Search results

please sir, your comments are wholly inappropriate and uncalled for? Certainly you can't expect your unsubstantiated statements/claims to go unchallenged... surely not? If this is the kind of reaction you have to direct challenge on your statements/claims... your unsubstantiated and repeated...

why not respect the Forum and its membership? Why not respect the work effort and time expenditure of CC Forum moderator, 'Ron in Regina', in purging these threads of prior blatant trolling? Why do you continue to troll with comments such as yours? Have you no respect for this forum, for its...

not sure who the "mockers" of U.S. Republican Senator Murkowski would be; however, the scientist's quote that shows up repeatedly in relation to Murkowski's comment on volcanoes is one Princeton professor, Michael Oppenheimer... who was asked by NPR for a comment on Murkowski's statement...

any 'positive' attachment that might genuinely associate with a "agree to disagree" summation is lost entirely with your use of "yadda, yadda, yadda" and your, yet again, repetition angle. As I said in my last post, apparently, to you, your ongoing repeat of the same thing (ad nauseum) presumes...

beav, beav... already covered... calling the guy a (former) "NASA Scientist/Climatologist" is the BS under-pinning to this piece of crapola. From an earlier post: oh my! A guy. "John L. Casey", with no related background, no formal journal publications in anything, an undergraduate science...

member petros... that's a most inappropriate and uncalled for response! If only you could channel your energy, your hostility, toward answering the challenge put to you; again, in this most immediate example regard, is there anything you'd like to offer as a comparative causal tie reference...

because, without even looking at it, your Tisdale guy has been shown to be wrong... consistently wrong. It's why he's a denier blogger, being flogged by Tony Willard Watts on WTFIUWT. No one knows who the guy is; and he acknowledges he hasn't published anything related in 'decades'... and again...

that's rich... is there anything you'd like to offer as a comparative causal tie reference between the last/any interglacial and today's relatively recent warming period? Of course, this is the same question you keep dodging in your perpetual want to flog the warming of the Holocene Optimum...

no - you're still equating an end result... to total warming. That's not what climate sensitivity is; by saying so you're, for example, foregoing additional warming due to additional emissions (beyond doubling)... by saying so you're, for example, foregoing additional warming due to long-term...

now you're just insulting. I'm giving props to the efforts made by a board moderator to clean up trolling from several threads. Is there a problem with that... for you? this is now the 2nd time you're purposely framing conflict... in another thread, you just a few minutes back blasted out of...

didn't miss it - see here: my question to you is obvious... why would you simply, and automatically, accept that 'Tisdale' article as having any credibility?

my posts, typically, are replies to other posts; you refer to my replies that don't align with your denier sentiment as "trolling". Apparently, to you, those originating posts (that I'm responding) that align with your denier sentiment, they're fine... you likee those posts! the author of your...

what was your point? I certainly didn't exclude myself from the very statements I made... again, what was your point?

I read you as incorrectly implying that climate sensitivity equates to total warming... am I right? after pressing you to state what sensitivity you were actually speaking to, you finally stated you were speaking to transient, to TCR... although you initially spoke of a lowering of the IPCC...

what's quite telling is that one of the members here recently described all my responses as trolling... which, for the most part, are simply responses to posts others put forward. Apparently, to this member, my responses which don't align with his denier positioning are, to him, trolling...

again Walter? Yet again? You can't simply keep dropping your references to Antarctic sea-ice extent without speaking to what significance you presume to... see in it... to make from it. You continue to ignore the lengthy posts scrutinizing your simple Antarctic sea-ice extent C&P references...

the internet is free for you to express your opinion; the internet thanks you.

models are certainly under continuous revision towards improvement, reducing uncertainty, etc.; I would be interested in you highlighting an example of your declared "caught in a lie... one that resulted in a, as you stated, "quick model change". Citation request - thanks in advance.

my post was a sincere thankful statement on the efforts put forward by CC Forum moderator, 'Ron in Regina', to clean this thread up and expunge the, as he stated, "more repulsive and blatant trolling". I expect that would have taken time/effort on his part; accordingly, your post is not helpful...

Ron - thanks for all your time and effort in working to remove trolling from this thread! I trust all members will recognize your efforts, respect them, respect the CC Forum and its membership and attempt to quell ongoing, as you say, "repulsive and blatant trolling".