Peer review climate science revealed

Onceler said:
Nice google. Now, explain what that means?
Click to expand...

why don't you explain why you're asking it of me? it sure looks as if you're asking it of me in order to counter that you haven't talked about it for years....maybe you don't really know what you 're talking about....i mean you were discussing a time period since 1990....

and onceler....if i googled it as you claim....then it wouldn't be anything for me to copy something off of google....:pke:
 
Yurt said:
why do you lie so much? i'm assuming you're talking to me as you're were in fact trolling me last week....what is unfortunate for you is that you started it....you were not giving me a lesson as i did not troll you....nor do i even post to you everyday....you're the one who started that shit last week....it is absolutely false that i did that to you....

i really thought this week was going to be an honest one for you, i'm disappointed....but still hold out hope for you
Click to expand...

I didn't start it, you POS. Your response on this thread to me is your m.o. to me on this board. You always clamor for debate, then post this little BS troll shit.

Regardless, please explain AGW for us.
 
Yurt said:
why don't you explain why you're asking it of me? it sure looks as if you're asking it of me in order to counter that you haven't talked about it for years....maybe you don't really know what you 're talking about....i mean you were discussing a time period since 1990....

and onceler....if i googled it as you claim....then it wouldn't be anything for me to copy something off of google....:pke:
Click to expand...

Onus is on you; sorry 'bout that. Since you posted the quote from me, saying that I had argued AGW. I'd like to see what you know about AGW, and why you think that quote is me arguing AGW.

Or, were you just hoping for a little trollish "drive by," and not expecting to be challenged & have to think, POS?
 
Onceler said:
I didn't start it, you POS. Your response on this thread to me is your m.o. to me on this board. You always clamor for debate, then post this little BS troll shit.

Regardless, please explain AGW for us.
Click to expand...

post 21.....and yes....you did start it...if you recall i kept asking you WTF are you doing....

it is your MO onceler not mine....in fact, look who started the shit up today, you....if you can't handle someone calling you on something, then perhaps you should get some thicker skin.....you're constantly bashing on meme, tutu, playing gotcha games with them....but you shit bricks when you get called out....

try eating more fiber and get thicker skin bro
 
Well, POS, since you're too chickenshit to answer, that quote was from SF & I arguing trends, not AGW. I did give up arguing AGW years ago; I still believe man might be the cause, but I think it's impossible to prove either way, and useless, since - as I said - even if we went cold turkey, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

When I argue for alternatives, I argue economics & national security.
 
tinfoil said:
Blah blah blah. besides, I'm all for newer BETTER technologies, but I don't want to pay extra for inferior solutions that have been shelved until the government arm could be used to support the failing technology
Click to expand...

I just don't want 'cap & trade' taxes implemented based upon the 'scientists' findings. :eek: I don't want to hear about how this was just one of the groups, lots of ties to NASA folks and others via those emails.

Heads should be rolling and charges brought.
 
Onceler said:
Well, while you've been immersed in the science, you seem to have missed the economic & national security implications of continuing to send hundreds of billions of dollars to the Middle East for oil, when we could be focusing much more on developing domestic sources of energy, which would boost employment & tax revenue here in America.
Click to expand...


That being oil in Alaska, let's cook up some blackened Carribu.
 
Onceler said:
And that's a shame about you, too, Freak - thought you knew what AGW was, as well.

Oh, and look - something I said from that thread you posted is perfectly consistent w/ what I said on this thread: "I don't even start global warming threads, anymore. Frankly, I don't think there is much we can do about it at this point even if we took radical action, and the less-than-half-measures that are often proposed, even by Dems, certainly won't amount to squat."

At least you've made a new friend in Yurt, Freakie...
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it is... do you?

Because why else would you have defended so vehemently your position against mine. If you didn't think the late 90's surge was due to man, then why is it that you were so upset when I pointed out the trend line had flattened out?

You and the little leg humper were so angry when I pointed it out. If you had given up on AGW, then you should have been happy that the trend line had flattened even though the global warming nuts were still arguing AGW was the cause.

You claim at that point 'we probably couldn't make a difference anyway' yet the earth was no longer continuing to warm, despite CO2 levels continuing to increase.

I suppose I am simply confused as to why you were arguing against my statement at that time.
 
Superfreak said:
I know exactly what it is... do you?

Because why else would you have defended so vehemently your position against mine. If you didn't think the late 90's surge was due to man, then why is it that you were so upset when I pointed out the trend line had flattened out?

You and the little leg humper were so angry when I pointed it out. If you had given up on AGW, then you should have been happy that the trend line had flattened even though the global warming nuts were still arguing AGW was the cause.

