Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Avoid, dodge, deny - the update.
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Dawlish
May 20, 2013, 2:48:29 AM5/20/13
to
It's not going well, deniers, is it?
Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the deniers who have uttered them.
Avoid, dodge, deny………………………
See if you've been added, deniers. Now don't deny that you look at this every time is is posted for you. The idiocy contained within it even stuns me - and I compile it and I've seen most of it dozens of times! Some of these entries just beggar belief. What this list does is that it ensures that none of you can get away by saying "I never said that"........because, deniers, you did. You now have every opportunity to challenge what is in here, but not a year down the line. Please don't use the size of the archive to try to hide your past idiocy and attempt say you never said any of this.........because you did.
Avoid, dodge, deny………………………
I like to monitor the activities of the deniers in the group. None of them can now say, with any credibility that their detractors constantly refer to weather events to back GW happening, or, that mainstream science followers use a failed American politician as some kind of AGW expert, because of that past monitoring (tundy take note). I’ve shown clearly that it is actually deniers who do these two things almost exclusively (and tundy has many wet dreams about his night- time muse) and their opponents hardly ever. As a result, I’ve removed those tools from your (sparse and shrinking) denier arsenal. Weather reports still happen, because deniers can't bear to let them go and can't resist. Al Gore is hardly ever now mentioned, except by tundy.
I’ve been monitoring individuals’ use of dodges, avoidance and outright denial when they can’t answer questions. And these are only to questions that *I've* asked them. There have been many more instances. Every single one is an actual example of where deniers have exercised the techniques of “avoid”, “dodge”, or “deny”.
*Every single one* is also always logged immediately after the denier has failed to answer the question asked, or has posted the idiocy. The list is absolutely damning. Here you go. The most recent are at the top. If, later, someone who is not a denier exonerates the denier, I’ll remove the reference. E.g. harryboy has his old name back.
Deniers, unfortunately, have run away from almost every entry on here. The single worst runaway, by a runaway margin, is an anonymous poster called spinner, who like to call himself “Falcon”. The running away from answering questions is getting worse, as deniers run out of ideas.
NEW**Recently, there are less deniers posting and some names are now history. The deniers that don't post any more haven't been replaced. There doesn't appear to be a new breed. Some will have left because they can't bear being made fools of. Some will have left for the right reason - they've changed their mind, but would never, of course, admit that here.**
Joey is “not convinced” that GW has actually happened, because he remembers more 100 degree days and sees more frosts in his back garden today, than in the past. Everyone else looks at global figures, even some deniers. Why don’t you, joey?
Joey thinks that the record warm temperatures in the USA last summer were not really caused by it being warm, but by it being dry. Honestly; he does. Why would you think that joey? No-one else in science, or anywhere else, for that matter, does.
joey thinks that “spikes” in the temperature record are caused by wars, or the firing of cruise missiles. There’s not a scrap of published evidence to say anything of the sort, but Joey thinks it’s true. Why, joey?
joey thinks the warming of the last decade was down to “changing weather station lists”, or “moving the stations to airports” and not down to actual warming. No scientist thinks this, but joey believes it. Why do you believe this, joey?.
spinner has actually stated that the GHE does not exist as science knows it. Other deniers, like joey and deluded denky have too, so he’s joining a select band. Amazing, but really, he doesn’t understand what it is, so I suppose this one could be forgivable, *>))
In March of 2013, a host of deniers started >50 threads and hundreds of separate posts, to tell us that it was cold in their back yards and thus it was evidence that GW has stopped. Unfortunately for them March was in the top 10 warmest March’s on record, despite no El Nino conditions in the equatorial Pacific. Why did you really post those weather posts, deniers? What was your aim?
spinner tells the newsgroup that Christidis et al 2013 shows that land use changes can explain GW, when the paper in fact shows the exact opposite and that land use changes have perhaps cooled the earth. Why do you lie spinner? You simply didn’t understand the abstract, did you?
tundy, in his abject stupidity and frustration with being outed as a nutbar so many times, tries to “out” one of his educationally far better educated opponents called *Dawlish*. Unfortunately he outs a plumber in *Falmouth*. Tundy; why do you bother <laughing>?
A whole bunch of deniers, including dancer, joey, one-track pony, pauly, jimmy-cut-and-paste, little willy and some really extreme fascist nutbars, were taken in by a hack’s version of what Dr. Pachuari said in an interview. Didn’t any of think to check your sources?
Despite >two dozen studies verifying Mann, Bradley and Hughes’ 1999 paper and an avalanche of rebuttal, nutbars like pauly (and every single denier) will never accept that Mann’s graphs of temperature reconstruction are accurate. There’s nothing anyone can do when belief gets in the way of science.
georgie porgie thinks that sea levels are equal all over the world. Why don’t you just do some simple research, georgie porgie and learn the truth?
joey thinks that CO2 is a nutrient and the Amazon rainforest could survive without trees decomposing to provide other trees with the nutrients they need for growth. What????
dozy thinks that a species of coral that only grows in the Atlantic is going to grow and save the residents of Kiribati from inundation by rising seas. Why on earth would you think that, dozy?
spinner said: “NASA was infiltrated by environmental activists long ago” <shakes head> Did you really say that spinner? I think you’d have one hell of a difficult time selling that idiotic sentence to anyone apart from a science denier.
