What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D



Climate change like atom bomb: scientists




THE planet has been building up temperatures at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs of heat every second, and it's all our fault, say climate scientists.

Hurricane Katrina and superstorm Sandy are just two examples of how extreme weather will intensify, Australia's Climate Action Summit has heard.

Humans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other time in history, says John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

"All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean ... our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second - consider that going continuously for several decades."

In a speech on extreme weather in Sydney on Saturday, Mr Cook said about 90 per cent of global warming was going into the oceans, which act like a natural thermometer along with changes in land, ice, and animal species.

Distributions of trees are shifting towards cooler areas such as the poles or mountains, and animal species are responding to global warming by mating earlier in the year.

"This isn't because animals are getting randier, it's because the seasons themselves are shifting," Mr Cook said.

120 climate records were broken in Australia this January, including the hottest month and the hottest day.

New colours had to be added to temperature maps to denote highs of over 50 and 54 degrees celsius.

Warmer air holds more water, so Australia will experience heavier rainfall in wetter areas, while dry regions are becoming drier.

There will be more category four and five tropical cyclones, and a "catastrophic" rating has already been added to fire gauges.

Mr Cook said studies have tried to put a number on how much of global warming is caused by humans, "and the rough answer is, all of it".

He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures.

But he said this is not filtering down to the public, who think scientists are about 50/50 on the issue.

Sounds correct to me.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic

I agree, anyone who shrugs off as hysteria, what most of the worlds scientists are saying, is a d1ck pulling lunatic

Means the Usual Suspects are salivating and impatient re: the untold billions they plan to grab via phony climate change

Hysterical, dick-pulling shite indeed

You can always pick the Paid-to-Posts by their swift, paid-for defence of lunatic climate change drivel

No matter what they post elsewhere, their defence of climate change and their desire to be SEEN to be defending climate change, nullifies whatever they've written elsewhere

and exposes them as paid shills

Human induced climate change is undeniable -

I think we've only seen the start of it.

The real damage is yet to happen.

The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it -
we are all now doomed.

PZ547 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:06pm:

You can always pick the Paid-to-Posts by their swift, paid-for defence of lunatic climate change drivel No matter what they post elsewhere, their defence of climate change and their desire to be SEEN to be defending climate change, nullifies whatever they've written elsewhere and exposes them as paid shills

blah blah blah blah  .... you've got nothing ....

when 97% of the worlds scientists say something, a smart man would shut up and listen ... you are obviously not a smart man

Full marks to Cooky though he's got a solid following, who'd have thought in the year 2013 a complete f#ckwit like that could emulate jesus and suck in so many suckholes  ;D
oooga booga the weather is coming to get you so repent now ye sinners  ;D


Funny sh#t  ;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:10pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:06pm: You can always pick the Paid-to-Posts by their swift, paid-for defence of lunatic climate change drivel No matter what they post elsewhere, their defence of climate change and their desire to be SEEN to be defending climate change, nullifies whatever they've written elsewhere and exposes them as paid shills blah blah blah blah  .... you've got nothing .... when 97% of the worlds scientists say something, a smart man would shut up and listen ... you are obviously not a smart man

Run off to your manual, quick

Email your supervisor, fast

Tell them people aren't buying it

Ask them what you can say to convince people that climate change is real

Ask them to give you more phony percentages, like that laughable '97%'


;D         ;D       ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D

what credentials do you have apart from jerking off in public phone booths ?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed.

it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:52pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D what credentials do you have apart from jerking off in public phone booths ?

Come on, seriously where the f#ck are you numbnuts?, Australia?, remember what the f#ckin climate kooks said we were in for?, well now we've had the opposite, you must have had your brain surgically removed to still believe anything these f#ckin global warming whack jobs have to say.  ;D   

PZ547 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:10pm: PZ547 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:06pm: You can always pick the Paid-to-Posts by their swift, paid-for defence of lunatic climate change drivel No matter what they post elsewhere, their defence of climate change and their desire to be SEEN to be defending climate change, nullifies whatever they've written elsewhere and exposes them as paid shills blah blah blah blah  .... you've got nothing .... when 97% of the worlds scientists say something, a smart man would shut up and listen ... you are obviously not a smart man Run off to your manual, quick Email your supervisor, fast Tell them people aren't buying it Ask them what you can say to convince people that climate change is real Ask them to give you more phony percentages, like that laughable '97%' ;D         ;D       ;D

not sure why you are laughing, you sound more desperate than funny

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D what credentials do you have apart from jerking off in public phone booths ? Come on, seriously where the f#ck are you numbnuts?, Australia?, remember what the f#ckin climate kooks said we were in for?, well now we've had the opposite, you must have had your brain surgically removed to still believe anything these f#ckin global warming whack jobs have to say.  ;D

that's the same type of argument that the 80 yr old smoker uses when someone points out to him that smoking is bad for your health ....

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :(

The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick.

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:57pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D what credentials do you have apart from jerking off in public phone booths ? Come on, seriously where the f#ck are you numbnuts?, Australia?, remember what the f#ckin climate kooks said we were in for?, well now we've had the opposite, you must have had your brain surgically removed to still believe anything these f#ckin global warming whack jobs have to say.  ;D    that's the same type of argument that the 80 yr old smoker uses when someone points out to him that smoking is bad for your health ....

LOL well yeah, and the 80 yr old would be right too....at that age, quiting wouldn't make much difference, why not let them enjoy the last 5 or 10 years of life. If it hasn't killed them by 80, it's not likely to before the other illnesses do.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:10pm:

Full marks to Cooky though he's got a solid following, who'd have thought in the year 2013 a complete f#ckwit like that could emulate jesus and suck in so many suckholes  ;D oooga booga the weather is coming to get you so repent now ye sinners  ;D Funny sh#t  ;D

Well they have to do something. People are starting to lose belief in the whole story.

I think they may have over played that whole "we'll all be dead before you have grandchildren" idea, right at the start. Shock and awe works fine to motivate people, but too many bogus predictions and too many missed ones tends to sour people.

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:57pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D what credentials do you have apart from jerking off in public phone booths ? Come on, seriously where the f#ck are you numbnuts?, Australia?, remember what the f#ckin climate kooks said we were in for?, well now we've had the opposite, you must have had your brain surgically removed to still believe anything these f#ckin global warming whack jobs have to say.  ;D    that's the same type of argument that the 80 yr old smoker uses when someone points out to him that smoking is bad for your health ....

