Climate change denier crosses from the dark side

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.

Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Africa has been moving (and still is) eastward. At one time it was thought to be rotated about 90 deg to its present position. This is all conjecture of course.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.

Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Africa has been moving (and still is) eastward. At one time it was thought to be rotated about 90 deg to its present position. This is all conjecture of course.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

That simply doesn't make sense. If that bit of land wasn't always a desert climate, then it must previously have had a different (i.e. not desert) climate. Hence its climate must have changed.

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

spot wrote:AND SINCE THE ICE AGE HOW FAR HAS IT MOVED????

When you were doing top secrete work on rockets did you show such a clear inability to answer simple questions before they basically put peoples lives in your hands or was the rocket scientist bit all made up?

Or are you senile?

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

...deleted redundant link...

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

...deleted redundant link...

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?

The Jason series does NOT measure absolute sea level. The University of Colorado is manufacturing data.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.

Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Africa has been moving (and still is) eastward. At one time it was thought to be rotated about 90 deg to its present position. This is all conjecture of course.

AND SINCE THE ICE AGE HOW FAR HAS IT MOVED????

spot wrote:
When you were doing top secrete work on rockets did you show such a clear inability to answer simple questions before they basically put peoples lives in your hands or was the rocket scientist bit all made up?

spot wrote:
Or are you senile?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

My ex-British army friend was in the surveyors. Those that makethe maps. He could and had to make such measurements at one stage.

He was putting out maker points for anti-aircraft positions and they had to have a post in the ground to allow the AA to drive to the location and set up knowing their position to the cm. His maker posts gave the position of the post, the date it was made and the rate of drift of that piece of land.

Apparently modern AA does not need this as it gets even better numbers from satelites directly.

I don't get how they do it but apparently the satelities measure the center of the earth continiously off each other. (?)

Perhaps they can use the mirrors on the moon??

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

...deleted redundant link...

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?

The Jason series does NOT measure absolute sea level. The University of Colorado is manufacturing data.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.

Civilian GPS is accurate to 5 feet or so on open land that doesn't have a lot of metal in the ground. Among buildings it can get completely lost if the angles of the satellites isn't proper.

Wake wrote:
The military version is accurate to about a foot.

Wake wrote:
Now maybe someone can explain how you can measure a couple of inches per year with this sort of high accuracy? Not to mention the actual motion in mm/yr.

Wake wrote:
Sea level changes are FAR worse since radar height is only as accurate as you can identify the accuracy of your orbit. And orbits are NOT accurate because of the moon and the differing densities of the Earth and the fact that the Earth is not round. with concentric orbits any altitude is highly questionable. Even if you have a reference altitude to measure to. (the top of the Arc de Triomphe?)

Wake wrote:
There are place on the Earth where they used direct measurements to record sea levels since the end of the Civil War. They recorded changes of about 1 mm per year. Lately we've been told that it changed to 2 mm per year "lately" whenever that was.

Wake wrote:
That would make the highest changes in sea level about 7 inches. But even this is not recorded in most locations in the world. Wouldn't you think that they could measure that in Venice where people's front doors are just above the highest tides?

Wake wrote:
Wouldn't you think that it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect in Holland which country is mostly below sea level from its beginning? They have raised the seawalls but because of the occasional super-storm.

Wake wrote:
As I said, the high tide marks in San Francisco have not changed since the piers were put in in the late 1800's. The low tide marks have not risen.

Wake wrote:
Almost ALL of this added water to the oceans have come from the melting of low latitude glaciers. They have now melted back to near the areas they were in previous to the Maunder Minimum. This suggests that we are about to see a pretty rapid end to any possible sea level rising.

Wake wrote:
The entire subject about how scientific we are misses the point that we aren't. We have seen large important studies completely reversed the following year.
Should this be considered unusual? Most major studies are built on a house of cards. We ACCEPT dark matter and black holes with the only proof of them is motion of the galaxies some of which do not show such effects.

Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur material...

Science is a target and not an achievement.

spot wrote:
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

spot wrote:
And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

spot wrote:
You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

spot wrote:
You say you made money for yourself, good for you.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.

Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.

Civilian GPS is accurate to 5 feet or so on open land that doesn't have a lot of metal in the ground. Among buildings it can get completely lost if the angles of the satellites isn't proper.

Depends on the receiver, not on the amount of metal in the ground. Buildings tend to contain rebar or other metal in walls, shielding the signal. It has no effect on the accuracy of the receiver.

Wake wrote:
The military version is accurate to about a foot.

Better than that, actually. Most mobile units the foot soldiers get are accurate to about a foot.

