Maker Pro
Maker Pro

global tepid

B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
You'd be better off not using your real name, because 1) it doesn't
matter, and 2) you're making a fool of yourself and someone's going to
google you and find all the dumb-ass flippant remarks you made. And you
ARE making them!

It's a bit late for that. And the dumb-ass flippant remarks are the
only appropriate response to your over-confident ignorance.
If you have a Ph.D., let it show in the quality of the science in your
posts. All you're proving is what I learned in grad school... Ph.D.s are
like sausage - quite tasty until you see how they're made, what they're
made of, and how much shit goes into them.

Perfectly true. Some Ph.D.s are better than others. Mine was at least
original, and still looks more or less competent. The electronics
could have been better, but they weren't too bad, and they worked.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Again, you don't know the difference between a model of E&M radiation
transmission and a climate temperature model.

I do, but less not try to run before we can walk.
I pointed out this silly blunder of yours in a previous post.

It's scarcely a "silly blunder" to offer a dimwit something that they
might be able to manage, rather than suggesting that they go for broke
with something that they'd never be able to manage.
HITRAN is still not a climate model. You don't seem to understand what a
climate model is.

No, but it captures the interesting physics underlying greenhouse
warming. It's got to be part of any vaguely realistic climate model.
Since we've got idiots posting here about absorbtion saturation
proving that the greenhouse effect can't work, getting a working ITRAN
model of a static column of air would seem to be a necessary precursor
to anything more realistic.
So, your argument is that you can't measure it because it is in the noise
level?

Over short periods, yes.
What model is that? Go ahead and state that one too, unless you're
referring to Svensmark's theory...


Point out where you find the personal smear. What in that have you
mistaken as a scientific argument.


Vapid slander with no science,


Like I said, all you AGW frauds can do is slander the man, you can't
properly address his theory and why it makes predictions.

I don't have to. Even the hyper-careful wikipedia article makes it
clear that the scientific community did that.
I like how you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a "denialist". Is
that the kind of crap and personal smear that passes for science in
Australia?

Denialism is a growth industry in Australia. There are quite a few of
them around to be identified as liars for hire. Obviously, this only
applies to the anthropogenic global warming debate, and not every
sceptic is a paid lackey of the denialist propaganda machine. Christy
and Spencer at UAH are fundamentalist Christians, rather than liars
for hire, but this doesn't make them any more reliable.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html
Let's see... the CRU e-mails prove fraud and abuse of peer review. There,
you don't see fraud.

There wasn't any. There was a robust response to a failure in the peer-
review process, when a denialist-planted pseudo-paper got published,
despite all four referees recommending rejection, but no fraud. Pity
about your powers of discrimination. The Guardian journalist who wrote
a book on the subject really didn't like the robust response, but he'd
never been trained as a scientist and didn't appreciate that properly
trained scientists take the peer-reviewed literature seriously.
A hypothesis that fails to predict,

It predicts fine. It fails your strawman test, but that doesn't
falsify the hypothesis,since the prediction is of a signal that was
going to be swamped in noise, as it was.
and political policy of carbon taxes,
global government, and tyrannical carbon foot-print laws, and the science
isn't proven (even you can't provide the function of CO2 that predicts
global temperature)

None that your feeble powers can recognise.
and you find no fraud there.

Absolutely none.
But someone comes up with a theory that closely relates cosmic rays to
global temperature, and you find fraud there.

No fraud, but incompetence. Svensmark's theory didn't survive critical
examination. The denialist web-sites still treat it as a valid
alternative explanation, and ignore the responses that showed that it
wasn't.
No, you don't know how to detect fraud. No, that isn't a scientific
argument.