Obfuscation 101 ... you can't deny that every wacky hysterical climate change nightmare scenario issued by the global warming fruit loop fraternity has failed to materialise  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:57pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: What a f#ckin dick pulling lunatic ;D what credentials do you have apart from jerking off in public phone booths ? Come on, seriously where the f#ck are you numbnuts?, Australia?, remember what the f#ckin climate kooks said we were in for?, well now we've had the opposite, you must have had your brain surgically removed to still believe anything these f#ckin global warming whack jobs have to say.  ;D    that's the same type of argument that the 80 yr old smoker uses when someone points out to him that smoking is bad for your health .... Obfuscation 101 ... you can't deny that every wacky hysterical climate change nightmare scenario issued by the global warming fruit loop fraternity has failed to materialise  ;D

to be honest with you, I wouldn't know ... but I do know that when my doctor tells me I'm sick, I listen to him ... when my accountant tells me to claim something, I listen to him ... when my lawyer tells me to do something, I listen to him too, .... the fact that you can google some fruit loops opinion does not make you an expert ...  there is so much disinformation out there that unless you are an expert in the field, you wouldn't have a clue what to believe

whilst the over 90% of the worlds scientists all agree on something, I think the best bet is to listen to them.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed.

a comedian

good one!

haha...

- : )

or are you in fear again repeating 'scientists'

whom are paid by multi national corporations

in funding

and if they do not support the scam they get no funding.


repeat the scam and get funded thereby

becoming by legal definition,

'the science'..

good scamming aye china?

sweet

namaste

- : )

http://www.heartcom.org/GalacticOrientation.jpg

whats up with saturn?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/images/070328-saturn-hexagon_big.jpg

http://www.tjmitchell.com/stuart/images/johnreid_saturn.jpg

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SaturnHex-RGB-11-28-12-JMajor.jpg

it_is_the_light wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. a comedian good one! haha... - : ) or are you in fear again repeating 'scientists' whom are paid by multi national corporations in funding and if they do not support the scam they get no funding. repeat the scam and get funded thereby becoming by legal definition, 'the science'.. good scamming aye china? sweet namaste - : )

Master Light,
it is no joke -
we are all doomed.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Its true !
It_is_the_Light brings happiness to us all!
Nothing is as funny as the stupidity of someone much
like that verbally dyslexic YODA who always 'lost' to the Empire.

PZ547 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:06pm:

You can always pick the Paid-to-Posts by their swift, paid-for defence of lunatic climate change drivel No matter what they post elsewhere, their defence of climate change and their desire to be SEEN to be defending climate change, nullifies whatever they've written elsewhere and exposes them as paid shills

It is also easy to pick retards.

I just found one.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

Come on, seriously where the f#ck are you numbnuts?, Australia?, remember what the f#ckin climate kooks said we were in for?,

Come on.  Tell us what Alan Jones told you.


Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

well now we've had the opposite,

Yes - you would think that if you believe Alan Jones


Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

you must have had your brain surgically removed to still believe anything these f#ckin global warming whack jobs have to say.  ;D

...Says the Alan Jones fan.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 8:06pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:10pm: Full marks to Cooky though he's got a solid following, who'd have thought in the year 2013 a complete f#ckwit like that could emulate jesus and suck in so many suckholes  ;D oooga booga the weather is coming to get you so repent now ye sinners  ;D Funny sh#t  ;D Well they have to do something. People are starting to lose belief in the whole story. I think they may have over played that whole "we'll all be dead before you have grandchildren" idea, right at the start. Shock and awe works fine to motivate people, but too many bogus predictions and too many missed ones tends to sour people.

You are the retard that tried to trot out the old "no warming in 16 years" drivel in another thread, aren't you!

What had Jonesy told you to say today?  Anything interesting?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 10:59pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:06pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:10pm: Full marks to Cooky though he's got a solid following, who'd have thought in the year 2013 a complete f#ckwit like that could emulate jesus and suck in so many suckholes  ;D oooga booga the weather is coming to get you so repent now ye sinners  ;D Funny sh#t  ;D Well they have to do something. People are starting to lose belief in the whole story. I think they may have over played that whole "we'll all be dead before you have grandchildren" idea, right at the start. Shock and awe works fine to motivate people, but too many bogus predictions and too many missed ones tends to sour people. You are the retard that tried to trot out the old "no warming in 16 years" drivel in another thread, aren't you! What had Jonesy told you to say today?  Anything interesting?

Well you'd know better than me...you have the man crush.

As for the 'drivel', you'd better talk ti the UK Met Office, it's their report.

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 8:13pm:

but I do know that when my doctor tells me I'm sick, I listen to him ... when my accountant tells me to claim something, I listen to him ... when my lawyer tells me to do something, I listen to him too, ....

For that analogy to work in the context of global warming your doctor would have to tell you you had six months to live ... ten years ago, your accountant would have to tell you that you'll get a big refund cheque only to get a tax office bill instead and your lawyer to tell you you'd get a suspended sentence but ya got ten years  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 6:29am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:13pm: but I do know that when my doctor tells me I'm sick, I listen to him ... when my accountant tells me to claim something, I listen to him ... when my lawyer tells me to do something, I listen to him too, .... For that analogy to work in the context of global warming your doctor would have to tell you you had six months to live ... ten years ago, your accountant would have to tell you that you'll get a big refund cheque only to get a tax office bill instead and your lawyer to tell you you'd get a suspended sentence but ya got ten years  ;D

Exactly, almost every projected calamity has been hyped and in most instances, plainly wrong.

So, how are those climate models going????

I read that 98.6% of climate models make 97% of climate scientists wrong  ;D ;D

The Europeans have woken up, even the good old Krauts are asking WTF happened to our money??? Where has our solar industry gone Mr Bosch and Mr Siemens.......why are our domestic power bills 70% higher than our neighbors?

Its gonna take a while, no one likes to own up to the fact they have been conned to the tune of Billions. Especially not whole governments.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 6:29am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:13pm: but I do know that when my doctor tells me I'm sick, I listen to him ... when my accountant tells me to claim something, I listen to him ... when my lawyer tells me to do something, I listen to him too, .... For that analogy to work in the context of global warming your doctor would have to tell you you had six months to live ... ten years ago, your accountant would have to tell you that you'll get a big refund cheque only to get a tax office bill instead and your lawyer to tell you you'd get a suspended sentence but ya got ten years  ;D

you keep telling yourself that

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures.

::)

When science fails them, they resort to the consensus "argument".

Stick to the scientific method, not consensus.

There isn't even a consensus, just some put up job by the activists at unsceptical science  ;D

http://www.cando.org.au/updates/303-co2-is-cooling-the-earth-nasa-report?utm_source=feedly

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 9:51am:

http://www.cando.org.au/updates/303-co2-is-cooling-the-earth-nasa-report?utm_source=feedly

Aaaaaaarrrghh  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 10:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 9:51am: http://www.cando.org.au/updates/303-co2-is-cooling-the-earth-nasa-report?utm_source=feedly Aaaaaaarrrghh  ;D

Yes.

"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere."

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

That pesky 3% of scientists again  ;D

Actually...


If all the 'climatic' problems are Human-made: POLLUTIONAL (and the every so often NUKE BLAST)?
...then we can FIX it  ;) :) and say "Phew - that was close!"  :o

BUT !!!

Going from what I saw on that great ABC OZ series: A Time Travellers Guide to Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zWzy1A0zCE

...and Climatic Change is a NATURAL occurance
- then quite simply: WE ARE FARRRRRKED !  :P :P :P
No way could we 'reverse' such a change ...like a 25 million year long total global ice age, etc.