A whole bunch of deniers saw the word “leaked” and really though AR5 was going to show things that would please them. It took about 12 hours for the reality to sink in. AR5 will show overwhelming evidence for CO2 being the main cause of warming, won’t it, deniers?
Georgie porgie and dozy think Kiribati’s problems with rising sea levels will be solved by coral growth. Why on earth would you think that is remotely possible in 50-100 years, the pair of you?
Tundy thinks it is perfectly OK to associate Michael Mann with child abuse because he received a prestigious award and tundy doesn’t like it. Why did you do that tundy? Will you stoop to saying *anything* to bolster your own far-right wing denial?
Tundy thinks that a study which looked at *every single one* of nearly 14000 articles over a 21-year period used data that was “cherry picked”. Even you must recognise that you’ve been utterly stupid in not reading the study before making comments about it tundy.
pauly thinks that gordo’s opinions are “wrong in nearly every respect”. Unfortunately gordo’s opinions about CO2 and GW are very similar to every single scientific institution on the planet, every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 50/30000 published scientists in a recent survey. Why then, do you think gordo’s opinions are so wrong, pauly?
pauly thinks that papers which support his ideas are being produced on a *daily* basis. In a recent survey, 24 papers out of nearly 14,000 were found to have been sceptical about CO2 being the cause of the current warming (they didn’t all deny the possibility outright, of course). Pauly wants us to believe such papers are being produced on a daily basis. Why would you want us to think that, pauly?
spinner and pauly both think that one published sceptical study about AGW is somehow more important than 14000 other studies which are not sceptical. Why do you ignore the 14000 other studies in favour of this one, spinner and pauly?
one-track pony wrote: “A New Study Suggests That Global Warming Won't Kill Off The Polar Bears (they will actually be better off)”. Unfortunately the study doesn’t even mention how polar bears are likely to be affected by GW. Why did you do that, one-track pony?
spinner; “why did you lie about the NCDC Southeast data? What did you believe your lie would accomplish?”.
bluey says: "AGW will fall and you will take science down with you". Does bluey, or anyone else for that matter, have a clue what that means?
bony thinks sea levels aren’t rising at all. Where on earth do you get that notion from bony?
jimmy-cut-and-paste is now reduced to simply saying; “ There is no human-caused climate change”. Why isn't there a single scientific institution on earth that agrees with you. Why do only 0.001% of published scientists in a sample of nearly 14000 agree with you? Why does no government that attended Cancun, or Rio agree with you? Why does not a single National science academy on the planet agree with you?
chomper posts that there has been 0.16C warming since 1996 (why 1996??) and then in the next sentence says there has been no warming since 1996. Why did you do that, chomper?
jimmy-cut-and-paste copies and pastes separately from two different websites the same piece of out of date, non-peer-reviewed and debunked crap from 2007 without even realising it is the same. Why did you do that, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
denky thinks that the ability of CO2 to trap heat is not an established scientific fact. ?????? <shakes head>
chomper thinks James Hansen thinks that CO2 is not driving climate change. ??????? <shakes head again>
Jimmy cut and paste says there is no greenhouse effect. <shakes head>
one-track pony thinks that global temperatures are; "back at the average for the period 1951 to 1980?". However, every month this year (2012) since January (11th warmest) has been in the top 10 warmest, some close to record breaking and the year sits at 6th warmest, far warmer than *any* year in that period" . How can you think that, pony, in the face of those facts?
Knowing that, which is a fact, how can "Every month this year since January (11th) has been in the top 10 warmest, some close to record breaking and the year sits at 6th warmest, far warmer than *any* year in that period"
tundy says that David Suzuki is a "fraudulent scientist" and chomper says that "he's never had to do science for a living". It’s very easy to verify that actually he’s an emeritus professor at UBC, he’s an Internationally respected scientist and he’s been doing science all his life. You are clearly wrong about Suzuki. Why do you two feel it is necessary to try to defame scientists?
pauly thinks that most of Peru is desert – because he travelled along the coastal desert. Actually about 10% only of Peru is desert. Why did you say such a thing, pauly?
pauly thinks South America’s glaciers “will build up again”. Not a single scientist thinks they will in any timescale which will benefit Peruvians. Why on earth do you think that pauly?
chomper thinks that the Arctic’s polar bear population is perfectly healthy. “And not just healthy but experiencing an overall net gain”. Why do you believe that chomper, when the science tells you the exact opposite and that polar bear populations Arctic-wide, are decreasing.
