Categorically untrue. It all depends on who is making the waffles....and "waffling' online doesn't count.
Just for the record.
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Categorically untrue. It all depends on who is making the waffles....and "waffling' online doesn't count.
Just for the record.
There's another excellent example of your dishonesty.
I've asked you several times to prove I'm a denier, it's one of those questions you claim to have answered. And yet to date, you have not forwarded a single scrap of evidence to prove your claim.
Not surprising though. You have no integrity and are simply a dishonest agenda troll.
are you speaking to the original paper you linked to? If so, it absolutely doesn't address your claims concerning sunspot influence on glacier fluctuations... for the most immediate period of warming in question. Of course, correlation between sunspots and glacier fluctuations exist in the past... that's pretty much a given. But that's not what you postured over, is it? Your linked paper directly attributes the relatively recent glacier fluctuations to... as it specifically states... "atmospheric warming"!
right sista! You already tried your butch act on me a while back... you're gangsta-scary in your mind only! :lol:
To even ask a question gets derision from this clown. Even a sincere question, which we've witnessed forum members posit to him. So of course his mantra has to be his way or the highway. He's an idealogue, proclaiming some righteous view that I doubt he understands adequately.
bullshyte... I repeatedly asked you questions to allow you to state your position. You repeatedly refused, choosing instead to play silly-buggar while playing out your "dishonesty refrain". Again, in that regard, the dishonesty is yours... your refusal to categorically answer those questions and define your position on warming and attribution therein. You sir, are dishonest in that regard. Answer the bloody questions and put an end to your silly-buggar routine!
care to give an example of a sincere question asked? I've yet to read you state a single related GW/AGW/CC comment... until I do your summation on "adequate understanding" remains... inadequate.
Exactly, what we have here is a person who thinks communication is a one way thing, that involves TALKING only with no thought to LISTENING!
I always appreciate it when you people post a disclaimer at the beginning of your post.
And true to your disclaimer, what followed is just that.
Excellent, that will make giving you and your posts the disrespect they warrant so much easier in the future.
Thanks in advance.
not as an attribution for the relatively recent warming... your own chosen authors/paper says exactly that! Would you like the post that details this re-quoted for you here?
ya ya... you guys... and gal... are the epitome of "2-way communication"! :mrgreen:
you're deluded! Answer the questions posed to you and stop you dishonesty in charging dishonesty. If you take exception to being labeled a denier (which isn't an intended pejorative), you've been asked at least a dozen+ times to answer questions that would allow you to state your position on warming... and attribution therein. You refuse to do so. Instead we get your long-standing nattering distraction and peeling away from those questions... while you at the same time throw down your charges of dishonesty. Again, you are the only dishonest person in this exchange between you and I. Answer the questions... what are so afraid of... you daBear, aren't you?
maybe you should quit ignoring the papers findings; again, would you like the post that details your fail replayed for you... here?
Ignoring the IPCC bible that ignores we are climbing out of the coldest spell of the Holocene?
oh sure... ya'll high-five and back-slap each other in a fine show of what you, apparently, categorize as "2-way communication"! I gave you a respected chance for 2-way dialogue... I respectively answered your post (that kicked all this off) and in your brand of "2-way communication", you refused to address it and instead labeled it "of no substance... a Gish Gallop"! Apparently, your brand of "2-way communication" doesn't include any discussion of anything that rattles your lil' clubhouse and your personal misconceptions, hey!
yet another of your pet theories... "warming is due to coming out of the LIA"! :mrgreen:
what is the attribution behind the relatively recent warming, partiularly that of the most recent 50 years or so?
Are we lacking sunspots which were near non-existent during the Maunder minimum?
Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries - environment - 01 November 2013 - New Scientist