But hopefully its just a COINCIDENTAL moment of traversing the gravitational effect of the Galactic Plane (very coincidental  ;)) as we now go AGAINST the gravitational pull of the galactic plane where it is at its greatest. You all know what its like to swim against the current/a rip  - right ;) :-??
Remember that the Solar System is 'tilted' and Uranus is the right-way-up and in line with the galaxy with every turn.


Personally: I think the atmosphere is THINNING, let alone getting DIRTY like most of the planet is.
Looking after patients in Hospital and Visitors pile in and shut the door: it becomes stuffy and hot and the poor patient is looking shite-faced and sweating profusely (visitors just cont yapping ::)). One 'rubber plant' in the corner of the room doesn't solve the problem completely except remind us of the issue at hand.

OVER-POPULATION, NUKES (WAR), RADIATION, POLLUTION (SUICIDE), DEFORESTATION (BOTH LAND & SEA), EXTINCTIONS OF SPECIES (OUR IMAGINATION) AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE.

...until some poor sucker dies upon the Southern Cross for our 'Political' sins and we can start picking up the peices now that we have someone to blame. :(

I can understand why people do not want to consider climate change as being real.
1) The implications are just too confronting
2)They are too young to have observed any changes themselves
3) They are just ignorant of science and the mechanics of science (statistics)
4)They are sub morons
5) A combination of 1,2,3,4

miketrees wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

I can understand why people do not want to consider climate change as being real.

Who doesn't consider climate change as being real?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 10:07pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 9:51pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. a comedian good one! haha... - : ) or are you in fear again repeating 'scientists' whom are paid by multi national corporations in funding and if they do not support the scam they get no funding. repeat the scam and get funded thereby becoming by legal definition, 'the science'.. good scamming aye china? sweet namaste - : ) Master Light, it is no joke - we are all doomed.

bump

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:11am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 10:59pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:06pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:10pm: Full marks to Cooky though he's got a solid following, who'd have thought in the year 2013 a complete f#ckwit like that could emulate jesus and suck in so many suckholes  ;D oooga booga the weather is coming to get you so repent now ye sinners  ;D Funny sh#t  ;D Well they have to do something. People are starting to lose belief in the whole story. I think they may have over played that whole "we'll all be dead before you have grandchildren" idea, right at the start. Shock and awe works fine to motivate people, but too many bogus predictions and too many missed ones tends to sour people. You are the retard that tried to trot out the old "no warming in 16 years" drivel in another thread, aren't you! What had Jonesy told you to say today?  Anything interesting? Well you'd know better than me...you have the man crush. As for the 'drivel', you'd better talk ti the UK Met Office, it's their report.

No it isn't liar.  If it is  - show us the report, liar.

No liar - you are repeating something from a UK tabloid journalist.  You probably heard Jonesy say it

Caught red-handed LIAR.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 9:35am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures. ::) When science fails them, they resort to the consensus "argument". Stick to the scientific method, not consensus.

THe consensus is based on decades of accumulated evidence.  That is the scientific method.

Repeating the nonsense spouted by a handful of shock-jocks and tabloid journalists is not "scientific".
It is just retarded.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49am:

There isn't even a consensus, just some put up job by the activists at unsceptical science  ;D

And this is why ignorant people like you are called "deniers".

Where did you get that gem from?  Jones?  Bolt?  The Daily Mail?  Which august font of knowledges is educating you this week?

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 8:02pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :( The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick.

What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof?

miketrees wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 11:38am:

I can understand why people do not want to consider climate change as being real. 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it 2)They are too young to have observed any changes themselves Wrong again, most skeptics are older people, and HAVE seen changes (and doom & gloom predictions) come and go, which is why they're skeptics 3) They are just ignorant of science and the mechanics of science (statistics) Nope, missed again, it's statisticians that crashed the Hockey Stick and the other baseless predictions 4)They are sub morons No that title belongs, firmly, to the rabid warmists 5) A combination of 1,2,3,4

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:02pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :( The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick. What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof?

What about them??
Even if you have a stand-alone solar system that's not connected to the grid, it still involves a huge amount of Co2 to make the solar panels, and if the array IS connected to the grid, the moment the Sun sets, the power is drawn from the grid (and don't bother with that rubbish nails spouts about the fed in power being what comes back), and since most people work during the day, there's not much difference in Co2 foot print, just in the $ the power company writes on your bill.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:36pm:

What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof?

Don't even get me started on those pricks.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:48pm:

miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 11:38am: I can understand why people do not want to consider climate change as being real. 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it 2)They are too young to have observed any changes themselves Wrong again, most skeptics are older people, and HAVE seen changes (and doom & gloom predictions) come and go, which is why they're skeptics 3) They are just ignorant of science and the mechanics of science (statistics) Nope, missed again, it's statisticians that crashed the Hockey Stick and the other baseless predictions 4)They are sub morons No that title belongs, firmly, to the rabid warmists 5) A combination of 1,2,3,4

Why did you claim that  a UK Met report said there had been "no warming for 16 years"?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:11am:

As for the 'drivel', you'd better talk ti the UK Met Office, it's their report.

That was a flat out lie - and you know it.

THe UK Met did not report that.  A tabloid journalist made it up.  And you believed him.

And now you have been caught red-handed repeating this nonsense - any lying about its source.

Isn't it time you apologised for lying to the forum?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:36pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:02pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :( The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick. What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof? What about them?? Even if you have a stand-alone solar system that's not connected to the grid, it still involves a huge amount of Co2 to make the solar panels, and if the array IS connected to the grid, the moment the Sun sets, the power is drawn from the grid (and don't bother with that rubbish nails spouts about the fed in power being what comes back), and since most people work during the day, there's not much difference in Co2 foot print, just in the $ the power company writes on your bill.

Are you trying to equate the life cycle co2 footpring of PV with coal?

Seriously?!?!?


Try again idiot:
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas emissions
Solar PV - 46g CO2/kWhe
Coal - 1001g CO2/kWhe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources


Do you really think you should be telling more lies at this point?
You still havn't explained why you lied about the UK Met office reporting "no warming for 16 years"

You know - that nonsense from a tabloid journalist that you probably picked up from Jonesy or Bolty or whoever tells you how to think - that you tried to pretend was "fact"

One lie at a time for beginners please

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:36pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:02pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :( The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick. What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof? What about them?? Even if you have a stand-alone solar system that's not connected to the grid, it still involves a huge amount of Co2 to make the solar panels, and if the array IS connected to the grid, the moment the Sun sets, the power is drawn from the grid (and don't bother with that rubbish nails spouts about the fed in power being what comes back), and since most people work during the day, there's not much difference in Co2 foot print, just in the $ the power company writes on your bill.