webby thinks the height of a storm surge is influenced by roads, land use, fields, the water content of the ground and coastal development in general. Why would you persist with this ignorance webby, when a simple google search would tell you that the height of a storm surge is measured as the sea reaches land and has nothing to do with the things you propose.
chomper and tundy think that somewhere, there are scientists that have clearly linked Sandy to GW, but neither of them (nor anyone else in the denialosphere) has been able to find anything more than out-of context tweets, snipped articles, non-sequiturs, outright lies and purely fabricated lists. Why do you both think scientists have made this link when they clearly haven’t?
tundy makes up a list of scientists that have said that Hurricane Sandy was caused by GW. Unfortunately, none of them have. Why did you do that tundy? (31/10/12)
pauly, spinner and a whole bunch of other deniers have been repeating the same idiocy (again) about no warming since 1997/8, but not one of them can explain why there has been warming from 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2000. Why is this the case, deniers? (Oct 12)
dancer thinks there are reports about ice at the North Pole in 1923, but unfortunately for him, no-one visited the North Pole in 1923. Why did you say that, dancer?
pauly thinks that three temperature series, UAH, RSS and HadCRU are actually National science academies who say that GW has “remitted, it paused, it plateaued, it went to a stop, it ceased to increase” (talking about a baseline of 1997/8, of course). Why do you think they are such, pauly?
dancer posts an article from the “Daily Mail” saying that the MetO have produced a “report” and said there has been no warming for 16 years. The MetO denies any such report exists and their view is nothing like that painted by the hack. Why did you do this without bothering to research it dancer. – because it was there when you posted it, if you had bothered to do so.
spinner starts three threads in a week to say that GW stopped in 1998, In all three, he posts a graph starting in the year of the largest El Nino of recent times (1997/8) and ignore the other 148 years of data in the Hadley series. Why did you do that, spinner?
jimmy-cut-and-paste believes that because Pacific Islanders voice their concern about rising sea levels, thus should happen to them “Maybe they should just blow a hole in the islands and let them sink or better yet, tow them all to the Antarctic to replace those big sheets that keep breaking off. Then we wouldn't have to read drivel on this subject any more."
spinner thinks that an email, sent to Christopher booker by a mum who wasn’t happy about her son’s “A” level grade shows that there has been a corruption of science and the corruption of education.Why on earth would you think that, spinner?
one-track pony, who would like us to believe he has an education in science, says this about a piece of peer-reviewed published research: “I haven't bothered to read the paper that you seem to want to read. I can tell without reading it, from the link that gordo gave, that it is a piece of CRAP.” The link was to a newspaper report. I know, it beggars belief, doesn’t it?
pauly says that Jay Zwally predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Why did you lie about this prediction pauly?
spinner thinks that an article about a paper about species diversity covering millions of years is relevant to what is happening to species due to the recent global warming. Why would you think that, spinner?
someone called eric feels that a paper by James Hansen, published in 2000 saying that the NW Passage was not open is evidence that the NW Passage has not been open from 2007-12. You just shake your head at the idiocy and ignorance. Why would you think that, someone called eric?
Some deniers adopt a persona of being impartial, or they are here to learn, or they are not decided about climate change, then, gradually over time, they are revealed for what they are. Spinner, the very stupid seon are two that easily come to mind. fraidy cat and chomper are the latest of this particular breed. Why do they do this, when, actually, it’s so obvious from the start that they are a denier of one sort, or another. It’s so odd.
denky actually thinks GW has not happened. where’s wally thinks it is “maybe” happening. I’ve pointed to three other racists, nymshifters and assorted nutters who have said the same thing, so why do some deniers insist on saying that “no-one believes that GW hasn’t happened” and why don’t the deniers like dancer that have said that, criticise the crazies who say that GW (not AGW, note) has just plain not happened.
pauly thinks that because weather models can’t predict more than 10 days in advance, models can’t therefor predict climate on much longer timescales. Why would you think that pauly when science yells you that there is no connection between the two, as the parameters and inputs are so different?
pauly thinks that Amundsen, taking 3 years to crawl along the NW passage means that it was as open as it is today. Why would you think that pauly, in the face of all the evidence telling you clearly that the NW passage was not fully open in any year that Amundsen was trying to sail along it, in 1903-1906?
tundy thinks that the NW passage could have been open in any year from 1900-1970, simply because there are no written records of anyone passing through it. So does dancer. Have you really thought why that evidence doesn’t exist, tundy?
georgie porgie thinks icebreakers are cruise ships. Why would you think that, georgie porgie?
georgie porgie thinks an icebreaker, the St. Roch in the 1940’s, is an everyday schooner. Why would you think that georgie porgie?
Pony believes that we are in 60 year cycle from eyeballing a graph he’s concocted and thus it will get cooler in the future. Not a single scientist believes that. Why on earth do you believe something that no-one else believes, pony?
Spinner thinks that his eyeball analysis of a graph showing warming over the last 150+ years show no real warming at all. Why do you think that, spinner, when every single scientific institution and National science academy believes that it shows clear warming, which continues?
