Search results

mentalfloss: climate sensitivity, on various levels, has been under focused research for many years. A generally recognized range and most likely figure was established by the IPCC in AR4 (and earlier iterations but with higher degrees of uncertainty). The latest AR5 iteration has reduced the...

yes, until you respond you will remain positioned... and labeled as a denier. Again, it's a simple question you refuse to answer... I'll ask once more: do you accept that the principal causal tie to the relatively recent warming is one attributed to anthropogenic sources - yes or no? It's a very...

ah yes... we've seen this same comeback from you before! Yes, clearly... when you're cornered and challenged to support/substantiate your ongoing unsubstantiated/unsupported statements and claims... tell your questioner, your challenger, to "go fetch/go read"! Oh my! :mrgreen:

this is not the first time... it won't be the last time... that you show you know nothing about the subject matter. However you choose to interpret the OP articles interpretations put forth by the 2 Cato Institute deniers... they are not denying, as you say, "man made global warming"... they are...

your denier fake outrage is noted! :mrgreen: I already made reference to your whining, sniveling, pissant reference to the "waste of time"... as I said, that's in relation to Walter's ongoing charade where he continues to post nothing but images of Antarctic sea-ice extent... and he does this...

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.

you're the one claiming, apparently... that the warming of today's relatively recent period is simply attributed to "coming out of the Little Ice Age". You keep saying it... you keep being asked to substantiate it. You refuse to do so. again, citation request again, citation request 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...

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...

other than purposely disrupting threads with your continued nonsense... that you absolutely refuse to support/substantiate... you have nothing to add. as before... as always... don't hesitate to provide your support/substantiation that the relatively recent warming can be attributed to simple...

all the questions/challenges put to you over Antarctic sea-ice extent await... why are you forever avoiding them? By the by, why do also continue to avoid the overall Antarctic ice mass loss. Please claim the satellite data is "fudged"!!! :mrgreen:

as before... as always... don't hesitate to provide your support/substantiation that the relatively recent warming can be attributed to simple "coming out the Little Ice Age"!!! :mrgreen:

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...

what's causing the sea-ice extent to increase? Notwithstanding it's seasonal, single-year ice that melts almost to its entirety, freezing season-to-melting season. you keep doing nothing but posting images of Antarctic sea-ice extent... while you keep ignoring the repeated questions/challenges...

you're purposely avoiding speaking to your own multiple ongoing references made to the "Holocene Optimum". You're adding nothing here other than to show, yet again, you're peeling away from the repeated challenges put to you.

are you prepared to state/claim... and support... that today's relatively recent warming is attributed to a "natural cycle"?

when are you going to address the repeated challenges put to you to correlate the warming of your much favoured Holocene Optimum to today's relatively recent warming?

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...

more Walter? More? Yet more of your nattering fixation with Antarctic sea-ice extent? It's a shame you can't actually step-up and respond to the pointed posts you continue to ignore... that you can't address the (repeated) challenge/questions put to you, hey! all you've done is drop yet another...

again, do you believe your overt insults are conducive to positive member relationships and respect for each other as members of this forum? Again, do you believe your overt insults are what this board's moderators are wanting... are encouraging - again, please say YES! :mrgreen: oh nooos...