Absolutely not. Your opinion is based ignorant misapprehension, as
your comments reveal all too frequently. You don't know what you are
talking about. and you don't know enough to realise how little you
know.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Never the less, it's what you need to know if you want to understand the
greenhouse effect.
It's the tool you use to model the radiative transfers up and down
through the atmosphere. Adding in convection makes life more
complicated, and you've got to figure in the Joule-Thompson cooling you
get as you more up through the progressively less dense layers of the
atmosphere, to explain the "lapse rate" - why atmosphere is cooler at
higher altitudes, up to the tropopause.
Since modelling always involves simplification, HITRAN is where you need
to start.
Your reaction indicates that you don't know what you are talking about.
People have been doing it for a while now.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/
casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650017692_1965017692.pdf
Same problem as before, that's not a climate model that predicts AGW.
It's about atmospheric transmission of electromagnetic radiation. IT
doesn't say "Set the variable of d[CO2]/dt = 5 gigatons of carbon and
the equation says that the dT = +1 Kelvin of mean earth temperature".
You've got walk before you can run.
It is pretty clear you don't understand what a climate model is. You
need to state something of the form:
f([CO2_g],x1,x2,...,xN)= T_global
That's where the process ends up. It takes a few years in graduate
school to get there.
Except that the symmetric stretch is symmetrical and thus inactive in
absorbtion and emission, though you can see it in the Raman
"Longer than the Sun's IR curve"?

The Sun is actually a 6000K radiator, and it's still pushing out plenty
of energy at 1.7 and 3.4 micron, though the peak is in the visible
<snipped the rest of the pathetic ignorance>

Now that you understand that HITRAN is not a climate model,

I never said it was. It is an essential component of any comprehensive
climate model
but you still have not stated a climate model that predicts.

I'll leave that to the IPCC. Their new report is due out any time now,
and it will list the predicitive models they've reviewed.
Like I said, that's all you need to do, but you've not done it because there isn't one.

There are loads. All of them to complicated to be any use to you. If
you want instant gratification, try the last IPCC report
The rest of your post is childish hubris, except for the part where
you're pretending that there is a lot of energy out at the far end of the
sun's black body curve.

That's not what I said at all. Your - silly - claim was that there
wasn't any, and all I needed to do to show you up an an ignorant fraud
was to point this out.
Do you understand that most of the energy is in the bulge? That is what
is responsible for the earth's temperature, not the far out tail.

That's what I started out pointing out, with the additional
observation that that bulge is at much shorter wavelengths than CO2
absorbs - a point that seemed to have escaped you at the time.
Maybe if you called more names your vapid post would be more credible?
Nah.

Obviously. It's perfectly credible as it stands. It might have had
more rhetorical effect if I'd put more effort into depicting you as a
self-deceiving ignoramus, but you do fine at that without any help.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Modest amounts of positive feedback can increase the gain of a system without
making it unstable. As the feedback is increased, the system gain first goes up
a tad, then gets twitchier and noisier, and eventually the gain becomes infinite
and it runs away. Something like a 3:1 positive feedback inspired gain, on top
of the base CO2 warming effect, could satisfy the alarmist predictions but not
latch up and fry the planet. That's unlikely; the net feedback is probably
negative.

You've ignored the water vapour positive feedback.
Computer simulations of super-complex, poorly understood, wildly chaotic systems
are worthless, or less.

Weather is chaotic, climate isn't. John von Neumann understood this
and a lot of less talented people have manged to grasp it since.
clearly, you aren't that talented.

As for poorly understood, I think you are confusing "complicated and
difficult to model" with "poorly understood". Your opinion on the
subject is clearly worthless. The work itself is valued by people
better placed to assess it's real utility, otherwise it wouldn't still
be going on.
We did get into, and get out of, ice ages somehow.

That "somehow" has now been worked out in quite some detail. New
Scientist 3rd November 2012 pages 32-35 "The Great Thaw" picks up part
of the story.
Ditto ages of high temperature and enormous (like, 5000 PPM) CO2 levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

We are dangerously close to running out of CO2. Drill, baby, drill.

We aren't running out of CO2. We, and our crop plants, are well
adapted to the world as it is. Change the world enough, and we aren't.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Your answers are vapid. Your dismissal of Svensmark totally childish.

True. But his academic critics did a perfectly adult job, and it's not
my place to steal their glory.
I spit on YOUR Ph.D. for this mindless post of yours.

I'm supposed to put any effort into responding to you?
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
If it was 0.1 Kelvins and in the noise level, you'd have to say that the
hypothesis wasn't proven.