Wake wrote:
Now maybe someone can explain how you can measure a couple of inches per year with this sort of high accuracy? Not to mention the actual motion in mm/yr.

Fixed emplacement for the receivers and well built local oscillators. The absolute position is better than military, but the relative movement is more accurate.

Wake wrote:
Sea level changes are FAR worse since radar height is only as accurate as you can identify the accuracy of your orbit. And orbits are NOT accurate because of the moon and the differing densities of the Earth and the fact that the Earth is not round. with concentric orbits any altitude is highly questionable. Even if you have a reference altitude to measure to. (the top of the Arc de Triomphe?)

Not a valid reference point. The Arc de Triomphe moves along with the rest of Paris (sometimes it moves independent of Paris!).

Wake wrote:
There are place on the Earth where they used direct measurements to record sea levels since the end of the Civil War. They recorded changes of about 1 mm per year. Lately we've been told that it changed to 2 mm per year "lately" whenever that was.

These places are called 'tidal' stations. They are not capable of such precision. The reference for these stations is the land they are sitting on, which moves.

Wake wrote:
That would make the highest changes in sea level about 7 inches. But even this is not recorded in most locations in the world. Wouldn't you think that they could measure that in Venice where people's front doors are just above the highest tides?

No.

Venice has high water because that land is sinking (quite a bit, too!).

Wake wrote:
Wouldn't you think that it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect in Holland which country is mostly below sea level from its beginning? They have raised the seawalls but because of the occasional super-storm.

Large portions of Holland were always below sea level. Storms have always been a problem with the dikes and seawalls. Nothing different to see here. What do you think all those windmills were for? To pump water!

Wake wrote:
As I said, the high tide marks in San Francisco have not changed since the piers were put in in the late 1800's. The low tide marks have not risen.

No one in San Francisco is measuring the tides to mm level accuracy.

Wake wrote:
Almost ALL of this added water to the oceans have come from the melting of low latitude glaciers. They have now melted back to near the areas they were in previous to the Maunder Minimum. This suggests that we are about to see a pretty rapid end to any possible sea level rising.

Wait...didn't you JUST SAY that San Francisco is NOT seeing any change in sea levels???

No one is measuring the worlds glaciers. Just a few selected ones are monitored at all.

Wake wrote:
The entire subject about how scientific we are misses the point that we aren't. We have seen large important studies completely reversed the following year.
Should this be considered unusual? Most major studies are built on a house of cards. We ACCEPT dark matter and black holes with the only proof of them is motion of the galaxies some of which do not show such effects.

Science isn't studies. Science isn't research. Science isn't observation. Science isn't speculation.

Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur material...

Science is a target and not an achievement.

Science is not a 'target' either. Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. It is an achievement that we have such a system that can so easily separate the solid argument from religion.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know the farmers have been real geeked up lately about the accuracy of their tractor GPSs that actually steer it for them to maximize optimum seed population and therefore yield. Wake appears to be right on this, and ITN. Sounds like triangulation under an inch to me.

The GPS receivers in the cab box receive data from three antennas mounted on roof of the cab. A portable AutoFarm base station antenna sends signals to the tractor, usually located within 6 miles of the field being worked. The base station, powered by a standard 12-volt marine or automobile battery, receives data from any number of more than 25 GPS satellites circling the globe. This differential data is then transmitted to the tractor, providing position correction to establish sub-inch path accuracy.

http://www.deltafarmpress.com/gps-autosteer-gives-sub-inch-accuracy

GasGuzzler wrote:
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.

Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.

Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.

The positioning is not from GPS with that sort of accuracy. It is from the base station. GPS gives the ground station a position and it then knows generally where the field is. Then the tractor based receiver triangulates to the ground station. That is why there is a three antenna array that is arranged in a perfectly spaced triangle.

The nutjob doesn't even know what DORIS is. It is entirely something different from what he is saying and is supposedly used for precise determination of orbits. The problem is that it is a French built system and you should know what that means. This system is used to determine the orbits of the altitude radar satellites but the positioning of these is less than the accuracy of a normal GPS. And that means that the PRECISE positioning of the Jason series of satellites is too coarse to have any exact levels as dumbass is saying.

The pure unadulterated ignorance of the True Believers has to be observed to be believed.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

Correct. I don't know what color car you like to drive, for instance.

spot wrote:
And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

I haven't been coy. I build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications.

spot wrote:
You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

I really don't care if you believe me or not. I don't depend on my credentials for my arguments.

spot wrote:
You say you made money for yourself, good for you.

You believe I'm lying, but you also believe I make money for myself???