Stop being so negative.
The feed in tariffs being dropped to almost nothing has wrecked the idea of solar panels
unless you're home during the day & can use the power.
That's due to corrupt politicians not the goodness of panels.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:36pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:02pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :( The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick. What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof? What about them?? Even if you have a stand-alone solar system that's not connected to the grid, it still involves a huge amount of Co2 to make the solar panels, and if the array IS connected to the grid, the moment the Sun sets, the power is drawn from the grid (and don't bother with that rubbish nails spouts about the fed in power being what comes back), and since most people work during the day, there's not much difference in Co2 foot print, just in the $ the power company writes on your bill.

I've never said that the power comes back you idiot.

You talk like when someone supplies power to the grid from their PV panels then no one else on the grid can use it. Make sure you understand the principles of energy conservation before you start talking sh.t as usual.

And as for producing CO2 from manufacturing panels let me know when your polluting coal fired power plant stops generating CO2 and starts producing energy without setting fire to coal ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 5:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:54pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:36pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:02pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Human induced climate change is undeniable - I think we've only seen the start of it. The real damage is yet to happen. The pity is that as global citizens we cannot change it - we are all now doomed. it can't possibly be true because there are a lot of greedy  people who stand to lose a lot of printed money if they can't sell their sh.t coal anymore :( The profound idiocy of these global warming kooks blows me away, the fact that they think we aren't all equally complicit in the burning of coal, f#ck me dead they really believe that they live in some sort of bubble where as long as you carry on like a green wanker on the internet about co2 somehow that absolves you from the amount that you have used yourself which is the same as everyone else's even that global warming denialist prick. What about people who have solar panel arrays on their roof? What about them?? Even if you have a stand-alone solar system that's not connected to the grid, it still involves a huge amount of Co2 to make the solar panels, and if the array IS connected to the grid, the moment the Sun sets, the power is drawn from the grid (and don't bother with that rubbish nails spouts about the fed in power being what comes back), and since most people work during the day, there's not much difference in Co2 foot print, just in the $ the power company writes on your bill. I've never said that the power comes back you idiot. You talk like when someone supplies power to the grid from their PV panels then no one else on the grid can use it. Make sure you understand the principles of energy conservation before you start talking sh.t as usual. And as for producing CO2 from manufacturing panels let me know when your polluting coal fired power plant stops generating CO2 and starts producing energy without setting fire to coal ;)

Actually, you did say that, many times. And you said that when you charge a plug in ev at night, the power your solar array has fed in during the day is used.

@gazmo
1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it

I think you might be a 1

I also see warming as inevitable however I do readily accept that its happening

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 12:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 9:35am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures. ::) When science fails them, they resort to the consensus "argument". Stick to the scientific method, not consensus. THe consensus is based on decades of accumulated evidence.  That is the scientific method.

"decades"   ;D

Here, this is what one of the "97% of active climate scientists" has to say about consensus:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

One more time, for those who missed it:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 7:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 9:35am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures. ::) When science fails them, they resort to the consensus "argument". Stick to the scientific method, not consensus. THe consensus is based on decades of accumulated evidence.  That is the scientific method. "decades"   ;D Here, this is what one of the "97% of active climate scientists" has to say about consensus: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ One more time, for those who missed it: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

Still ignoring decades of accumulated evidence Greggery?

How very "scientific" of you.  You must be one of Alan's favourirte listeners.

THere is virtually zero published scientific literature suggesting that AGW is not occurring - yet you are happy to place your belief in what you read on a silly deniers blog site.

You are so smart Greggery.

miketrees wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 6:32pm:

@gazmo 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it I think you might be a 1 I also see warming as inevitable however I do readily accept that its happening

As do I mike...I just don't think that human technology is the cause, or even a partial cause.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 7:46pm:

miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 6:32pm: @gazmo 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it I think you might be a 1 I also see warming as inevitable however I do readily accept that its happening As do I mike...I just don't think that human technology is the cause, or even a partial cause.

No.  You don't think at all.  We have established that.

You simply parrot whatever Bolt or Jones or whatever silly blogs you read tells you.

As you have shown us here when you lied about the UK Met Office reporting that there has been "no warming for 16 years"

Liar Liar Pants on Fire.

The UK Met Office reported no such thing.

You read it in a stupid column in a British tabloid and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

And now - confronted with the reality that you were caught telling lies - you seem to just want to run away from that fact.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Still ignoring decades of accumulated evidence Greggery?

No.

Still laughing at the people who think a few "decades" are significant though.

;D

Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature.

But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool?

Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 7:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:16pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 12:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 9:35am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 6:57pm: He said for the past two decades, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement human activity is causing warmer temperatures. ::) When science fails them, they resort to the consensus "argument". Stick to the scientific method, not consensus. THe consensus is based on decades of accumulated evidence.  That is the scientific method. "decades"   ;D Here, this is what one of the "97% of active climate scientists" has to say about consensus: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ One more time, for those who missed it: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..” Still ignoring decades of accumulated evidence Greggery? How very "scientific" of you.  You must be one of Alan's favourirte listeners. THere is virtually zero published scientific literature suggesting that AGW is not occurring - yet you are happy to place your belief in what you read on a silly deniers blog site. You are so smart Greggery.

We don't have "Alan" in WA.

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

One more time:

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey ... "

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 7:53pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:46pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 6:32pm: @gazmo 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it I think you might be a 1 I also see warming as inevitable however I do readily accept that its happening As do I mike...I just don't think that human technology is the cause, or even a partial cause. No.  You don't think at all.  We have established that. You simply parrot whatever Bolt or Jones or whatever silly blogs you read tells you. As you have shown us here when you lied about the UK Met Office reporting that there has been "no warming for 16 years" Liar Liar Pants on Fire. The UK Met Office reported no such thing. You read it in a stupid column in a British tabloid and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. And now - confronted with the reality that you were caught telling lies - you seem to just want to run away from that fact.

No Rabbit, you have no idea what I believe, because you are so ideologically blinded, you can't even seem to comprehend what people post.

But just for the others here, the 16 year 'pause' in warming (which EVEN the mighty Phil Jones acknowledges) is fairly solid proof that the warming is <80% natural, if it was being 'driven' by Co2, there could only be a pause or slowing if the Co2 rate slowed, which it hasn't.
So, if the 'driver' stays constant, and the result fluctuates that is an indication that there's something else at play.

( after all, the water doesn't get hotter when the stove is turned off)

miketrees wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature. But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool? Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2

Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..


And just for you rabbitoh, I'll have a look for the link later.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:10pm:

miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature. But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool? Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2 Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. And just for you rabbitoh, I'll have a look for the link later.