The only problem with that is, the data was not gathered per the
protocol, and there is a large UHI warming in the data, a systematic bias
FOR AGW, and the data still doesn't distinctly demonstrate the
hypothesis.

Even with bad science, it is a failed hypothesis.


Nice crystal ball you have there, but I have to call bullshit on your
predictions of the future.

You can legitimately extend it back into the past - to 1958 anyway,
when accurate CO2 measurements started.
No, it isn't 'based on well known physics". The problem is, the physics
says a rise in CO2 alone will NOT cause the claimed amount of warming.
That's why they're looking for the as yet undiscovered "positive
feedback".

It has been discovered - the small temperature rise from the CO2
raises the vapour pressure of water in the atmosphere. Water vapour is
another greenhouse gas, rather more potent than CO2.

<snip>
 
U

Unum

Jan 1, 1970
0
Lets review from above. I asked for the climate model that predicts, you
gave HITRAN.

Either you were so ignorant that you thought HITRAN was a climate model,
or you were posting crap and hoping that I wouldn't notice.

Marvin can't counter the facts and now he wants to argue about
whether or not HITRAN is a climate model, lol.
You could have just made a blunder, but you don't seem to want to admit
that.

So you're either ignorant, or dishonest. Either way it comes out bad for
you.

And do you have that climate model that predicts yet?

Why can't you just respond to all that info above about CO2 Marvin?
Ah, so here you admit you don't know of any such model, and you BELIEVE
without any rational basis (or you would have cited it) that the IPCC
(known liars, btw) must have it.

You're defending a hypothesis that you don't even know exists!

This is where Marvin makes up your position for you and tries to
get you to defend it.
So, aside from being a snide asshole, you got nothin', huh? Maybe you can
arrogant you way out of this one, but not with me, boy.

Its all about personal attacks at this point. Gets there pretty quick
when Marvin runs out of ideas. This usually takes about two exchanges.
LOL! yes, you were bringing up CO2 absorption bands that were in between
the sun's black body curve, and the earths, and trying to argue they were
significant.

again, you try to ball your way out of saying something STUPID.

Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands and the various
radiation flows are not significant Marvin.
Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Its all about personal attacks at this point. Gets there pretty quick
when Marvin runs out of ideas. This usually takes about two exchanges.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.
Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.
 
H

hda

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
Really asshole? [snip]
Some assholes said [snip]
That's why you're an asshole! ]snip]
someone you asshole lie and [snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there [snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Paul

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's longsuit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:
You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.
Really asshole? [snip]
Some assholes said [snip]
That's why you're an asshole! ]snip]
someone you asshole lie and [snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there [snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!
Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.
 
H

hda

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:[email protected]
You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.
Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!
Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

The martian is very exact, not you, not hot like 4th rock from the sun
unlike venus. AND all, true.

Logic, how would you know ? You are evasive as well on the questions
posed. Try some close-reading for a start.
 
W

Wally W.

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 24 Dec, 13:55, John Larkin

Weather is chaotic, climate isn't.

Bare assertion.

Credible cite needed.
John von Neumann understood this

Where did von Neumann make this distinction between weather and
climate?
 
W

Wally W.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?
Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.


And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.
He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.
He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.
 
T

tm

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

in message

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.
Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty
good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an
equation, and
look like a genius.


Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.

He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults.
He
claims he used to design electronics some decades ago. He needs a day job.
Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!

You mean like the "People of Wal-Mart"?

 
U

Unum

Jan 1, 1970
0
Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.
That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'. Can you quote
it Wally?
Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.
On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of. I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".
 
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Simulation == fact is all Slowman talks about.
If enough people manufacture enough theories, one or two will look pretty good.
I could do a polynomial regression on climate history, publish an equation, and
look like a genius.

Hmm. Isn't that exactly what the AGW proponents have done? Good
enough for Slowman.

Why? Several here are following along. You're giving Slowman a good
spanking.
He pollutes s.e.d. with his climate nonsense and moronic, droning insults. He
claims he used to design electronics some decades ago. He needs a day job.
Aren't there any Wal-Marts in Australia? Imagine Sloman as a greeter!

No way! Walmart greeters have to be helpful and nice to the
customers.
 
W

Wally W.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
is character assassination. How is that not personal?

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.


I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'.

Of course he didn't mention it.

But that is how the AGW scam persists.
Can you quote it Wally?

Have the weasels written it down?

They tipped their hand here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
nature.
Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.

So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."
Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of.

I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

Using your approach: Look it up.

The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.
I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".

First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
"explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
this issue.
 
U

Unum

Jan 1, 1970
0
Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
is character assassination. How is that not personal?

Lol, suddenly Wally develops a thin skin. There are many forms of
denial aren't there. We didn't land on the moon, the earth isn't
a sphere, there's no such thing as evolution, guns don't kill,
there was no Holocaust, there's no global warming, etc. If you
are a batshit crazy little fruitcake and somebody points it out,
you needn't be offended. Its a large community.
Of course he didn't mention it.

But that is how the AGW scam persists.

Guhaw! Of course he didn't mention it, Wally 'just knows' things. The
voices whisper to him.
Have the weasels written it down?

They tipped their hand here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
nature.

The political agenda comes from the Georgia Guidestones. Lol, I
learn something new on the internet every day! What kind of tinfoil
do you use for your hat, the thin crinkly stuff or the industrial
grade? Might want to consider the heavy duty.
So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."

I'm demonstrating that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself
at everything that has appeared in the thread.
I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

So you've got absolutely nothing. You can't come up with
a single thing.
Using your approach: Look it up.

The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.

Already pointed out that Marvin lied about the 'no warming in
16 years', what else are you looking for specifically? His pet
little cosmic ray theory? There are at least a half-dozen papers
blowing that out of the water. The CO2 came from dissolving coral?
Which crackpot statement do you want to defend?
First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
"explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
this issue.

That's exactly right. Marvin disputes the relevance of GHG's
to global climate, stating "you were bringing up CO2 absorption
bands that were in between the sun's black body curve, and the
earths, and trying to argue they were significant". Not that
the statement makes any sense at all.
 
W

Wally W.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Lol, suddenly Wally develops a thin skin. There are many forms of
denial aren't there. We didn't land on the moon, the earth isn't
a sphere, there's no such thing as evolution, guns don't kill,
there was no Holocaust, there's no global warming, etc. If you
are a batshit crazy little fruitcake and somebody points it out,
you needn't be offended. Its a large community.

You were talking about accurate descriptions.

I gave you an accurate description and now *I* have a thin skin.

Snort.

Guhaw! Of course he didn't mention it, Wally 'just knows' things. The
voices whisper to him.

When does a scammer lead with the declaration that they are trying to
perpetrate a scam?

Why do you think the AGW scam is different?
The political agenda comes from the Georgia Guidestones. Lol, I
learn something new on the internet every day! What kind of tinfoil
do you use for your hat, the thin crinkly stuff or the industrial
grade? Might want to consider the heavy duty.

So, no: The weasels haven't written it down.

I'm demonstrating that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself
at everything that has appeared in the thread.

And yet, you haven't demonstrated that what you claim is in the thread
actually exists.
So you've got absolutely nothing. You can't come up with
a single thing.

In the past, I have not found it worth the effort to expend much
effort in detailing things for you.

Your "Spell out for me" demand is over the top.

Request denied.
Already pointed out that Marvin lied about the 'no warming in
16 years', what else are you looking for specifically? His pet
little cosmic ray theory? There are at least a half-dozen papers
blowing that out of the water. The CO2 came from dissolving coral?
Which crackpot statement do you want to defend?

Your own side says there has not been warming in 16 years. Take it up
with them.

Remind them that they aren't helping "the cause."

A half-dozen pal-reviewed papers. Nice.

Are you saying *no* CO2 came from dissolving coral?

Aren't the warmophobes complaining about the disappearance of coral?
Where do you think it goes?

That's exactly right. Marvin disputes the relevance of GHG's
to global climate, stating "you were bringing up CO2 absorption
bands that were in between the sun's black body curve, and the
earths, and trying to argue they were significant". Not that
the statement makes any sense at all.

So you don't even understand the statement, but you dispute it.

We're dealing with a real genius here, folks.
 
Top