You claim at that point 'we probably couldn't make a difference anyway' yet the earth was no longer continuing to warm, despite CO2 levels continuing to increase.

I suppose I am simply confused as to why you were arguing against my statement at that time.
Click to expand...


a) I enjoy being a thorn in your side
b) I still disagree with you about the idea of what consititutes a trend. I had forgotten about that thread, but reading though it, it still amazes me how you argued it...
 
Onceler said:
a) I enjoy being a thorn in your side
b) I still disagree with you about the idea of what consititutes a trend. I had forgotten about that thread, but reading though it, it still amazes me how you argued it...
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
so you're arguing trends, not AGW....

explain that statement...in light of what SF was saying....
Click to expand...


no wonder you didn't answer my post....because you know i am right and SF just called you on it....and you flat out admit it....you did argue it just to be a thorn in SF's side....

nice to see finally some honesty onceler :clink:
 
Yurt said:
no wonder you didn't answer my post....because you know i am right and SF just called you on it....and you flat out admit it....you did argue it just to be a thorn in SF's side....

nice to see finally some honesty onceler :clink:
Click to expand...

Seriously...why DO you lie so much?

I also said his logic on trends was wrong, and that's why I kept at him on it.

Regardless, I was not "arguing AGW," as you keep claiming.

You fail.
 
too cute onceler...you're still avoiding my question...but let's see what SF said...which i knew was the reason you argued your point....and of course is the reason you avoid my question repeatedly

Because why else would you have defended so vehemently your position against mine. If you didn't think the late 90's surge was due to man, then why is it that you were so upset when I pointed out the trend line had flattened out?
Click to expand...

that is exactly why i asked you that question...which you keep running from....

and then you said you just like being a thorn in his side....

explain
 
I love how you always say I'm "running" from your poorly thought-out idiocy.

I answered your question, and his: YES, I do enjoy being a thorn in SF's side, but - as I ALSO stated, and which you are conveniently ignoring (or should I say, you're "running" from), is that I thought his logic on trends was poor, so kept at him on it.

It has nothing to do with AGW. So, you were wrong when you first commented on this thread, and continue to be wrong. But keep at it.
 
Onceler said:
Well, POS, since you're too chickenshit to answer, that quote was from SF & I arguing trends, not AGW. I did give up arguing AGW years ago; I still believe man might be the cause, but I think it's impossible to prove either way, and useless, since - as I said - even if we went cold turkey, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

When I argue for alternatives, I argue economics & national security.
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
I love how you always say I'm "running" from your poorly thought-out idiocy.

I answered your question, and his: YES, I do enjoy being a thorn in SF's side, but - as I ALSO stated, and which you are conveniently ignoring (or should I say, you're "running" from), is that I thought his logic on trends was poor, so kept at him on it.

It has nothing to do with AGW. So, you were wrong when you first commented on this thread, and continue to be wrong. But keep at it.
Click to expand...

you're right....i should have said you're chickenshit

hypocrite

and you just happened to be arguing about the WARMING trend that was a RECORD from 1990....had nothing to do with AGW.....

lmao
 
Yurt said:
you're right....i should have said you're chickenshit

hypocrite

and you just happened to be arguing about the WARMING trend that was a RECORD from 1990....had nothing to do with AGW.....

lmao
Click to expand...

How does that have anything to do with AGW?

Still can't admit you were wrong. I love it; and you've made such a big deal about saying you will when you are.

I can find dozens of quotes, made by me, on this board, over the past few years where I say it's pretty much impossible to prove AGW, and that there are plenty of good arguments for alts that don't rely on AGW.
:clink:
 
Onceler said:
How does that have anything to do with AGW?

Still can't admit you were wrong. I love it; and you've made such a big deal about saying you will when you are.

I can find dozens of quotes, made by me, on this board, over the past few years where I say it's pretty much impossible to prove AGW, and that there are plenty of good arguments for alts that don't rely on AGW.
:clink:
Click to expand...

You must be kidding?
 
Onceler said:
a) I enjoy being a thorn in your side
b) I still disagree with you about the idea of what consititutes a trend. I had forgotten about that thread, but reading though it, it still amazes me how you argued it...
Click to expand...

lmao... you argue that a trend line drawn over a DECADE (decade plus now) is not significant? When the data they use only goes back 130 years (and is questionable at best)? It is essentially over 8% of the data set. That is statistically significant. Period.

ESPECIALLY when the whole AGW theory is based on CO2 and other emissions being the primary cause of global warming. Yet when CO2 and other emissions increase for the past decade and yet the global temperatures do not exceed that which where they were at in 1998... you don't like what constitutes the trend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top