Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

liars gonna lie

[cale]

this is really an amazing statement, even for you cale. if it were rwh (disagree with gwb) i'd let it go and then yank his chain again.

so when credible climates scientists disagree with the AGW camp and it's assertions/postulations/hypotheses, the very fact they disagree means they're not credible, is that it? or do you disagree with the science, if you understand it?

There are a small number of climate scientists who disagree with AGW yes, but you don't push their research. You push the shit companies like Heartland put out there, weak ass false science. You push whatever is in the headlines, not what is most credible. You don't know the science so you push what is popular amongst the naysayers, and then you're shocked when people call out your bullshit?

[u3b3rg33k]

we need a gwb bingo game

Everyone pick a card:

[gwb72tii]

There are a small number of climate scientists who disagree with AGW yes, but you don't push their research. You push the shit companies like Heartland put out there, weak ass false science. You push whatever is in the headlines, not what is most credible. You don't know the science so you push what is popular amongst the naysayers, and then you're shocked when people call out your bullshit?

i predicted this response
i've posted links to numerous scientists, non of which muster up to your (collective your) definition of credible
so shoot the messenger
and actually i'll pass a compliment to rwh
he at least takes the time to post one of his endless charts that tries to argue the science once in a while

[cale]

I predicted you would have predicted a response, seeing as you've predicted three already on this page...you must be a fortune teller.

Pretty sure the very last time you posted a source of information both rwh and myself replied with references which explained why your ignorance is unfounded. What a shock, your choice to ignore proper science trancends into ignoring responses as well. Multi-faceted in your ineptness, congrats.

[BraveUlysses]

predicts internet posts; can't predict anything else

[gwb72tii]

I predicted you would have predicted a response, seeing as you've predicted three already on this page...you must be a fortune teller.

Pretty sure the very last time you posted a source of information both rwh and myself replied with references which explained why your ignorance is unfounded. What a shock, your choice to ignore proper science trancends into ignoring responses as well. Multi-faceted in your ineptness, congrats.

that was almost funny cale

[gwb72tii]

predicts internet posts; can't predict anything else

never mind i'm not going down to your level

and actually i predicted exactly what cale did, attack the messenger and ignore the message.
exactly like the messiah's "presidential" campaign

[cale]

Excuse me for my bluntness, but when the fuck have I ever ignored your message? I'm constantly attacking your arguments, be it your logic, resources or the information you provide as evidence. Rarely do I simply put up a trolling post towards you, i enjoy poking holes in your thinking so of course I add substance. That is the exact opposite of ignoring your message, I'm replying to specifics of the message!

"Presidential" eh? Not presidential, has to be written with quotation marks so as to let your dissatisfaction with him be known, which thus CLEARLY translates into him not being a legitimate pres. Speaking of predictable behaviour…

[rwh11385]

never mind i'm not going down to your level

and actually i predicted exactly what cale did, attack the messenger and ignore the message.
exactly like the messiah's "presidential" campaign

Classic George Move - Referring to Obama as "the messiah" instead of making a reasonable argument or point.

"down to your level"? Are you kidding? The only person who is below your level is joshh. Maybe you should join people in the realm of intelligent discussion instead of your ridiculous fallacies all the time.

You ignored my questions about why you thought that ICEsat's made GRACE's data irrelevant. In addition, with your deep understanding of science and models, could you explain how exactly it is "assbackwards" to revise a model with new data?

[gwb72tii]

wow, just in time

cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter

quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

[rwh11385]

wow, just in time

cale, rwh etc please do your best to discredit the signers of this letter

quote
"The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion."



http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...25-scientists/

Classic George Move - avoid questions, change subject.

[gwb72tii]

its on subject you dolt, and i'm not here to answer your questions

[eight~deuce]

Everyone pick a card:

[rwh11385]

its on subject you dolt, and i'm not here to answer your questions

I'm sorry that it is too challenging for you to answer questions about your understanding of the materials you post. If you are incapable of comprehending what you are referencing, you are solely a mouthpiece who accepts someone else's conclusion as their own and assuming it makes your case even if you fail to realize that it may not.

It's on the subject of the thread yes but instead of responding to questions about your post involving ICEsat and GRACE, you abandoned it and moved onto the next shot in the dark.

While also attacking all models ignorantly and making judgments of science when while you admit you don't deal with data or numbers ever.