Michael Mann is an internationally famous and highly respected scientist, who’s work is cited by hundreds of his peers. Spinner is a nobody who feels that Mann is a "putz" who writes "illogical shit". spinner, Why would anyone believe you above them?
Tundy and one-track-pony think that monthly temperatures have to increase month-on-month for the climate to be warming. Why do you think that, the pair of you?
Trekkie thinks that there is “no facts and no proof, just hype” about GW. Other nutcases are convinced that no denier ever says that GW isn’t happening. Why do you convince yourselves of this, deniers and with 400,000 papers and 5 sets of temperature records saying the exact opposite, why do you think there are no facts, trekkie?
nothung believes that some scientific institutions agree with his ideas that “the science of CO2 being the main driver of GW is far from settled". It’s piffle. They *all* feel that CO2 is highly likely to be the driver of the current warming. Every single scientific institution on the planet. Why do you think this is not true, nothung?
tundy believes the GISS data is “rigged” but oddly, can’t point to any credible source, apart from the opinions of other climate deniers, to say that it is. Just hilarious really.
pauly is waiting for experimental evidence to prove to him that AGW exists. How many times? This is science, not mathematics, there will never be “proof”. And could you suggest an experiment that would give you this proof, pauly?
pauly says “ ….we can rule out CO2 as a major factor influencing global temperatures”. There isn’t a single scientific institution on earth and hardly a single scientist who would agree with it, but pauly thinks we should <shakes head>. Why on earth would anyone with any understanding of science say this in the face of the evidence against it? Explain yourself pauly.
tundy, harryboy, catoni and every other denier on the newsgroup will not accept the fact that, globally, warm records have outnumbered cold ones in a ratio of >50:1 since 2002. Why won’t deniers accept these data as at least indicative of what is happening? Some of them actually think there's parity!
dancer feels that scientists aren’t allowed to have interests and speak languages and that is a reason why a scientists’ data shouldn’t be accepted. Why on earth would you think that, dancer?
Again, most climate deniers on alt.g-w will not condemn the racists and crazies that sit in the stupid seats with them. Is it OK for your compadres to spam racist posts about “niggers” onto a climate newsgroup and then try to talk climate change in the next post? Most of you appear to think it is perfectly OK, as the extent of denier criticism has been limited to three people in over a year (and well done to them. I give all 3 respect for doing that). Why do you think these scum deserve listening to, deniers?
Spinner thinks that "The difference between 'a procedure' and judging things by eye, is called manipulation". Does spinner really think that all graphs should be judged by eye and no and statistical testing should be abandoned?
One-track pony thinks that cold can be transported somewhere else. Where did this pony get his education? Why hasn’t any denier taken him to one side and given him a short, sharp lesson in thermodynamics?
alien and webby think there is a low correlation between CO2 rising and rising temperatures. The correlation between CO2 and temperature, through the temperature record is around 0.9. Demonstrated on here with 2 separate statistical tests. Both were significant at the 99% level. Neither have done any tests and thus believe the correlation is “very poor”. Why do you believe this, alien and webby?
tundy (and other deniers) won’t accept that there are hugely more warm records being set globally than cold ones, despite being shown the ration of warm to cold records recently is over 50:1. Why won’t you accept this fact, tundy?
spinner thinks that a 9 - year period, starting in 1998, is enough to create a new baseline mean temperature to which one should compare current global temperatures. No-one else in science, except Ole would think that is a good idea. Why do you, spinner?
spinner thinks that a professor who thinks that we are currently (June 2012) in El Nino conditions should be a credible source for information about climate science. Why would you believe that, spinner? (spinner *believes* in people - see "Avoid, dodge, deny".
bony thinks that because he attended a class about it once, he understands the “scientific method” and a hundreds of thousands of published, PhD educated scientists simply don’t understand. What makes you so deluded as to think that bony?
Deluded denky thinks that radiative transfer theory is just a “notion”. There’s not a physicist on the planet that would agree with him. Why do you think that, deluded denky?
one-track-pony thinks this: “that 1/3 of the and cooling is important to me, because it shows that YOUR global (3/3) warming is a lie”. So, BEST shows pony that GW has not actually happened. Why on earth would you think that, when BEST and everyone involved with it, plus all scientists who have read the study and anyone with a brain understand that your belief is preposterous and stupid?
tundy thinks that trace gases can only impact the climate by trace amounts. Why would you think that tundy, in the face of all the physics and all the physicists that would tell you that such a statement is utterly ridiculous?
alien thinks that increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause warming and says so. No physicist would agree with this statement. Why do you alien?
pauly thinks that 12 years is enough data to judge that a trend-change in global temperatures has occurred. No other scientist, or statistician would. Why do you think that, pauly?
spinner thinks that a May which is 4th warmest in the UAH series and occurring only 3 months after the end of a La Nina is: “not very warm at all, really”. Why do you think that, spinner?
tundy thinks that May 2012 should be the warmest May on record. Why on earth should you think that tundy? Spinner and dancer won’t criticise this idiocy. Why not, the pair of you?
spinner thinks that “abuse” is being asked questions he can’t answer, then having that failure to answer recorded for posterity on the newsgroup. Spinner and the rest of the deniers reading this think that this list is “abusive”. Why would you think that?
