Death knell for AGW

[CDNBear]

noted: you refuse to support your claim that "I made something up". Again, why would anyone get emotional in discussing anything with a know-nothing denier?

It's your claim. Now you want me to be on the defensive, because you know how foolish you look.

I understand why you would want to do that. You're embarrassed and emotional, and you want to take the focus off your own mistakes.

I feel bad for you, but all I'll do is help you embarrass yourself further, I won't actually go on he defensive. I'm not as dumb as your sad attempts make you look, lol.

the low-brow discourse in this thread speaks volumes about discussing anything with deniers. Clearly, any push-back has them reeling in their denial!

LOL, says the emotionally frantic one.

 

[Ron in Regina]

....-b

the low-brow discourse in this thread speaks volumes about discussing anything with deniers. Clearly, any push-back has them reeling in their denial!

magic cycles?

what's your point in relation to global warming and attribution relative to the relatively recent warming?

Why just recent?

what changes climate? Does climate just magically "change"?

If it does just magically change, I'm assuming it's been happening more than relatively recently.

which drivers do you attribute to the relatively recent warming/climate change? The magical "natural ones"?

Why just 'relatively recent' and what's the issue with "natural ones"?

your point? You mean the one where you assert climate doesn't change in relation to forcings? That one?

Are there 'natural' forcings that have been in play more than 'relatively recently' ?

We seem to be stuck in some kind of 'cycle' & not a magical one.

 

[CDNBear]

Reason will get you nowhere Ron, lol.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Just seems like the record is skipping, & thought I might just bump the table.

 

[CDNBear]

Just seems like the record is skipping, & thought I might just bump the table.

Good luck, the grooves run deep in waldo. As you can plainly see.

 

[waldo]

It's your claim

it didn't take long at all to expose your nonsense. But then again, I expect it's in full display throughout this thread.

you stated 2 statement I made were absurd. When challenged you failed to explain why you felt they were absurd statements. Let me ask you again:

your point? You mean the one where you assert climate doesn't change in relation to forcings? That one?

you claim "drivers" are responsible for climate change... but you refused to name them; most pointedly, in relation to today's relatively recent warming/climate change. From that point forward you've been wigging out, big time.

 

[CDNBear]

it didn't take long at all to expose your nonsense. But then again, I expect it's in full display throughout this thread.

you stated 2 statement I made were absurd. When challenged you failed to explain why you felt they were absurd statements.

No I didn't, I answered your query.

Stop being dishonest, you look even more foolish with every attempt.

you claim "drivers" are responsible for climate change... but you refused to name them; most pointedly, in relation to today's relatively recent warming/climate change. From that point forward you've been wigging out, big time.

Does your dishonesty know no bounds?

 

[Ron in Regina]

you claim "drivers" are responsible for climate change... but you refused to name them; most pointedly, in relation to today's relatively recent warming/climate change. From that point forward you've been wigging out, big time.

Can you name these drivers? Are they the drivers that have been in play
for 4-6 billion years so far?

magic cycles?

what's your point in relation to global warming and attribution relative to the relatively recent warming?

Why just recent?

what changes climate? Does climate just magically "change"?

If it does just magically change, I'm assuming it's been happening more than relatively recently.

which drivers do you attribute to the relatively recent warming/climate change? The magical "natural ones"?

Why just 'relatively recent' and what's the issue with "natural ones"?

your point? You mean the one where you assert climate doesn't change in relation to forcings? That one?

Are there 'natural' forcings that have been in play more than 'relatively recently' ?

I admit my ignorance above. Anybody else?

 

[waldo]

Why just recent?

If it does just magically change, I'm assuming it's been happening more than relatively recently.

Why just 'relatively recent' and what's the issue with "natural ones"?

Are there 'natural' forcings that have been in play more than 'relatively recently' ?

the focus is recent day, ya think? Natural variability plays a role... internal variability does not have a forcing factor... but you knew that, right? Since the bearGuy refuses to do so, please step-up and state what "natural factors" you interpret as being the principal causal tie(s) to today's relatively recent warming/climate change... one's you can substantiate - yes? You know - the "death knell" that the legitimate scientific community is refusing to accept/acknowledge... that one!!!

 

[captain morgan]

other than the reeediculous geomagnetics guy, no other buddies have offered didly-squat. Lot's of bluster though; there's sure a lot of bluster coming from other buddies!

As expected, you offer nothing.. Zero.. Zip... Nada

what changes climate? Does climate just magically "change"?

Holy crap!

That's the second time today from you that I almost spit my beverage in laughing at your utter naivete

Ask yourself this simplest of questions: What is the static, norm temperature that the global thermostat is (should) be set at.

When you come to some form of conclusion (I won't hold my breath waiting), revisit the above quote in which you believe any climatic change is 'magical'

No I didn't, I answered your query.

Stop being dishonest, you look even more foolish with every attempt.

Does your dishonesty know no bounds?

These are the only retorts that the waldos of the world have available to them.

