Ohhh, it was a joke was it?
I didn't get that from your post. It appeared to be more of a simpleton's view of a subject that had no relevance, especially when you were called on it.
Wow! Back in kiddiegarden.
You know for someone that complained that Tonington attacks posters and whatnot, you seem to be right up there with what you accused him of. lmao
Who cares whether you get it or not?
"Called on it"? About what? Petros said the whole thing was concocted by Marxists and you agreed. All Les did was say that human involvement in global warming being concocted by Marxists was hilarious. It's a joke. And so far you deniers cannot prove that we haven't been an influence.
What difference does it make?!... Are you serious?
Don't you greenies get your panties all in a bunch the very minute that humanity emits more than the prescribed and predetermined amount of CO2 that is allotted to each person? I'd think that those societies that were building hundreds, if not thousands, of coal-fired electricity plants would get your hackles up.... Oh, I guess I forgot, it's only ghg's and CO2 produced from Western nations are evil - the rest are eco-friendly regardless of socio-economic elements.
hhhmmm Back in kiddiegarden again, huh?
You wouldn't even know what hit you. You haven't yet. lol
I can only assume from your past posts that the best is yet to come.
It's evident so far that you deniers can't disprove AGW. Anything you've posted so far has had holes poked in it. The evidence still shows AGW. It's tough that you don't like it. Perhaps you need a binkie?
Oh?.. Does youre snide and condescending attitude count as an insult, or is that a privilege that you reserve exclusively for yourself?
I suppose it never occurred to you that that you simply see what you want? lmao If someone posts something that you'd think he was being sarcastic because that's what you expected?
As far as Tonnington is concerned; I have an opinion of that individual that I've expressed in (relatively) non-offensive terms.. He/she is who they are, but in the end, they will eat a massive dose of crow - just like yourself in terms of this issue... The only question that remains; will you (or Tonnington) be big enough to man-up and admit fault, or will you find minuscule and retarded reasons to absolve yourself(s) of responsibility.
I guess we'll have to wait and see which will be eating crow.
My bet is you'll look for any and all excuses to absolve yourself of taking ownership of your statements.
You're projecting your childish little character onto him. He's more scientist than a lot of scientists. He readily goes with the evidence as it comes in whether it completely reverses his previous conclusions or not. He's a grown up, unlike you. You'd lose your bet.
Let's see... Why don't you start with explaining - in the context of anthropogenic global warming - the preponderance of past periods of glaciation (absent mankind) and consequent recession of said glaciers (again, absent mankind).
I think he'd say natural cycles have an influence on glaciation and glacial subsidence. He's already said that a couple times. What he also said was that this present natural cycle has been modified by human intervention.
I am so looking forward to being educated in terms of "calling a spade a spade".
I doubt you'd know any education if you saw it. lol
I await (for a long time I'd imagine) seeing any kind of response to this that is SCIENTIFIC AND REPEATABLE... After all, you are the voice of science after all.
Good luck.. (I'll understand if you're unable to really respond (other than with excuses and rhetoric Like dinosaur farts for example)).
Like I said, I doubt you'd know it if you saw it. You haven't seemed to yet.
BTW, learn to spell before you elect to take the high road with others Forrest.
lmao Back to the childishness again.
Alright, I'm done here. Evidently you hippies are going to believe whatever you want.
And you scientific illiterate will still be worshiping your god of denial.
I'm not sure what you're all getting out of this. Does it feel good to belong to a "special" green club? Perhaps you think you sound like experts or you think you're gaining some prestige? Perhaps you feel more in control of your own lives.
I don't know. I don't care.
But I know dogmatism when I hear it.
.... but not when you speak it. lol
BTW, the definition of dogmatism is "the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises." Climate scientists are studying the event profusely. It's the deniers that can't seem to keep up.
Lets compare pole movement and global warming. What do you think we'll find?
Well. Those two graphs either scream correlation or it screams coincidence?
A fool would say coincidence.
The 1982 drop is a dead give a way.
Lemme see, the graph of temp anomalies has a rapid increase since about 1900. The graph of polar movement shows a shift after about 1970. That's a 70 year difference. So where did the heat from polar movement go during those 70 years? A scenic tour around the galaxy?
Here's another coincidence:
And from here
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthchanges/gallery/Climate/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
