New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
By alarmist you mean realist.
Those poor countries had their wealth pillaged by rich countries to begin with.
Waldo! Where ya been?
Yes, yes, we know insults, and endless arrogance are only acceptable when uttered by the Magnificent One you see in the mirror every morning............lol
Accept my apologies... More often than not, whenever I attempt to spell the word weir - er, waldo, it comes out as weirdo.
A simple mistake, that's all
:mrgreen:
It's really a complex mix of a self-loathing, arrogant, egomaniacal ideologue that is so psychologically broken that they can not acknowledge reality
I can tell that this particular, factual scientific study is the silver bullet that even you recognize kills your position.
The notion that the science is irrefutable, coupled with the authors professional humility is like a dash of ice water in your face.
You know this to be true, but for some unknown reason, you just can't allow yourself to publicly acknowledge reality as you are far to heavily invested in the sinking ship you call AGW/CC.
.... Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to healing bud... Think about it.. You know that I am right
Of course they won't bring up this study... They know that it represents the facts and they also know that as more people in the public space support these facts, their funding will dry up on the spot.
... They rely on a raft of useful idiots to keep sending them money so they can head to these tropical resorts to whine about AGW/CC and/or temperate cities where they can max out their expense accounts that you fund.
All churches pass the plate around but only a few adjust their gospels as time changes the gospel content as knowledge advances.
this is your alarmist? As I pointed out, you sure likee this OP referenced paper from a fairly profiled alarmist with a long history of being an IPCC lead author/editor... a scientist who strongly advocates for mitigation responses to AGW. How do you reconcile yourself in this regard?
there are many... many... scientists doing research on atmospheric aerosols and their radiative forcing component. This single scientist has come forward, on his own, by himself, with a paper he singularly wrote... in his own statement he cautions about placing too much early emphasis on a/his single paper... that he awaits responses to it. Of course, that is the norm... this paper has simply been published and has yet to receive any formal comment/challenge... there has been NO PEER RESPONSE. Yet somehow, you keep referring to the "facts" within this single paper from a single scientist. :mrgreen:
I suggest, again, you take the time to actually read the scientist's own statement that I image-linked to. It's clear you haven't a clue as to the number of studies regularly coming forward that are focused on sensitivity... apparently, to you, the findings of any paper's that postulate a mid-range-to-high(er) sensitivity are "not factual"!
Denier!!!
When are you going to accept the natural cycles of an interglacial period? There are 17 datasets to choose from. All had temperatures and ghgs that rose and fell all by themselves.
When are you going to accept the natural cycles of an interglacial period? There are 17 datasets to choose from. All had temperatures and ghgs that rose and fell all by themselves.
are you prepared to state/claim... and support... that today's relatively recent warming is attributed to a "natural cycle"?
This is what happens during interglacials.
The IPCC has oodles of info on the past 17 over 2.3 million years. All with temperature peaks and valleys.
Are you going to deny they existed?
The IPCC has oodles of info on the past 17 over 2.3 million years. All with temperature peaks and valleys.
Are you going to deny they existed?
so what? Again, to the question you've chosen to ignore:
with your reference to the IPCC are you also advising the IPCC is stating and holding a position that today's relatively recent warming is attributed to a "natural cycle"? :mrgreen:
now you're just trolling... by the by, why are you fixated on the denier cherry-pick year dujour?
you're a waste of time!
Last edited:
Yup. Solar activity plummeted 500 years ago and returned 158 years ago slowly warming us back up.
100% fact and once again we are seeing the solar activity waning again cause a loss of 2/3 of the rate of warming.
100% fact and once again we are seeing the solar activity waning again cause a loss of 2/3 of the rate of warming.
I see that you continue to attack the poster instead of answering specific questions. Walter asks a question to clarify your previous statement and instead of answering you attack him by calling him a troll and a waste of time.
coming back... purposely coming back... with nonsense tied to 97/98 is trolling. Nothing more, nothing less. When the guy continues to post nothing but images of Antarctic sea-ice extent... while adding nothing else... while continuing to avoid the repeated questions/challenges put to him, yes... the guy is a waste of time.
I see, so your continued references to CC rules concerning personal attacks, do not apply to you, but only apply to others that you feel have attacked you. Ok. I get it. Thank you for clarifying that.
what personal attack? Labeling someone, like you, a denier is not a personal attack; is not a pejorative... it's a statement of fact? Your fake outrage and added nothingness to this thread is noted!
just because you've been cornered and you can't respond to the direct challenges put to you... that's no reason for you to lose it and throw, per your norm, purposeful insults. Tell me, are your insults what this board's moderators want... and encourage? Say yes, hey! :mrgreen:
Ahhhh..... so if I couch a statement as a "fact" then it is not a personal attack. Ok, thank you. I will keep that in mind.
why do you insist in claiming the denier label is an attack? When I label you a denier I'm simply stating, per your own statements, that you deny certain facets of GW/AGW/CC. Again, not a pejorative... a simple statement of fact.