Search results

noted: you refuse to support your IPCC related statement

since your quote had a reference to.... to me... let me alert you to the fact I am anything but a "new convert". I've experienced denier lightweights, like you, for a very long time. You're all bluster and fluster and have absolutely no ability to support anything you ever say. Same ole, same...

do you claim to have an..... open mind?

yup - I asked him to provide a cite and his shadow Cappy pulled his favourite 'googleBitch' play on me... once again! Of course, taxslave's comeback is to simply say, "he read about it another prior thread"! Geezaz, these denier types around here will say just about anything in their postured...

you were just schooled on proof vs. science... and still you persist! Comprehension fail, hey! easy for yout to bleat out isn't it? Just another of your porkies.

citation request

extent growth attributed to stronger winds and slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves... you do know the difference between extent and volume/mass, right? You do know that Antarctic sea-ice almost completely melts annually, right?

what about it? Nothing that couldn't have been corroborated elsewhere; say NOAA, NCDC, NASA. I noticed you barked out a similar comment about UEA recently in another thread... one of your go-to talking points? cap'nHand, that reads like another of your porkies!

invariably, it's always the loudest blowhard, barking deniers that have no grasp of the fundamentals! obviously, both terms are still in use/relevant... apparently you don't understand the distinction - go figure. always the low-hanging fruit for you, hey? It would be so easy to have a...

quite the denier gabfest going on in here! what was it you said to me in the other thread... right back at ya! of course, given your predisposition, I doubt you'd accept any kind of evidence (uncertainty qualified), or as you say, "proof". Per the IPCC: Climate change Climate change...

if you might indulge a request, the label "AGW truther" is one I've only ever encountered here on this board. Can you provide a definition for it - thanks in advance. what data has disproved the greenhouse effect to the point of your claimed "keeps changing" claim? of course, it's a typical...

legitimate skepticism is the cornerstone of science. Someone who can make a legitimate case for their skepticism is a genuine skeptic. Being in denial, for the sake of denial, does not make one a skeptic... it makes you a fake-skeptic. My collective assessment of your posts, particularly your...

I do apologize if I incorrectly took your response as curt/dismissive. in the other thread you spoke of climate change; you said nothing about attribution. Apparently, to you, attaching qualification is "quibbling about percentages". Either you accept the theory of AGW, or you don't accept it...

as I expect you're aware, there's an assortment of 40-50 year roadmap type strategies that project how to realistically reduce fossil-fuel reliance. Typically, most denier types will speak of technology gaps; that the roadmaps can't be scaled properly and accordingly, suggest there's no point in...

please calm yourself. I had no "walking-in-tude" or any expectation of setting everyone straight. I've simply responded to the posts I've received. If you truly think those posts have been open, receptive and accepting, you're not being honest yourself. As I already stated, apparently, you...

then clear it up! Quit your silly-*** game and answer the request repeatedly put to you. Assert or deny... simple stuff. If you aren't a denier and state so within your answer I will most certainly apologize for the incorrect labeling. the standard??? Just how many ways are there to claim...

unless you unequivocally state that you accept anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel emissions as the principal causal tie behind global warming/climate change you are a denier... you have a degree of denial. Again, it's a label; one not intended as a pejorative. It's simply a matter-of-fact...

I spend a fair amount of time hiking in the mountains; to me, nothing could be more indicative of AGW impacts than the damage done by mountain pine-beetles.

as I said when I first came on board... the low-brow level of discourse on this board is quite significant. Your comments and your inability to control your abuse/insult is quite telling. But then again, deniers gonna hate!

you claimed I incorrectly labeled you as a denier. I've asked you repeatedly to assert your acceptance... to deny your denial. Instead you play this silly-buggar game claiming dishonesty. You've been given multiple opportunities to clear this up; again: "Why not settle out your own very overt...