Search results

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...

please sir! You offered concern over my quote change-up. I acknowledged your concern and advised the next time I changed a quote, I would follow your lead and do what you do when you change a quote... that is to say, I will add your covering caveat "FTFY", as you have done many times over. As I...

yes Locutus, you did that... but you also removed my reply! Hardly sporting, hey sport? oh... are you cooking with gas? But ya, my mistake. Now, I've read you alter quotes in the past... and a CC search shows me that when you've done the exact same thing (several times) you add in "FTFY". my...

*altered quote by Walter removed

Walter, why is "only weather", as you say, a "good thing"?

Walter - good on ya

no - again, all data adjustments to the raw data have been formally published to document the rationale/science behind them. Please step forward to show the formal publications that have successfully challenged the related science, the related papers that reflect on those adjustments... sure you...

Watts is the epitome of denier stooopid! Watts trips over himself regularly... cause all the regular 'Watts-watchers' revel in replaying his idiocy across the blogosphere. Watts' big-time failures with temperature anomalies are legion... this coming from the guy who presumed to tout the failings...

your silly buggar act isn't... asking for help! Take it up with NASA! The 'classic definition' of climate is well understood and recognized by anyone who presumes to follow the subject. The 30 year time-frame is long understood... by anyone who presumes to follow the subject. Isn't that you...

again, thanks for your... moderation! Respectively, I appreciate you're pissed for continually having your grand denier C&P gems from your regular go-to shyteHouse outlets shown for the crapola they are! :mrgreen: I get it; you're pissed. However, given your apparent difficulty in separating...

say what? I answered Walter's question... is there a problem? Oh wait, I expect you must think Walter's (and other's) ongoing routine of repeatedly posting weather updates while offering up some dumbass "good thing it's only weather" type comment is informative. Is that right? But hey, hundreds...

oh snap! Now I realize why you're so confused. Walter, the World Meteorological Organization puts out a formal definition... try a googly. Or try this NASA statement: I trust we won't see anymore of your confusion in this regard, right?

aren't you just so numbingly clever? It's called weather Walter... weather! more weather Walter: Australia to bake as western heat heads east but hey now, Walter... is the following also weather?

just a C&P Locutus... nothing to say yourself? That's quite the source! Wingnut "Tim Ball" writing an article sourced from WTFIUWT! :mrgreen: But hey now, what kind of a title is that for the article, hey Locutus? Why, it's the IPCC that actually states, "Water vapour is the most important...

yup! The Koch Brothers thought they would weigh in and sponsor an "independent analysis" of surface temperature... and who better to get than renowned denier Richard Muller... unfortunately for the Koch Brothers and deniers at large, the underlying integrity within Muller (and associates;re...

you already tried... and failed... with this tabloid hack bullshyte earlier in this post: so-called "jounalist" Booker has a long history of debunked misinformation... the guy's a hack extraordinaire parroting the failures of other deniers... like Homewood who he parrots here!

Re: Climate scientist wins defamation case against right leaning National Post isn't the 1st related apology/retraction the National Post has had to issue... and it won't be the last! Next up, Mark Steyn, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Of course it appears it's...

no - yours is a non sequitur in regards my reference beav, beav... your gratuitous attempt to curry favour... will not... curry favour!

since you quote a statement of mine in this, your quoted reply... did I say something to specifically warrant your comment? Notwithstanding you seem to continually reference Lindzen as some "skeptic authority" - go figure! As for the, as you say, quality of 'his science', he takes care of that...

is that "the argument"... or "your argument"? :mrgreen: Don't hesitate to make your case that the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent warming is..... "natural cycles"