You aren't making sense anymore.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

Correct. I don't know what color car you like to drive, for instance.

spot wrote:
And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

I haven't been coy. I build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications.

spot wrote:
You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

I really don't care if you believe me or not. I don't depend on my credentials for my arguments.

spot wrote:
You say you made money for yourself, good for you.

You believe I'm lying, but you also believe I make money for myself???

You aren't making sense anymore.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.

Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.

The positioning is not from GPS with that sort of accuracy. It is from the base station. GPS gives the ground station a position and it then knows generally where the field is. Then the tractor based receiver triangulates to the ground station. That is why there is a three antenna array that is arranged in a perfectly spaced triangle.

The nutjob doesn't even know what DORIS is. It is entirely something different from what he is saying and is supposedly used for precise determination of orbits. The problem is that it is a French built system and you should know what that means. This system is used to determine the orbits of the altitude radar satellites but the positioning of these is less than the accuracy of a normal GPS. And that means that the PRECISE positioning of the Jason series of satellites is too coarse to have any exact levels as dumbass is saying.

The pure unadulterated ignorance of the True Believers has to be observed to be believed.

You really are a complete moron, aren't you? Read the description that I linked to and at least attempt to comprehend it. DORIS is a system that was specifically designed to allow satellites to determine their positions with high precision with respect to the centre of the Earth using a network of ground stations. GPS is the opposite: it allows terrestrial receivers to determine their position using signals from a network of satellites.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

That simply doesn't make sense. If that bit of land wasn't always a desert climate, then it must previously have had a different (i.e. not desert) climate. Hence its climate must have changed.

Nope. The westher changed. You can have different climates, but they cannot change. You have no way to describe a 'change' in a climate. There is no way to describe a delta by any unit that makes sense.

Still trying to define 'climate change' in a circular manner. Keep trying.

Wake wrote:


The Greenland glaciers are actually growing unlike the leftist liars are crying to the four winds.

Global temperatures are expected to increase further this century (Houghton et al.,
2001), contributing 58% of global sea level rise between the years 1990 and 2100 (Gregory and Oerlemans,
1998). Given temperatures approaching those of the most recent climatic optimum, ∼2.5 thousand years ago
(Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998), the possibility of future rapid melting and ice discharges (Heinrich events) should
be investigated further.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:


The Greenland glaciers are actually growing unlike the leftist liars are crying to the four winds.

Global temperatures are expected to increase further this century (Houghton et al.,
2001), contributing 58% of global sea level rise between the years 1990 and 2100 (Gregory and Oerlemans,
1998). Given temperatures approaching those of the most recent climatic optimum, ∼2.5 thousand years ago
(Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998), the possibility of future rapid melting and ice discharges (Heinrich events) should
be investigated further.

From the report you think backs you up.

Wake wrote:

Why is the NOAA telling us that "if it weren't for man the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it presently is" when the TOTAL MGT increase in the last 121 years has been 0.8 degrees C? Do you understand that isn't even within the normal bounds of variability?

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Why is the NOAA telling us that "if it weren't for man the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it presently is" when the TOTAL MGT increase in the last 121 years has been 0.8 degrees C? Do you understand that isn't even within the normal bounds of variability?

NOAA is telling us that? I think you will find that you are misinformed. Only a swivel eyed conspiracy theorist would think that they did.

Without a greenhouse effect the earth would be about that temperature as anyone with a smattering of scientific knowledge knows. But NOAA did not make the claim that you said they made and if you had any thing approaching a clue of the subject you are spending so much time arguing with people on the internet about you would know that.

Anyway I'm off on holiday so I will leave you arguing with your fellow halfwit ITN for the rest of eternity.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: During the Jurassic Period the CO2 was about 20% or so and the climate was about as it is today.

"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" toppled: Fair point.

litesong wrote:

"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" toppled: Fair point.

"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" should have stopped, instead of attacking, after admitting to good AGW advocate points.

litesong wrote:Meanwhile:
Larsen C cracks further, this time almost two miles per day in the last 6 six days & is ~ 10 miles from complete severance.

litesong wrote: Larsen C with many other 4000+ year old Antarctic AND Arctic ice shelf breakages in the last number of decades, continues the mounting phenomenon of AGW.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" muffs:

litesong wrote:Meanwhile:
Larsen C cracks further, this time almost two miles per day in the last 6 six days & is ~ 10 miles from complete severance.

wouldn't be cracking if Antarctica weren't accumulating record ice.

litesong wrote: Larsen C with many other 4000+ year old Antarctic AND Arctic ice shelf breakages in the last number of decades, continues the mounting phenomenon of AGW.

record ice accumulation.

litesong wrote: