I never bullshted I don't need any reason to call bullshte to a statement you made, but you did...
Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
as you claim... as you continue to claim. However, as before, as always, you refuse to answer the challenge that would allow you to substantiate that claim. As you've openly stated, you have NO REASON to have made the claim, and you believe you require NO REASON to have made the claim. NO REASON... NO REASON REQUIRED??? That's what you're going to continue this charade of yours on? Again, the full anecdotal statement appears below... step up and quit deflecting. Step up and answer the question/challenge you have now refused many times over. Answer the question/challenge:
Climate Realists @ClimateRealists Analysis Shows Claim That “CO2 Concentration Is Highest In 600,000 Years” Is Highly Dubious
http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/03/analysis-shows-claim-that-co2-concentration-is-highest-in-600000-years-is-highly-dubious-at-best/ …
“CO2 Has Never Been This High In 600,000 Years!”… FALSE! By Ed CarylIt is true that in the ice core figures, CO2 measures from 180 to 200 ppm during the coldest periods and peaks at around 300 ppm during the interglacial periods. But it is well known that the ice core measurement resolution is a few hundred years for recent times and spreads to a few thousand years for the most ancient measurements. Thus the ice core measurements can’t show short periods of high atmospheric CO2.http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/03/analysis-shows-claim-that-co2-concentration-is-highest-in-600000-years-is-highly-dubious-at-best/ …
again, member 'Locutus', I can't seem to find your denier blog source ("Ed Caryl") actually formally publishing anything to support his statement falsifying the claim that, "CO2 Has Never Been This High In 600,000 Years"... could you help a brother out here, member 'Locutus'... something other than a denier blog reference, yes? (note: I took the liberty of bold colour-highlighting a/the key point/premise put forward in your linked reference:
in any case, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) organization seems to know a thing or two about ice cores... and dagnabit, they've upped that "never been this high" figure to, "The magnitude and rate of the recent increase (in atmospheric CO2) are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years"... per the BAS, fully data sourced inclusive of high-resolution references: Ice cores and climate change
Geez, Waldo, you are really into this stuff. You should take a day off and enjoy the weather!
geezaz member Locutus! Is your C&P trigger so fast you don't even recall you've just posted this in another thread a short while back? Here let me help ya out with the same reply to this absolute BS you've once again posted:
I've provided a couple of past posts that speak to an earlier related NASA reference showing how the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass based on NASA satellite data... this member 'Locutus' NASA link simply extends upon that available data... there most certainly is nothing within that provided link (or it's related study) that would allow member Locutus' referenced author to make the claim, per the article title that, "Greenland Ice Melt is Geothermal caused and not Manmade'
more pointedly, in regards the second of member Locutus' referenced links, the GFZ German Research Center, and the related study, this is what one of the study co-authors (I. Rogozhina) is quoted as saying:
Rogozhina and her colleagues modelled the effect of the thin lithosphere over three million years up to the present day, including factors to take into account the effect of the climate and ice sheet dynamics. The model was benchmarked using seismic data, readings of the Earth's magnetic field and ice core measurements.
It should be made clear that this new modelling does not suggest that the new melting of the ice sheets in Greenland over the last 40 years is due to the Earth's mantle. Basal melting can be thought of as a standard background level of melting. Increased surface melting due to higher air temperatures (i.e. climate change) is a new man-made phenomenon".
Rogozhina expressed frustration that the team's research could be misconstrued in this way, saying "both processes are contributing", adding that surface melting is more important on shorter time scales -- basal melting-driven processes might have an impact over tens of thousands of years.
there ya go member Locutus, member taxi... your C&P wizardry only takes you the time to... cut and paste. Tracking down your nonsense and showing it for what it is (BS), that takes a bit of extra effort. Effort you so-called "skeptics" certainly aren't willing to invest... right Locutus, right taxi?It should be made clear that this new modelling does not suggest that the new melting of the ice sheets in Greenland over the last 40 years is due to the Earth's mantle. Basal melting can be thought of as a standard background level of melting. Increased surface melting due to higher air temperatures (i.e. climate change) is a new man-made phenomenon".
Rogozhina expressed frustration that the team's research could be misconstrued in this way, saying "both processes are contributing", adding that surface melting is more important on shorter time scales -- basal melting-driven processes might have an impact over tens of thousands of years.
I guess that's all ya got... ya gots no more! :mrgreen:
ya see member lil' taxi... it's not, as you say, "schtick"... it's me showing what turds you guys drop... it's me refuting your absolute crap with real science/real legitimate references, not your schlock-in-stock denier blogs! Clearly you've got nothing else to respond with but your "yawning self". Keep up your failed work taxi! Well done.
you're just another clubhouseBRO lapping it up! Why not try to actually add something of related subject matter to this thread instead of your perpetual want to stir the shyte?
Actually there once was some fairly intelligent discussion here. Then you came along and dropped the intelligence level like a polar vortex.
what fairly "intelligent discussion" here? I've not seen any, not from the clubhouseBROs. Oh ya, there's a lot of C&P wizardry, a lot of back-slapping and high-fiving over your denial... there's a lot of that. But you guys just go all "goofy" when someone actually shows your BS for what it is! You're probably the worst, cause you bark the loudest and you can't speak to anything subject matter related. Like I said, step out again... I'd like to showcase another of your two-fer BIG TIME FAILS!
go with your strengths member DuhSleeper! Go with your strengths! :mrgreen: NO BALLS DuhSleeper, NO BALLS to actually step-up and state the basis for your claim. NO BALLS DuhSleeper!
:mrgreen: perfect! Yes, clearly, to you... you need no reason! You're a loyal lapper who chose to support your clubhouseBRO, member petros, for NO REASON. On what basis do you claim, as you say, "lying through his teeth"? You have no reason... and you repeat it, yet again! Perfect, NO BALLS DuhSleeper, perfect!
Instead of flapping your lips for nothing tell me "why" a reason is needed to call bullshte.