Search results

do you not read conspiracy in your own words? Governments... ALL "chicken sh*t" appeasers to... to... "promoters"? Really? Who are your promoters that are sooooooo forceful, soooooooo influential to be in position to control world nation governments in the manner you imply? And world-wide...

are you in a mega-flap to get some recent posts buried? Just how furious are you prepared to ply your bull**** here? You keep flapping your lips about inconsequential predictions made by a few scientists... of course you do! That allows you to ignore all the real information that's hurtin' your...

exactly! Notwithstanding, of course, GHCN is not the only raw data source... as you surely know, other raw data sources from other organizations confirm the integrity of GHCN data by providing similar results. But why would that dissuade these fake-skeptics around here when they can simply rely...

do you have any clue as to how large an organization NASA is? With this comment of yours in reply to those NASA Grace satellite data sourced graphics detailing Antarctic/Greenland ice mass loss, your grand conspiracy needs to ramp itself up here because you've now set your conspiracy heights to...

if you feel you need a hockey-helmet to protect your denial from this very compelling information... then... you're gonna need... more:NASA's Grace satellite's data show that both Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass; since 2003:- Antarctica losing ice mass @ ~ 147 billion...

yes, they are very compelling - thanks.

are you self-taught... or did you get your psychology degree on the internets? given the ongoing whine-fest you're having over the assorted graphs I've been putting forward, do graphs make you... uneasy? Yes, that graph I linked to only went to 2009... your concern (and implication) is noted...

you sir, are a connoisseur! Thankee.

the running sham being played out here is for the 'usual suspects' to ignore/deny the long-term Arctic sea-ice melting trends for both extent and volume... ignore/deny those long-term trends while fixating on predictions made by a few scientists. And, of course, while doing that, adamantly state...

no - I"m not dishonest and I didn't lie. Answer the questions you refuse to answer... put an end to your silly-buggar routine. Why are you so hesitant to answer a few questions that will simply identify your personal position on warming and the principal causal tie that you understand has/is...

of course you are! As an immediate and timely example, simply look no further than that same graphic from a short while back; the one you suddenly want to distance yourself from. The 70's Global Cooling meme... the Arctic Ice Free meme, etc.. Neither of those were/are positions/statements that...

please... general location and related years? Thanks in advance.

get a grip Walter! The scientists suggest it's principally first year sea-ice... and deformed sea-ice. You know, the kind of ice that regularly melts in a subsequent years melting phase. And, as you know Walter, Antarctic sea-ice typically melts, almost to it's entirety, each and every...

you don't know what you're talking about. Member 'Tonington' put together an informative post a short-while back that spoke to actual surface-temperature warming... which, of course, was conveniently ignored by you (and your denier brethren). Notwithstanding, of course, your purposeful isolation...

what is the attribution behind the relatively recent warming, partiularly that of the most recent 50 years or so?

oh sure... ya'll high-five and back-slap each other in a fine show of what you, apparently, categorize as "2-way communication"! I gave you a respected chance for 2-way dialogue... I respectively answered your post (that kicked all this off) and in your brand of "2-way communication", you...

maybe you should quit ignoring the papers findings; again, would you like the post that details your fail replayed for you... here?

you're deluded! Answer the questions posed to you and stop you dishonesty in charging dishonesty. If you take exception to being labeled a denier (which isn't an intended pejorative), you've been asked at least a dozen+ times to answer questions that would allow you to state your position on...

not as an attribution for the relatively recent warming... your own chosen authors/paper says exactly that! Would you like the post that details this re-quoted for you here? ya ya... you guys... and gal... are the epitome of "2-way communication"! :mrgreen:

bullshyte... I repeatedly asked you questions to allow you to state your position. You repeatedly refused, choosing instead to play silly-buggar while playing out your "dishonesty refrain". Again, in that regard, the dishonesty is yours... your refusal to categorically answer those questions and...