Search results

is this you derailing/disturbing again? Apparently... your "tude"... is one the moderator's around here have no problem with! :mrgreen:

are you dancing again? When you refer to "the last AGW"... when you speak to "800 years or so ago"... just what event were you speaking to? and... and... you have nothing to say about that GSA climate change position statement? Seeing as you claimed 2 organizations (you didn't name) that you...

still waiting petros... still waiting! The Geological Society of America Climate Change Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013Position Statement Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological...

per NOAA: Temperature anomaly map for the past December-January-February

yup... another taxi "runaway, runaway" move when repeatedly challenged to... put up! Standard Taxi Protocol!

yup... there you are again... with your "NOAA agenda"! :mrgreen: I asked you a few posts back to qualify your repeated claims about "massive global wealth transfer". You ignored that request... asking again! Let's see you do it again, ignore the request again, hey!

notwithstanding you're somewhat vague in what you're referring to... see Montreal Protocol... and recognize what global participation/cooperation between countries can realize in response to global impacting problems: per NOAA:

your posts don't speak to the science. Your posts don't differentiate "climate alarmists" from what you referred to as "considered experts". Oh wait, is it your claim/position that any scientist holding a position that accepts GW/AGW... is a "climate alarmist"... has no credibility?

sure lapper! My anonymous "credibility" as determined by the clubhouse crew! :mrgreen: I relish each and every opportunity to read you continuing to refer back to it and showcase your part in the marginalization attempt, one based on nothing more than a purposeful "petros dance"...

:mrgreen: standard denier response. Postulate a grandiose and unsubstantiated impact claim and attach it to a universal "WE don't know"... when challenged to provide a basis/foundation to the impact claim, state the onus in on the challenger! Of course, there's no shortage of study on the...

you're a fake-skeptic... a denier for denier's sake. You can't even speak to the basis/foundation of your "claimed skepticism"... but yowzer, you sure can make unsubstantiated statements!

Huh!!! I made the claim???... so this following quoted statement of yours isn't you claiming "some level of increased atmospheric CO2 will spur plant growth to realize an increased sink effect... one reducing atmospheric CO2 levels? This isn't you? :mrgreen: sure lapper! You the loyal...

go with your apparent posting strengths!

nice! Where's your data in any of this? :mrgreen: You sure make a lot of unsubstantiated statements, hey! again, particularly with a/YOUR focus on offsetting increasing atmospheric levels of CO2... I'm really keen to see you speak more directly, more specifically, to the types of plants you...

I focused on staple plant growth/yield..... in line with the usual denier "CO2 is plant food" meme! Typically in keeping with the profile that food production has in relation to population requirements, notwithstanding food security concerns. Certainly, as you say, "Seriously"..... if you're...

how curt of you to simply dismiss that chart of summary external radiative forcing components (natural and anthropogenic). Don't hesitate to provide a summary accounting and substantiation that attributes the relatively recent warming to internal mechanisms and/or natural external forcings...

already provided (several times over in past CC related threads); again, most recent per IPCC AR5 you offered up a statement a short while back stating you had arrived at an understanding that didn't allow you to accept GW/AGW... you didn't elaborate. Care to? you keep nattering on about...

what you ignored is the delineation I pointedly made between a small number of persons/scientists making predictions versus predictions/positions made and held by formalized scientific bodies/institutions. it is certainly your denier prerogative to ignore the prevailing scientific position and...

without regard to the accuracy of any of your points, your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the science... it's simply a way for you to couch your denial. Deniers gonna deny!

I'm rarely here... and now I'm off again - CUlater! By the by, you've made it clear you relish and enjoy the, as you called it, "ape poo flying" here. Enjoy it... nurture it! One would think all you guys would, at some point, get tired of simply jerking the exact same circle with the exact same...