New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
can you actually contribute to a thread's subject matter... can you rise above the personal insults you post?
I have accepted the science... You might consider the same.
Money talks, bullsh*t walks
Capt Morgan
So you hold no personal position but insist that everyone else listen to your BS about the so called science, interesting. All i asked for was some personal predictions from you regarding AGW and you refuse. Interesting method of argument you have there, no conviction whatsoever.
keep showcasing your openess and willingness to consider a position counter to your denial! :mrgreen: ... You suggested "lies", now "BS" and "so-called science". And you think that's the approach to engage someone... notwithstanding you have no interest in anything but your own denial. You appear to have significant comprehension difficulty; here, read my original reply again... go slower this time!I've said a lot in this thread that speaks to the OP and sensitivity... drawing several direct references to the IPCC position. Of course, if you had any personal understanding and knowledge foundation to draw from on this subject matter, you would recognize this! There's certainly nothing preventing you from engaging around the OP and my posts that relate to it... one wonder's why you wouldn't have done so! Go figure, hey! :mrgreen:
oh ya baby! You're all over this OPs single paper/scientist reference... and, as you say, the "facts" within it! Of course, the way you measure "facts" is very, very interesting. If I were to lay down ongoing references to the daily stream of new published papers supporting the consensus and the theory of AGW... would you similarly view those uncontested, unchallenged, non-peer responded to papers as... "facts"? Ya think! :mrgreen:
You are a pis sant, a moron, a troll, and a turd.
Indeed, I have wiped better things than you off the sole of my boot after a stroll through the barnyard.
Oh, no insult intended, as these words are not solely used in relation to you.
I have stated my position in the past. I have stated my position directly to you, in the past. You just don't like the answer. A yes or no will not cover my position. Plus, You seem to have more of a problem answering a direct question than I do.
BTW, in case you cannot figure it out, i am quoting this so that everyone other than you and flossie can see your inability a answer a simple question. It must be hell to spout it but not be able to understand English.
If it were only the one paper.
Mind you, the documented frauds on the truther position speak volumes:mrgreen:
How about.... the rest of us will...... when you and wally answer the questions concerning past predictions of the "truthers".
of course a yes or no will, as you say, "cover your position". Clearly, by your long established refusal to answer the simple question, you refuse to acknowledge and accept AGW... that sir, that is your denial. That is you, the denier of AGW. You sir are a denier. It makes no sense for you to couch your position in a veiled nuance... stand up for your position, be loud and proud of it! Again, denier is simply a label; not a pejorative... it's a straight out statement on your position...
define your use of "truther"... what questions are you referring to... and what past predictions is your denier self so, apparently, perturbed over?
you were pointedly referring to this single paper referenced in this thread's OP. You spoke of the paper's "facts". Again, a paper that has yet to receive any peer-response. Apparently, something you apparently favour... is "factual" simply because its been published - go figure, hey!
documented frauds??? Such as?