will. However, I don't think you're capable of it. So Rwatt, why don't you go take a science class or three so you can come back here and speak with the adults.

 

[westwall]

none of which are science. If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made co2 is the cause of warming.

yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

your claim is that man made co2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in co2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made co2 is the cause of warming.










Idiot.

yup!