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature. But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool? Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2 Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. And just for you rabbitoh, I'll have a look for the link later. http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

Yes, that's the one..thanks greggary
Although the one I found was:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html



Deniers!   ;D

I bet they have been bribed by big oil ... probably reckon smokings good for you too.  :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:07pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:46pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 6:32pm: @gazmo 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it I think you might be a 1 I also see warming as inevitable however I do readily accept that its happening As do I mike...I just don't think that human technology is the cause, or even a partial cause. No.  You don't think at all.  We have established that. You simply parrot whatever Bolt or Jones or whatever silly blogs you read tells you. As you have shown us here when you lied about the UK Met Office reporting that there has been "no warming for 16 years" Liar Liar Pants on Fire. The UK Met Office reported no such thing. You read it in a stupid column in a British tabloid and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. And now - confronted with the reality that you were caught telling lies - you seem to just want to run away from that fact. No Rabbit, you have no idea what I believe, because you are so ideologically blinded, you can't even seem to comprehend what people post. But just for the others here, the 16 year 'pause' in warming (which EVEN the mighty Phil Jones acknowledges) is fairly solid proof that the warming is <80% natural, if it was being 'driven' by Co2, there could only be a pause or slowing if the Co2 rate slowed, which it hasn't. So, if the 'driver' stays constant, and the result fluctuates that is an indication that there's something else at play. ( after all, the water doesn't get hotter when the stove is turned off)

Where is this report from the Uk Met that says there has been "no warming for 16 years"

Come on liar

We are waiting liar

Let's see it liar

Show us this "report" - or admit that you are an ignorant little turd that has fallen hook, line and sinker for a bit of nonsense in a column in a British tabloid, and are too stupid to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

This is what happens when you let shock-jocks do your thinking for you.  You end up making an idiot of yourself.

And as for this:
(which EVEN the mighty Phil Jones acknowledges)
WTF?!?!  You are now making your lie worse by implying that Phil Jones said there has been "no warming for 16 years"?!?!?

Don't you know when to stop?

You better show us evidence of this too, Liar.

Let's see the "report" from the UK Met Office that says there has been "no warming for 16 years", and a quote from Phil Jones that says there has been "no warming for 16 years".

And please - let's see actual evidence of these things.  Not some stupid opinion piece from the Daily Mail that you have got 2nd or 3rd hand from Bolt or Jones or someone.

We are waiting Liar.

He's losing it  ;D ... no global warming for 16 years will do that to a crazy climate kook though  :D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:46pm:

He's losing it  ;D ... no global warming for 16 years will do that to a crazy climate kook though  :D

Let's see the "report" from the UK Met Office that says there has been "no warming for 16 years"

The other liar can't show us.

Can you?

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 6:29am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 8:13pm: but I do know that when my doctor tells me I'm sick, I listen to him ... when my accountant tells me to claim something, I listen to him ... when my lawyer tells me to do something, I listen to him too, .... For that analogy to work in the context of global warming your doctor would have to tell you you had six months to live ... ten years ago, your accountant would have to tell you that you'll get a big refund cheque only to get a tax office bill instead and your lawyer to tell you you'd get a suspended sentence but ya got ten years  ;D

rubbish . I don't believe I've heard any scientist say the world is coming to an end. It is more like a doctor saying if you don't change your habits you are at risk of developing high blood pressure or diabetes.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature. But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool? Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2 Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. And just for you rabbitoh, I'll have a look for the link later. http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

Whoah!!! Greggery!!!

You really are diving into moonbat territory with that link!

Principia-Scientific!

Who are they when they are at home?!?!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:32pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:07pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:53pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:46pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 6:32pm: @gazmo 1) The implications are just too confronting Less confronting than it will be when we waste time try to stop something we can't stop, when we should have been adapting to it I think you might be a 1 I also see warming as inevitable however I do readily accept that its happening As do I mike...I just don't think that human technology is the cause, or even a partial cause. No.  You don't think at all.  We have established that. You simply parrot whatever Bolt or Jones or whatever silly blogs you read tells you. As you have shown us here when you lied about the UK Met Office reporting that there has been "no warming for 16 years" Liar Liar Pants on Fire. The UK Met Office reported no such thing. You read it in a stupid column in a British tabloid and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. And now - confronted with the reality that you were caught telling lies - you seem to just want to run away from that fact. No Rabbit, you have no idea what I believe, because you are so ideologically blinded, you can't even seem to comprehend what people post. But just for the others here, the 16 year 'pause' in warming (which EVEN the mighty Phil Jones acknowledges) is fairly solid proof that the warming is <80% natural, if it was being 'driven' by Co2, there could only be a pause or slowing if the Co2 rate slowed, which it hasn't. So, if the 'driver' stays constant, and the result fluctuates that is an indication that there's something else at play. ( after all, the water doesn't get hotter when the stove is turned off) Where is this report from the Uk Met that says there has been "no warming for 16 years" Come on liar We are waiting liar Let's see it liar Show us this "report" - or admit that you are an ignorant little turd that has fallen hook, line and sinker for a bit of nonsense in a column in a British tabloid, and are too stupid to tell the difference between fact and fiction. This is what happens when you let shock-jocks do your thinking for you.  You end up making an idiot of yourself. And as for this: (which EVEN the mighty Phil Jones acknowledges) WTF?!?!  You are now making your lie worse by implying that Phil Jones said there has been "no warming for 16 years"?!?!? Don't you know when to stop? You better show us evidence of this too, Liar. Let's see the "report" from the UK Met Office that says there has been "no warming for 16 years", and a quote from Phil Jones that says there has been "no warming for 16 years". And please - let's see actual evidence of these things.  Not some stupid opinion piece from the Daily Mail that you have got 2nd or 3rd hand from Bolt or Jones or someone. We are waiting Liar.

Sorry rabbit, but I just can't be bothered anymore, even if I got Phil Jones to sent you a JP witnessed letter saying so, you'd still deny it because it clashes with you belief system.

There's no more point to responding to you, than there is to arguing evolution with a young earth creationist.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 10:29pm:

Sorry rabbit, but I just can't be bothered anymore, even if I got Phil Jones to sent you a JP witnessed letter saying so, you'd still deny it because it clashes with you belief system. There's no more point to responding to you, than there is to arguing evolution with a young earth creationist.

Yep - that is the usual liar response.

You tell a lie about the UK Met reporting that there has been no warming in 16 years

You are asked to substantiate this lie.

But you can't.
Because it is a lie.
I know that
You know that

And then you run away like the pathetic little liar that you are.

You could show us some evidence of this "report"
But you can't
Because it doesn't exist
You have spent 2 days searching for one - and you also know it doesn't exist
You were lying.
But you are too gutless to admit it.

A stupid lie by a tabloid columnist that you heard on the Alan Jones show or some similar distributer of crap - and because you are so stupid - you believe it

And now - when you are asked to explain it - you are too gutless to admit how gullible you have been.

Learn something here idiot.

The UK Met DID NOT report that there has been no warming in 16 years. 

Stop telling lies.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 8:46pm:

He's losing it  ;D ... no global warming for 16 years will do that to a crazy climate kook though  :D

So what makes a liar like Gizmo tell the lies that he does?

The UK Met DID NOT report that there has been no warming in 16 years. 

that was a lie he heard Alan Jones or someone say.

You seem to believe it too.

How stupid does that make you?