Yet more deniers are failing miserably to put their money where their mouth is and wager that a global temperature record won’t be set next year. Yet they constantly say global temperatures have stopped rising. What does that make them?
Not a single denier can answer this question and back it with any size body of science, though they’ve had every chance to answer: “What’s causing global warming”. Why can’t *any* of you answer this and use a body of science to back your thinking?
pony and catoni think that a 1:3 ratio means a 1-in-3 chance. Did you fail basic mathematics at school, the pair of you?
jimmy-cut-and-paste and where’s wally say again that crazy Monckton has credence, ignoring the fact that he has claimed he may have invented a cure for all the major diseases of mankind. Why do you say that?
harryboy thinks that benny-bison retracted what he said about bison managing to cross the Permian Triassic boundary and avoid the extinction. Why would you think that, when his total idiocy is clearly laid out for you harryboy?
benny-bison thinks that bison were around at the Permian-Triassic boundary, 241m years ago. What on earth prompted you to write that, benny?
tundy thinks that the approx. 1.2C of warming that is predicted by radiative transmission theory from a doubling of CO2 includes forcings from methane emissions. Oh dear. Why didn’t you actually *read* and *understand* the theory tundy, before typing your crap?
dancer cuts and pastes Corbyn predicting that the UK will have its coldest May on record, as an example of global cooling. With half of the month gone, I can assure you it won’t be. How can a forecast for the UK be an example of global cooling? And from Corbyn? Why did you say that dancer?
dancer thinks someone is going round calling deniers “Nazis”, but can’t actually put his finger on who that might be. Why did you tell that particular porky, dancer?
Arctic sea is highly likely to be at a similar extent in early May 2100 and it is at a similar extent to early May 1900. tundy cannot understand that and still posts snapshots of ice extent in May, over a 30-year period, as if they have significance. Why do you do that, tundy?
jimmy-cut-and-paste and a whole bunch of other deniers jumped into the weather trap saying that a high Bering Sea ice extent in April 2012 was an indicator that showed something about Arctic Sea ice extent in general and GW thus is not really affecting the Arctic. One of them can’t spell Bering Sea and another posts snapshots of Arctic sea ice during the melt and freezing seasons, to show that “there has been no change”. Why do you do this?
spinner, why do you feel that homophobia is a tactic that can be use legitimately to escape answering the many questions that hang over you, unanswered?
benny –bison thinks that Roy Spencer should get the Nobel Prize, after “discussing” his work on SS. What actually happened benny is that they very quickly found out you are just another denier idiot; didn’t they? And benny, Spencer actually has only a slightly better chance of getting the Nobel prize than you have; hasn’t he?
webby’s answer to why March 2012 was cooler than March 1998 and why March 2012 was warmer than 98/100 Marches of the last century is………….”nobody knows”. All that scientific knowledge; why has it passed you by webby?
dancer thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
webby thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
spinner thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
denky thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
The BEST study clearly shows otherwise and almost no-one climate science believes that global temperatures are falling, but I’m sure this list will grow over time.
spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that, spinner, when “Goddard” was entirely wrong about the NSIDC “tampering with data”? You lied to attempt to denigrate good scientists, didn’t you?
spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that, spinner?
spinner can’t explain why March 2012 was cooler than every other March since 2000, but warmer than 98/100 Marches during the last century. Every scientist knows why, but somehow, spinner can’t find it in him to explain it. If he did, or another denier did, their edifice would crumble.
spinner simply can’t see the “f****** warming”……..well just keep your eyes open during the next El Nino spinner and you are sure to see it.
benny thinks the data actually backs his cause. Why would that be benny, as it certainly does not.
tundy ( whoever he is) feels that it is OK to lie on alt.g-w, then to accuse others of lying. Why is that tundy?
tundy ( whoever he is) feels it is OK to accuse and try to castigate someone for posting anonymously, whilst posting anonymously himself. Why is that, tundy (whoever you are)?
No national temperature records have been set in Europe in 2012, or anywhere else in the world for the last 2 years, but tundy says there has been record cold, because he gets his fact from lazy newspaper hacks, who, like him, can’t be bothered to research the real facts.. Why do you allow your ignorance to tar you with lies, tundy?
jimmy-cut-and-paste cannot explain why 2011 was cooler than 1998. Every climate scientists and anyone with any knowledge can; why can’t you, jimmy-cut-and-paste? Neither can spinner, or any other denier, for that matter. Why, when everyone working in climate science knows the reason?
jimmy-cut-and-paste posts things which destroy denier ideas and he does it because he’s too ignorant to bother to *read* what he posts. It’s both pathetic and wholly ignorant, jimmy-cut-and-paste, isn’t it? Why do you do it?
tundy thinks, as other deniers do, that GW stopped in 1998, but in the next breath says that “28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things”. How do you reconcile those two things tundy?
Deniers have posted almost 500 posts saying that local, temporary cold means that the global climate is changing. Not a single denier has ever criticised them for doing so. Why is that?
georgie porgie thinks that a colder spell, in a mild winter in Europe, makes the whole European winter cold and shows that the world has stopped warming. Have you got a brain, porgie?
Nutters, racists and climate deniers like catoni and tundy have started threads about temporary cold in Europe not being able to happen with rising global temperatures. Why do you think that?
jimmy cut-and-paste won’t, or can’t, explain why 2012 was cooler than 1998. Why is that, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
dancer thinks that it has to take takes “30 f****** years for CO2 to take effect and has no clue why he’s being utterly stupid in saying that. Why do you say that, dancer and why are you being stupid?
dancer thinks that a fabrication, on a denier blog, is the truth of what the UK MetO has said about global temperatures over the last 15 years. Why can’t you see the lie, dancer?
dancer thinks that when the temperature in Devon, England drops to 0C, it is worth posting the fact in alt.**global-warming** as some kind of evidence that the global climate is cooling. How stupid can you possibly get, dancer?
jimmy-cut-and-paste believes that NASA is somehow not a credible source of information about science. Every scientist on earth knows they are. What do you know that everyone in science does know, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
Deniers constantly plague the newsgroup with tales of global temperatures having , “plateaued”, not risen (always since 1998, of course), “begun to decline” but when you ask them the simple question “has global warming stopped”, they will use whatever tactic they can to avoid answering the question. Why is that?
Despite this list of facts about global temperatures, webby thinks that global temperatures have “plateaued”:
1. 9 of the warmest years in the temperature record have occurred since 1998.
2. The last decade was by far the warmest. globally, in the temperature record.
3. 2011 was a year with a double La Nina. This occurred in *none* of the other years since 1998.
4. 1998 itself saw the strongest El Nino of recent times.
5. There has been not one, but two, years since then that have
equalled or exceeded the temperatures achieved in 1998, without
having an El Nino as strong as that in 1998.
Why would anyone believe you webby?
alien has decided GW has stopped because he thinks Phil Jones has told him it has. There won’t be any global temperature records set in the next 5 years then if that is the case, alien, will there?
Deniers like brucie, catoni, tundy and others say and agree with stuff like; "You have presented examples of short term local cooling. That's just called weather around here" and ignore the 600 times that their denialist friends have said exactly that over the past year, or so. Not once have any of you picked any of these losers up for doing this, despite me recording every single time they’ve done it. Why is that deniers?
Webby thinks that global temperatures were down from their peak “yet again”. However they were at record levels only the year before. Why does webby say he believes that global temperatures were down from their peak “yet again”?
dancer now believes there has been no warming since 1995. Unfortunately for him the last decade was the warmest on record and the period 1995-2010 contained all 12 of the warmest years on record. Why do you think that, in the face of those “hard observational facts” dancer?
Instead of saying what could be causing the current warming, if it isn’t CO2, wally asks for someone to please present an exhaustive list of all other causes which have been ruled out! Why wally? Just tell us what it could be and back that with science.
giga says that leading sceptic Judith Curry uses the acronym CAGW in her writings. She never has. giga made it up. Why did you do that giga, if it wasn’t for effect?
brucie thinks a 10-year period is now enough to start a trend in global temperatures, as do so many other deniers. bluey and spinner think 7 years is now enough to establish a trend in global SSTs. Why do deniers not understand the needs of statistical trends and significance?
Instead of accepting that ocean pH worldwide is reducing, bilbo, tundy, catoni, giga and others would rather indulge in semantics about “oceans not acidifying”. Why do you do that? Why not accept that there is a problem with an obvious cause instead of trying vainly to play word games?
jimmy-cut-and-paste feels that an advertising executive is an expert on global warming. Why do you think that, jimmy-cut-and-paste and why can’t you point to any scientists? <trying to suppress laughter>
bluey thinks that we are the peak of a solar cycle. Despite his total ignorance of what’s actually happening, he’d like us to take his ideas on climate science seriously. Deniers do this kind of thing all the time (see this list). Why don’t they check their facts before posting?
orville thinks that these 4 things are more likely than CO2 to be driving the current warming, but he has no evidence whatsoever to back this claim. Why do you believe this orville?
