Wank wrote:JizzGuzzler wrote:
I usually prefer to rise above petty name-calling, but since it's Friday and this thread appears to have become a science-free bitching zone anyway, what the hell.
Rather apt for you two bosom buddies, don't you think? One produces it, the other consumes it.
Surface Detail wrote:Wank wrote:JizzGuzzler wrote:
That is all you have done for your entire time on this board.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's good! Well played.
See? I'm honest and objective, and I give credit where it's due.
Why, thank you Mr. Guzzler. Most sporting of you. Have a nice weekend.
Surface Detail wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:
You better hope I never find you because I would spank you. Your mother obviously never cared enough about you to teach you better.
Surface Detail wrote:
You want to get back to science? I'm in.
I've been thinking about what you said recently......
It is utterly illogical to claim that the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 405 ppm is due to some other unidentified cause, when the very obvious fact of human CO2 emissions easily accounts for it.
Well, I have to be honest. I am quite disappointed in the big warm up. In the past 4 cyclical warmups, we were clearly 2-2.5 degrees warmer.
Using your above quote and logic that man is the only explanation for the huge rise in CO2, could it also be said for the warmup not reaching expectations?
If it works the way you say it does, then CO2 causes a spike in water vapor, which shields the earth from the full force of the sun. Could this be the reason we're so cold? Just throwing random shit at the wall here. You got any idea why we can't seem to warm up to historic levels?
ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM
I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
Wake wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:
You didn't post a paper, you posted a link to a post on a junkscience conspiracy blog that misrepresented the papers it referenced. I posted direct quotes from the papers themselves to show your junkscience conspiracy blog was lying. You hadn't even read the referenced papers yourself.
You are showing strong signs of being a pathological liar as well as a blithering idiot.
Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wank wrote:JizzGuzzler wrote:
False. Surface Detail is usually very polite. I liked his new names for you both though. Very apt.
I gave up trying to be polite with dimwitted f-uckwits like you on this tiny obscure forum.
I'll reserve being polite for people who deserve respect.
Edited on 18-03-2017 02:10
Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:
You're revealing all your little secret fetishes.
Ceist wrote:Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote:
Your mother must be so disappointed in you. Imagine a little twit like you who is afraid of his own shadow needing to call names via long distance and anonymity.
Wake wrote:Ceist wrote:Wake wrote:
483 posts in about 6 weeks - and you STILL have not been able to quote directly from ANY published research paper to support your crank assertions. Why? Because your crank assertions aren't based on science and evidence.
All you have done is make shit up, lie compulsively, regurgitate shit from junkscience blogs run by non-scientists who demonstrably misrepresent papers you haven't even read. Oh..... and you continue to expose your bizarre little fetishes.
Edited on 18-03-2017 05:05
Ceist wrote:Wake wrote:Ceist wrote:
Actually what I've done is shown that you require having your hand held and consensus to believe anything other than what you are told to believe. But since the True Believers are all carbon copies I'm used to it.
|485 posts in 6 weeks and ALL you have done is make shit up, lie compulsively, and mindlessly swallow and regurgitate the same old long debunked evidence-free nonsense claims from junkscience conspiracy blogs run by non-scientist cranks. |
What's even funnier, is that in your delusional conspiracy-addled mind, lazily parroting these nonsense blogger claims and never bothering to check the facts for yourself by actually READING the papers they reference, means you are 'thinking for yourself'.
Edited on 19-03-2017 02:12
1) Present to date Global sea ice extent is ~ 3 million square kilometers LESS than to date average from early 1980's.
2) It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.
|And In Today's News||19||29-06-2021 03:20|
|Possible fake news||10||04-04-2021 06:10|
|News flash||27||05-02-2021 00:57|
|Good News! There's No Censorship!||2||03-02-2021 21:43|
|fake news||3||23-12-2020 06:27|