Got anything to say for yourself?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2013 at 9:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature. But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool? Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2 Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. And just for you rabbitoh, I'll have a look for the link later. http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html Whoah!!! Greggery!!! You really are diving into moonbat territory with that link! Principia-Scientific! Who are they when they are at home?!?!

They are the people with a direct link to the NASA report in the first few words of their story.

You do know who NASA are, don't you?

Let me guess though: you won't accept any report from NASA either.

That's the whole problem with AGW cult members: their minds are so closed that they will not even entertain the thought of even looking at anything that suggests that their hypothesis may be wrong.

In all my life, I have never come across a more closed-minded group of people than the AGW disciples.  They are quite possibly the most unscientific people on the planet.

Personally, I remain completely open-minded: the AGW hypothesis may indeed be correct, and I may come to accept it in the future.  I will continue to read any new information on the subject.  I won't shoot the messenger.  I won't refuse to read a report just because it goes against my current opinion.

Currently though, there's no credible convincing evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct.

I remain open-minded though ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 8:10pm: miketrees wrote on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 7:56pm: Well Gizometer we could take the temperature of other planets in our solar system, or even our own moon and see if the Sun is contributing to the increase in temperature. But even then if we proved it was caused by the Sun, wouldent we want to try something to keep our cool? Perhaps even with more incoming solar radiation we could lower temps by lowering CO2 Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. And just for you rabbitoh, I'll have a look for the link later. http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html Whoah!!! Greggery!!! You really are diving into moonbat territory with that link! Principia-Scientific! Who are they when they are at home?!?! They are the people with a direct link to the NASA report in the first few words of their story. You do know who NASA are, don't you? Let me guess though: you won't accept any report from NASA either.

THere is nothing wrong with the NASA report.  It is your bizarre link.

The NASA report does not say "reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.." as you and your mates at Principia-Scientific claim

Even the King of Deniers at Wattsupwith that has dismissed them as fruit loops
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/#more-83061

THe NASA report is about CO2 in the thermosphere - not the troposphere.

Stop being so gullible Greggery

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

the whole problem with AGW cult members: their minds are so closed that they will not even entertain the thought of even looking at anything that suggests that their hypothesis may be wrong.

the whole problem with deniers: their minds are so retarded that they even entertain the thought of looking at anything...no matter how ridiculous it is.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

In all my life, I have never come across a more closed-minded group of people than the AGW disciples.  They are quite possibly the most unscientific people on the planet.

in all my life, I have never come across a more gullible fool


greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

Personally, I remain completely open-minded: the AGW hypothesis may indeed be correct, and I may come to accept it in the future.  I will continue to read any new information on the subject.  I won't shoot the messenger.  I won't refuse to read a report just because it goes against my current opinion. Currently though, there's no credible convincing evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct. I remain open-minded though ...

No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded"

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: the whole problem with AGW cult members: their minds are so closed that they will not even entertain the thought of even looking at anything that suggests that their hypothesis may be wrong. the whole problem with deniers: their minds are so retarded that they even entertain the thought of looking at anything...no matter how ridiculous it is. greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: In all my life, I have never come across a more closed-minded group of people than the AGW disciples.  They are quite possibly the most unscientific people on the planet. in all my life, I have never come across a more gullible fool greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: Personally, I remain completely open-minded: the AGW hypothesis may indeed be correct, and I may come to accept it in the future.  I will continue to read any new information on the subject.  I won't shoot the messenger.  I won't refuse to read a report just because it goes against my current opinion. Currently though, there's no credible convincing evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct. I remain open-minded though ... No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded"

LOL

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: the whole problem with AGW cult members: their minds are so closed that they will not even entertain the thought of even looking at anything that suggests that their hypothesis may be wrong. the whole problem with deniers: their minds are so retarded that they even entertain the thought of looking at anything...no matter how ridiculous it is. greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: In all my life, I have never come across a more closed-minded group of people than the AGW disciples.  They are quite possibly the most unscientific people on the planet. in all my life, I have never come across a more gullible fool greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: Personally, I remain completely open-minded: the AGW hypothesis may indeed be correct, and I may come to accept it in the future.  I will continue to read any new information on the subject.  I won't shoot the messenger.  I won't refuse to read a report just because it goes against my current opinion. Currently though, there's no credible convincing evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct. I remain open-minded though ... No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded"

LOL  and stupid and pigheaded remains stupid and pigheaded..

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded"

No.

I'm actually very well informed on this subject.

Unlike you, and your fellow AGW disciples, I read as much material as possible from both sides of the argument.

Once you start to do the same thing, and stop relying on non-scientific nonsense like 'consensus', you might start to look a little less silly.

Moreover, confusing the two terms "ignorant" and "open-minded" has severely diminished your already dwindling credibility.

Stick to the science, read widely on the subject, and open your mind a little and you just might gain some credibility in the future.  Remaining a closed-minded alarmist will get you nowhere fast.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

in all my life, I have never come across a more gullible fool

You seem to be having difficulty today understanding exactly what words mean.

Calling me "gullible" in regard to this subject is not only extremely inaccurate, it is delightfully ironic.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 4:56pm: No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded" No. I'm actually very well informed on this subject. Unlike you, and your fellow AGW disciples, I read as much material as possible from both sides of the argument. Once you start to do the same thing, and stop relying on non-scientific nonsense like 'consensus', you might start to look a little less silly. Moreover, confusing the two terms "ignorant" and "open-minded" has severely diminished your already dwindling credibility. Stick to the science, read widely on the subject, and open your mind a little and you just might gain some credibility in the future.  Remaining a closed-minded alarmist will get you nowhere fast.

You are very well informed?!?!

This is why you posted a link from a website that doesn't know the difference between the thermosphere and the troposphere!!!

Yeah...you are really well informed!!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:21pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 4:56pm: No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded" No. I'm actually very well informed on this subject. Unlike you, and your fellow AGW disciples, I read as much material as possible from both sides of the argument. Once you start to do the same thing, and stop relying on non-scientific nonsense like 'consensus', you might start to look a little less silly. Moreover, confusing the two terms "ignorant" and "open-minded" has severely diminished your already dwindling credibility. Stick to the science, read widely on the subject, and open your mind a little and you just might gain some credibility in the future.  Remaining a closed-minded alarmist will get you nowhere fast. You are very well informed?!?! This is why you posted a link from a website that doesn't know the difference between the thermosphere and the troposphere!!! Yeah...you are really well informed!!

And now it seems that you don't understand what "well informed" means either.

What's the problem today bunny?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 4:56pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: the whole problem with AGW cult members: their minds are so closed that they will not even entertain the thought of even looking at anything that suggests that their hypothesis may be wrong. the whole problem with deniers: their minds are so retarded that they even entertain the thought of looking at anything...no matter how ridiculous it is. greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: In all my life, I have never come across a more closed-minded group of people than the AGW disciples.  They are quite possibly the most unscientific people on the planet. in all my life, I have never come across a more gullible fool greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 9:43am: Personally, I remain completely open-minded: the AGW hypothesis may indeed be correct, and I may come to accept it in the future.  I will continue to read any new information on the subject.  I won't shoot the messenger.  I won't refuse to read a report just because it goes against my current opinion. Currently though, there's no credible convincing evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct. I remain open-minded though ... No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded" LOL  and stupid and pigheaded remains stupid and pigheaded..

ANd a LIAR is still a LIAR.

And you are a LIAR.

We are still waiting for you to explain to us why you claimed that the UK Met Office issued a report saying that there has been no warming for 16 years

Why no answer LIAR?

Is it because the UK Met Office said no such thing?  You simply saw a column in a British tabloid that claimed that and you believed it because you are ignorant and gullible?

You have been accused of being a LIAR.  Why no response?
Surely - if you were not lying  - you would have shown us the evidence to support your claim by now?  But no.  Nothing from you.

You are simply a liar that gets all of his information from tabloid journalists and shock-jocks.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:21pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 4:56pm: No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded" No. I'm actually very well informed on this subject. Unlike you, and your fellow AGW disciples, I read as much material as possible from both sides of the argument. Once you start to do the same thing, and stop relying on non-scientific nonsense like 'consensus', you might start to look a little less silly. Moreover, confusing the two terms "ignorant" and "open-minded" has severely diminished your already dwindling credibility. Stick to the science, read widely on the subject, and open your mind a little and you just might gain some credibility in the future.  Remaining a closed-minded alarmist will get you nowhere fast. You are very well informed?!?! This is why you posted a link from a website that doesn't know the difference between the thermosphere and the troposphere!!! Yeah...you are really well informed!! And now it seems that you don't understand what "well informed" means either. What's the problem today bunny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere

It must be very embarrassing getting sprung like you just were Greggery.
Are you going to be a little bit more discerning in future before posting links for us?

A "well-informed" man like you!!!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:39pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:21pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 4:56pm: No Greggery.  You remain ignorant.  Ignorant is not the same as "open minded" No. I'm actually very well informed on this subject. Unlike you, and your fellow AGW disciples, I read as much material as possible from both sides of the argument. Once you start to do the same thing, and stop relying on non-scientific nonsense like 'consensus', you might start to look a little less silly. Moreover, confusing the two terms "ignorant" and "open-minded" has severely diminished your already dwindling credibility. Stick to the science, read widely on the subject, and open your mind a little and you just might gain some credibility in the future.  Remaining a closed-minded alarmist will get you nowhere fast. You are very well informed?!?! This is why you posted a link from a website that doesn't know the difference between the thermosphere and the troposphere!!! Yeah...you are really well informed!! And now it seems that you don't understand what "well informed" means either. What's the problem today bunny? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere It must be very embarrassing getting sprung like you just were Greggery. Are you going to be a little bit more discerning in future before posting links for us? A "well-informed" man like you!!!

1.  It's not my web page bunny: I didn't write the content.

2.  The first few words contained a link to the NASA report: that is the important piece of information that was being referred to.  Everybody else got that except you.

3.  You just cited wikipedia as a reference - twice!


http://womenofhr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/credibility4.gif


::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Unlike you, and your fellow AGW disciples, I read as much material as possible from both sides of the argument.

Yes - and you obviously don't understand any of it.

That is why when you read something from some nutjob website that doesn't know the difference bewteen the troposphere and the thermosphere - you think it is something worth repeating!!!

Moron.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Once you start to do the same thing, and stop relying on non-scientific nonsense like 'consensus', you might start to look a little less silly.

Ones you have some clue about what you are talking about - you wont sound like such a retard.

Have you looked up the difference between troposphere and thermosphere yet?

I suggest you do.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Moreover, confusing the two terms "ignorant" and "open-minded" has severely diminished your already dwindling credibility.

You have never had any credibility Greggery.

And posting a link from "Principia Scientific" just confirmed it.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Stick to the science, read widely on the subject, and open your mind a little and you just might gain some credibility in the future.

Learn a little bit about what you are trying to discuss - and don't blindly believe every stupid blog you come across you just might sound not so stupid in the future. 


greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Remaining a closed-minded alarmist will get you nowhere fast.

Where is being an ignorant, gullible twat getting you Greggery?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

That is why when you read something from some nutjob website that doesn't know the difference bewteen the troposphere and the thermosphere - you think it is something worth repeating!!! Moron.

The report is from NASA.

There's certainly no doubt about who the (ignorant) moron is.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

1.  It's not my web page bunny: I didn't write the content.

But you fell for it hook, line and sinker and posted it here didn't you.

Not only that  - you wrote with it:
Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..


The NASA report did not say that reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.  Yet you claimed the report said it did!!!

Looks like you are a LIAR after all Greggery.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

2.  The first few words contained a link to the NASA report: that is the important piece of information that was being referred to.  Everybody else got that except you.

And then you went and told a lie by saying:

SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..

LIAR

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

3.  You just cited wikipedia as a reference - twice!

Yes I did Greggery.

Because you do not know the difference between the troposphere and the thermosphere.
I am trying to help you.

Have you read the links yet and realised how stupid the link you posted was?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:49pm: That is why when you read something from some nutjob website that doesn't know the difference bewteen the troposphere and the thermosphere - you think it is something worth repeating!!! Moron. The report is from NASA. There's certainly no doubt about who the (ignorant) moron is.

Greggery, you told us:

Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..

Where does the Nasa report say that Greggery.

Please show us or apologise to the forum for telling lies

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Because you do not know the difference between the troposphere and the thermosphere. I am trying to help you.

Oh, I know the difference.

Now, what part of this don't you understand bunny:

"I didn't write the content of the web page".

"I didn't endorse the content of the web page".

Just let me know which words you don't understand, and I'll walk you through it.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..

No, I didn't.

It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. No, I didn't. It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else.

You are absolutely right and I apologise most profusely old boy.

Of course - the culprit is the known liar Gizmo.
Adding to his list of whoppers.

I do admit that I was confused by the interlocking quotes and attributed the lie to you in what was an unforgivable error. I am full of shame.  I do hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to forgive me this appalling transgression.

Still - you can hardly blame me though.  You do have a record for saying some really stupid stuff about this subject.  Just not this time....though why you would be trolling about posting a link to one of the stupidest websites I have ever seen is beyond me.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:03pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. No, I didn't. It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else. You are absolutely right and I apologise most profusely old boy. Of course - the culprit is the known liar Gizmo. Adding to his list of whoppers. I do admit that I was confused by the interlocking quotes and attributed the lie to you in what was an unforgivable error. I am full of shame.  I do hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to forgive me this appalling transgression. Still - you can hardly blame me though.  Do do have a record for saying some really stupid stuff about this subject.  Just not this time....though why you would be trolling about posting a link to one of the stupidest websites I have ever seen is beyond me.

That's cool.   ;)

I merely posted the link for him because I was actually reading the report in another browser tab.

From what I've read it all seems to be nonsense though (the bit about cooling, that is).

Still, I did read it.