It's not his fault for being unable to forward anything of substance (that is an overly generous word I might add) as there is nothing that exists to support his beliefs.

Blind faith is all he has.. One of his messiahs has programmed the truth for him and all that is left is to keep talking the party-line regardless of how ridiculous it is

 

[CDNBear]

the focus is recent day, ya think? Natural variability plays a role... internal variability does not have a forcing factor... but you knew that, right? Since the bearGuy refuses to do so, please step-up and state what "natural factors" you interpret as being the principal causal tie(s) to today's relatively recent warming/climate change... one's you can substantiate - yes? You know - the "death knell" that the legitimate scientific community is refusing to accept/acknowledge... that one!!!

You can't even be honest when you troll blind, lol.

Can you please quote me, from the last 30 days where I state natural drivers are principle drivers please.

I'm sure this should be interesting.

Sorry for the bad thumb Capt, the screen jumped.

 

[captain morgan]

It's all good... Sometimes, poop happens

 

[Ron in Regina]

Can you name these drivers? Are they the drivers that have been in play
for 4-6 billion years so far?

I admit my ignorance above. Anybody else?

the focus is recent day, ya think? Natural variability plays a role... internal variability does not have a forcing factor... but you knew that, right? Since the bearGuy refuses to do so, please step-up and state what "natural factors" you interpret as being the principal causal tie(s) to today's relatively recent warming/climate change... one's you can substantiate - yes? You know - the "death knell" that the legitimate scientific community is refusing to accept/acknowledge... that one!!!

So, do you have some answers? I admit my ignorance from the get-go.
Post# 2347 "I honestly don't know."

I didn't come to this thread to preach my theories, as I don't have theories. Just questions.

 

[waldo]

... revisit the above quote in which you believe any climatic change is 'magical'

do you actually think your post revisionism will hide you're running away from the most direct and pointed question put to you? I stated climate doesn't just change on its own; I posed a question asking if you (others) believe climate just magically changes... I most certainly did not state that, as you said, "I believe any climatic change is magical". Why do you resort to fabrication?

you stated there are many drivers of climate... yet you refuse to name them and more pointed, you refuse to state which, or which of them, you attribute as the principal causal tie(s) behind the relatively recent global warming/climate change.

Can you please quote me, from the last 30 days where I state natural drivers are principle drivers please.

again, you state there are several drivers of climate; yet you refuse to name them. If you don't accept anthropogenic forcing as the principal driver behind today's relatively recent global warming/climate change... just what is it you're actually saying? Instead of all your bluster and accusations of dishonesty and fabrication, why not just step up and plainly state, clearly and unequivocally, what drivers you attribute to today's relatively recent global warming/climate change.

 

[captain morgan]

I ain't your google bitch.

Other than demanding that AGW is the doom of Mother Gaia, you've offered nothing to substantiate it.

You want to believe in your cult - that's your business, but I don't buy it... Further, you might be able to generate some form of actual 2-way communication if you contributed something other than gut feelings and over using the word 'denier' every time some backs you into a corner.

 

[gerryh]

calm down! I've made 2 requests in relation to 2 specific statements/claims; specifically the claims that no global warming has occurred (notwithstanding the cherry-pick starting point) and that no ocean warming has occurred. Both these statements/claims should be verifiable by those making them. Apparently, you guys are quite taken back when asked to actually substantiate your statements/claims.

Actually, no, it would be the other way around. Those claiming that ocean temps are changing and that over all temps globally are changing. The ones making the statement that no change has taken place need not "prove" squat.

 

[waldo]

So, do you have some answers? I admit my ignorance from the get-go.
Post# 2347 "I honestly don't know."

I didn't come to this thread to preach my theories, as I don't have theories. Just questions.

if you're genuine in your questioning... concerning forcings, per the IPCC:

Actually, no, it would be the other way around. Those claiming that ocean temps are changing and that over all temps globally are changing. The ones making the statement that no change has taken place need not "prove" squat.

then revel in your squatness!

 

[gerryh]

then revel in your squatness!

I'm not the one claiming the sky is falling. You are.

 

[waldo]

I ain't your google bitch.

Other than demanding that AGW is the doom of Mother Gaia, you've offered nothing to substantiate it.

You want to believe in your cult - that's your business, but I don't buy it... Further, you might be able to generate some form of actual 2-way communication if you contributed something other than gut feelings and over using the word 'denier' every time some backs you into a corner.

such vitrol! You should be proud, loud and proud over your denier labeling. It's a matter-of-fact labeling that carries nothing beyond it's... matter-of-fact labeling. From the very first post I recognize absolutely no semblance of respectful "2-way communication". Just read your own posts! Who speaks in terms of "Mother Gaia", of doom?

I'm not the one claiming the sky is falling. You are.

I didn't make any such claim. Why fabricate? Are you that desperate?

 

[gerryh]

I didn't make any such claim. Why fabricate? Are you that desperate?

Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. So what is your claim then?