1. Clearing of forest/woodlands exposing bare earth.
2. Spread of urban areas, with a lot of IR-absorbing asphalt (both roofs
and pavement)
3. Shifting ocean currents
4. Sunspot activity
Instead of accepting undeniable facts – like there has been significant warming from 1979-present, giga has taken to responding by laughing in a deranged way. Why do you do this giga, to a fact that you simply cannot deny?
bluey posts some information about temperatures at 14,000’, but misses the date on the quote from Spencer – it was from the end of *October* and still expects us to swallow a link to a global temperature anomaly being “0”, when the present anomaly indicates nothing of the sort. Why did you do that, bluey?
bilbo championed Lindzen for 6 months, until Lindzen broke bilbo’s little heart by accepting Trenberth’s criticism of his 2009 paper with Choi. Why did you *never* mention this paper again, Bilbo? Were you wrong in your support?
bluebottle thinks that having 38 scientists (wiki) who have made statements which don’t agree with the 3 main tenets of the IPCC is some kind of enormous band of brotherly support. Literally millions agree with those IPCC tenets bluebottle. That places you and yours in the tiniest of tiny minorities, doesn’t it?
pauly; show us a single scientific publication, or scientist that thinks that whole-Arctic ice extent/thickness in the 1920's was less/similar in summer than it has been in the last 10 years. There isn’t; you can’t; so why do you continue to believe that this pile of anecdotal crap is true?
All of the experts in the world say the past decade was the warmest on record. dancer and a host of deniers think warming has not continued past 1998. Why would that be then?
spinner thinks that Christopher Booker, a “Daily Telegraph” hack with no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who has written articles criticising both climate scientists and evolution, is expert enough to be believable when he criticises the BBC for its science. Why would you think that, spinner?
spinner tries to cast doubt on the extremely strong relationship between CO2 increases and temperature increases in the GISS (or NOAA, or Hadley, or the two satellite) temperature series, but can’t do the calculations himself. Why can’t you do them spinner? Are you afraid of the result?
Apart from these 7 things; Spencer, Misclokzi, Lindzen, lots of right wing hacks, denier blogs, non-scientists like Monckton and the GWPU and cherrypicking 1998 as a datum point, deniers can’t point to anything else they have to support their climate denial. Well can you?
bilbo thinks that a snow in the Scottish highlands is a verification of climate predictions, which he has made up (lied about) which apparently said that the UK would get no more snow. This was after the second warmest Autumn in 353 years in the UK. Why would you lie for effect and say something like that, Bilbo?
wally thinks the sun has been responsible for the current warming, but where’s the correlation that shows that, Wally? You can have correlation without causation , but not causation without correlation. Same for any other denier that thinks something else is causing the warming.
wally, orville and a bunch of other deniers think that a whole load of factors could be causing the current warming, apart from CO2, but cannot point to any body of evidence that they actually are. Why is that?
A whole bunch of deniers, including tundy, denky and recently, wally want to propose that climate science is all a big conspiracy, based on money. As this would include the involvement of 200 governments (yours being one of them) and their major scientific advisors, including all their national science institutions. 660 scientific institutions and their millions of members worldwide and almost every practising scientist in the field, how do you justify this mad belief?
dancer appears to killfile racists without knowing what they are posting. The condemnation is in the killfiling and dancer knows full well why he filters them, so why try to snipe at someone condemning them in a different way? Deniers try to stick together, whatever other views they actually hold and even though the agenda of some is so foul, they’d normally cross the street to avoid them. In climate science, every denier is a denier’s friend – aren’t they, deniers?
Benny-bison appeared to want to bet me $5,000 that there would not be a new global temperature record set in the next 5 years. Why have you squirmed out of it, uncle ben?
Other deniers won’t go anywhere near an equal and opposite bet, offering to bet that there will be no cold global record set over the next 5 years. Wonder why?
georgie and a couple of other deniers think that the melting and freezing of the Arctic ice in summer and in winter is absolutely normal and shows no variation from past years. In the face of overwhelming evidence from so many scientists that this is not “normal”, why do you continue to believe such denialist idiocy?
dancer happily criticises me for outing and exposing the abhorrences that spout racism on the newsgroup, on a daily basis, but will not criticise the racist. It happens regularly, as deniers will crowd with whoever denies the science; no matter what their agenda, or other views. What does that say about people like dancer?
7 enquiries about emails and deniers such as tundy and mad petey are still squealing about none of the 7 finding what they wanted to. Why do you do that?
tundy and a few other deniers that can scrape up enough interest have dragged up emails again because they’ve found them on a denier website. 7 enquiries; all found what deniers didn't want to see - deniers still squealing about the unfairness of it all. Why do you bother? No-one cares.
frankie is a fundamentalist, as is wally, as is giga. They believe in miracles. Why should anyone take another word of a creationist, about any aspect of science, in the remotest bit seriously?
georgie, tundy, jimmy-cut-and-paste and giga all think Monckton is a level headed sort of guy who talks sense about climate science; but the same guy thinks he cured his own incurable Graves disease and probably his invention cures all major diseases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I Why would you think he is believable when he has made a claim like that?
giga and a few other deniers, thinks that the Heartland conference is important, but he can’t point to a single person, with any power, or influence that thinks that it is. No-one cares what the Heartland foundation says giga, do they? (No-one posts about it either).