I wonder if we could retro fit all the big airliners with a CaO injection system that would leave a fine film of dust in the atmosphere that would reflect some heat.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:03pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. No, I didn't. It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else. You are absolutely right and I apologise most profusely old boy. Of course - the culprit is the known liar Gizmo. Adding to his list of whoppers. I do admit that I was confused by the interlocking quotes and attributed the lie to you in what was an unforgivable error. I am full of shame.  I do hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to forgive me this appalling transgression. Still - you can hardly blame me though.  You do have a record for saying some really stupid stuff about this subject.  Just not this time....though why you would be trolling about posting a link to one of the stupidest websites I have ever seen is beyond me.

It's not a lie Rabbit, in light of that report, it is possible that decreasing Co2 levels in the thermosphere would allow more heat from solar flares etc into Earth's atmosphere. It might not have anything to do with climate change however, it's separate subject and I posted it in response to a comment from miketrees.  :P :P :P

The world is warming, and man is causing it.

End of story.

According to the UK met office there has been no warming for 16 years.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

The world is warming, and man is causing it. End of story.

The world is warming ,and we don't know for certain what is causing it.

End of story.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

The world is warming, and man is causing it. End of story.

How very closed-minded of you.

::)

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

According to the UK met office there has been no warming for 16 years.

Incorrect.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 1:17pm: The world is warming, and man is causing it. End of story. The world is warming ,and we don't know for certain what is causing it.

Incorrect

Quote:

End of story.

How can it be "end of story" if there are outstanding uncertainties ?

Innocent bystander wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

According to the UK met office there has been no warming for 16 years.

So you are believing Gizmo's lies?

We are still waiting to see this "report" from the UK met office that says there has been no warming for 16 years

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 8:51am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:03pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. No, I didn't. It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else. You are absolutely right and I apologise most profusely old boy. Of course - the culprit is the known liar Gizmo. Adding to his list of whoppers. I do admit that I was confused by the interlocking quotes and attributed the lie to you in what was an unforgivable error. I am full of shame.  I do hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to forgive me this appalling transgression. Still - you can hardly blame me though.  You do have a record for saying some really stupid stuff about this subject.  Just not this time....though why you would be trolling about posting a link to one of the stupidest websites I have ever seen is beyond me. It's not a lie Rabbit, in light of that report, it is possible that decreasing Co2 levels in the thermosphere would allow more heat from solar flares etc into Earth's atmosphere. It might not have anything to do with climate change however, it's separate subject and I posted it in response to a comment from miketrees.  :P :P :P

Please show us where that NASA report says reducing the Co2 would actually increase warming..

You told us:
SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 1:17pm: The world is warming, and man is causing it. End of story. The world is warming ,and we don't know for certain what is causing it. End of story.

So the world is warming now is it?!?!?

Haven't you been insisting on the lie that the UK met office that says there has been no warming for 16 years?

Can't you get your story straight?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 8:51am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:03pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. No, I didn't. It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else. You are absolutely right and I apologise most profusely old boy. Of course - the culprit is the known liar Gizmo. Adding to his list of whoppers. I do admit that I was confused by the interlocking quotes and attributed the lie to you in what was an unforgivable error. I am full of shame.  I do hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to forgive me this appalling transgression. Still - you can hardly blame me though.  You do have a record for saying some really stupid stuff about this subject.  Just not this time....though why you would be trolling about posting a link to one of the stupidest websites I have ever seen is beyond me. It's not a lie Rabbit, in light of that report, it is possible that decreasing Co2 levels in the thermosphere would allow more heat from solar flares etc into Earth's atmosphere. It might not have anything to do with climate change however, it's separate subject and I posted it in response to a comment from miketrees.  :P :P :P Please show us where that NASA report says reducing the Co2 would actually increase warming.. You told us: SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..

Yes, that is the implication of that report..
Simply put, at the moment, Co2 and Nitrogen in the thermosphere react to reflect, or re radiate heat (in the form of IR radiation)  from solar flares back into space. So reducing the amount of Co2 in the upper atmosphere would stop this from happening. More IR radiation would get through the thermosphere and the temperatures would (probably) increase.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 4:32pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 2:27pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 1:17pm: The world is warming, and man is causing it. End of story. The world is warming ,and we don't know for certain what is causing it. Incorrect

Incorrect.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 5:00pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 8:51am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 7:03pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 24th, 2013 at 6:58pm: Greggery, you told us: Given that I saw a report from a NASA research unit today that stated just the opposite (Co2 and Nitrogen, I believe) act together to reflect incoming solar radiation out into space. SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. No, I didn't. It appears that in the midst of your rage you have mistaken me for someone else. You are absolutely right and I apologise most profusely old boy. Of course - the culprit is the known liar Gizmo. Adding to his list of whoppers. I do admit that I was confused by the interlocking quotes and attributed the lie to you in what was an unforgivable error. I am full of shame.  I do hope you can find it in the goodness of your heart to forgive me this appalling transgression. Still - you can hardly blame me though.  You do have a record for saying some really stupid stuff about this subject.  Just not this time....though why you would be trolling about posting a link to one of the stupidest websites I have ever seen is beyond me. It's not a lie Rabbit, in light of that report, it is possible that decreasing Co2 levels in the thermosphere would allow more heat from solar flares etc into Earth's atmosphere. It might not have anything to do with climate change however, it's separate subject and I posted it in response to a comment from miketrees.  :P :P :P Please show us where that NASA report says reducing the Co2 would actually increase warming.. You told us: SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming.. Yes, that is the implication of that report.. Simply put, at the moment, Co2 and Nitrogen in the thermosphere react to reflect, or re radiate heat (in the form of IR radiation)  from solar flares back into space. So reducing the amount of Co2 in the upper atmosphere would stop this from happening. More IR radiation would get through the thermosphere and the temperatures would (probably) increase.

Simply put - you are a liar.

You claimed:
SO reducing the Co2 would, according to that report, actually increase warming..[/quote]

THat was a direct lie..  It said nothing of the sort.  If it did you would post us a quote and prove me wrong.

But you can't , can you liar.

Just like when you lied about the UK Met Office reporting no warming for 16 years..  If this were actually true  - you would post a link to the report and prove me wrong.

But you can't , can you liar.

Who do you actually think you are fooling liar?  You are not smart enough to lie and get away with it. Why do you even bother trying?

So, I ask again:
- please  show us where the UK Met Office reporting no warming for 16 years., and
- please show us where in that NASA report that they say "reducing the Co2 would actually increase warming"

Show us liar.

We are waiting.

And if you cant do it - please apologise for lying to the forum.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 4:32pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 2:27pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 1:17pm: The world is warming, and man is causing it. End of story. The world is warming ,and we don't know for certain what is causing it. Incorrect Incorrect.

No Greggery.  Despite what your friends at Principia Scientific tell you - we do know that anthropogenic emissions are warming the planet.  There is no doubt about this.

Sorry champ.  I am afraid Jonesy has been lying to you.

Do you need a hug?