Search results

and there's absolutely no 'tude in your posts... no, none at all! ;)

I came into this thread and was immediately jumped on! There was no semblance of open and respectful dialogue. I respond in kind... no, I give better than I get! Can you advise what way the highway runs for an absolute and committed die-hard denier?

you quite the perceptive drive-by arteest! Like I said, do you actually have anything to contribute to the topic itself? I answered you; I can't account for your lack of comprehension

of course, you've elevated beyond the lower level discussion on particular aspects of forcing impacts; do you honestly feel I could have interpreted your questions, these questions, from your most recent posts? Is this you guys being "honest" in your discussion approach? a claim in regards to...

do you have anything to contribute other than a drive-by?

as I said, I have no intention of trying to piece together and make sense of your continued nonsense. If you have a specific question, ask it. I have no context with which to answer the "your claim" question... put it in context.

yet more fabrication? I was told this board had an assortment of die-hard know-nothing deniers... who could have imagined it was this pervasive?

I have no intention of attempting to put together your posting sequence. If you have a question, ask it directly.

yes, clearly... you should be able to plainly and clearly support your statements. For some reason, you're wildly avoiding any such effort: again, you state there are several drivers of climate; yet you refuse to name them. If you don't accept anthropogenic forcing as the principal driver...

that's quite the denier tactic! Both items mentioned are measurable. If you choose to make the original claim (as was done, by others, when I entered this thread) that oceans aren't warming, that global warming isn't occuring, you most certainly have the means to be able to confirm your "no...

such vitrol! You should be proud, loud and proud over your denier labeling. It's a matter-of-fact labeling that carries nothing beyond it's... matter-of-fact labeling. From the very first post I recognize absolutely no semblance of respectful "2-way communication". Just read your own posts! Who...

if you're genuine in your questioning... concerning forcings, per the IPCC: then revel in your squatness!

do you actually think your post revisionism will hide you're running away from the most direct and pointed question put to you? I stated climate doesn't just change on its own; I posed a question asking if you (others) believe climate just magically changes... I most certainly did not state...

the focus is recent day, ya think? Natural variability plays a role... internal variability does not have a forcing factor... but you knew that, right? Since the bearGuy refuses to do so, please step-up and state what "natural factors" you interpret as being the principal causal tie(s) to...

it didn't take long at all to expose your nonsense. But then again, I expect it's in full display throughout this thread. you stated 2 statement I made were absurd. When challenged you failed to explain why you felt they were absurd statements. Let me ask you again: you claim "drivers" are...

noted: you refuse to support your claim that "I made something up". Again, why would anyone get emotional in discussing anything with a know-nothing denier? -b the low-brow discourse in this thread speaks volumes about discussing anything with deniers. Clearly, any push-back has them reeling in...

if bluster/fabrication is your way of avoiding pointed questions, well done. Again, you claim I made something up - step up and support your claim... what did I make up?

why would I be upset/emotional with your nonsense? Clearly you're a denier wannabe! What have I made up?

your point? You mean the one where you assert climate doesn't change in relation to forcings? That one?

which drivers do you attribute to the relatively recent warming/climate change? The magical "natural ones"?