giga thinks that CAGW stands for “Citizens against Public Waste” and that a google search that pulls up reference to this organisation term is evidence that the deniers’ CAGW exists. There is stupid and there is stupid. Why do you think this giga?
brucie thinks that long standing maximum temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show that area can't have warmed like it has and and GW overall can't have happened. Why is that?
giga, spinner and others deniers think CAGW is a real term, used in the climate debate. Why then can they not point to a single published paper that refers to this. You made it up, didn’t you?
spinner-cut-and-paste thinks that papers published in Chinese journals, that quote Lindzen and Choi 2009 (that Lindzen himself accepted was a flawed paper) has something to say about climate science. Why do you think that, spinner?
spinner posts an unsourced graph, showing CO2 increases and temperature increases on different vertical scales, over a cherry-picked time period of 40 years, with no accompanying statistical analysis and says that it shows that GW isn’t happening. Why did you do that, spinner?
denier 888, (now one-track-pony - nymshifted to reflect this, as this piece of ignorance has taken over his alt.g-w life)now thinks the BEST report came to the conclusion that the BEST report shows global cooling over the last 70 years, because 1/3 % of land stations show no warming/cooling over that period. Why would anyone who has read the report think that could possibly be its conclusion when every single scientific institution, every national science academy and every stable government *on the planet* disagrees with you. You think you know better. Why is that?
All deniers deny the fact that CO2 is the major driver of the current global warming, but not one of you can point to a body of evidence that points to anything else that drives it. Why do you employ this as your mantra, instead of cogently suggesting other possible causes and pointing to the scientific evidence to back it?
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"……………..?
jimmy cut-and-paste believes……oh honestly; who cares what he believes. He clearly doesn’t understand the posts he culls from denier blogs anyway
dancer , now webby, (and every other climate denier in the group) feels there is no strong relationship between CO2 and the recent warming, though 2 separate correlation coefficients between the two are 0.87 and 0.91 and are significant at the 99% level (1880-2010), as there are so many data points. Why do you feel there isn’t a strong relationship?
trekkie believes that the Arctic and Antarctic exist under identical climate influences. Why do you think that when a simple Google search would educate you?
trekkie, and many other deniers believe that GW has not been confirmed by the BEST study. Why do you think that?
bilbo believes that photons know the temperature of the object to which they are travelling. How can that possibly be, Bilbo?
spinner and dancer think the strongest El Nino of modern times should be used as a baseline from which to judge warming over 13 years. Why would that be?
spinner and dancer think that 13 years is now considered a long enough period after which to judge that a new climate trend has been established, especially when you pick 1998, one of the warmest years in a 200-year temperature sequence, as the baseline for that trend. Why do you think that?
mad petey, tundy, several racists and every other denier thinks that when it is temporarily colder in one small locality, e.g. New York City, it means that global warming has stopped – as not a single one of them has ever criticised the 420 discussion treads that have been opened by deniers to say that this cannot be happening with global warming. How can you believe this? Yes, *you* denier reading this; *you* believe this, don’t you? If you don’t, why don’t you say so?
A bunch of deniers, including denier 888 (pony), spinner, tundy and giga, catoni, mad petey and someone called eric think that the opinion of a blogger without a science degree, who has written a book about the IPCC, is worth more than the opinion of every single scientific institution on earth. Why would you think that?
giga, tundy, mad petey, frankie, ray and a host of other deniers believe that god is ultimately responsible for the world’s climate. Why would that be then and why have you not stepped out of the 14th Century?
bilbo accepts Miscolkzi’s theories (but he’s not a scientist). Why do so few other actual scientists accept Miskolczi’s theories if they are correct, bilbo?
jimmy-cut-and-paste, tundy, mad petey and a whole tribe of deniers will not accept that the BEST report confirms that there can be no more arguments about the temperature record not being cogent. Why is that?
denier 888 thinks that because the BEST report found that 1/3 of stations show no warming, global warming cannot have happened. Why is that?
tundy and denky believe that 14ppm is the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2. Show us why, taking into account the science that tells you clearly that it isn’t 14ppm.
brucie thinks someone has said that all 20 ocean/atmosphere coupled models are correct. Who’s done this?
Almost all deniers in this group refuse to criticise the racists that post outright scum and subhuman view. Why is that?
tundy believes that Al Gore is a science expert and has many wet dreams about him. Why do you do that tundy?
giga thinks CO2 is going to reduce in the next few years. Tell us where the evidence is for this thinking.
Giga, tundy, mad petey and a bunch of other deniers think that GW is much more likely to have been ordained by god, than caused by CO2. Tell us why you think that?
giga believes that “most scientists are wrong” about AGW. Why would you think that, giga?
Why do obvious climate deniers, like tundy, spinner, and all the other deluded deniers on here, think they are climate sceptics. Explain yourselves.
catoni thinks that more cold records than warm are being set globally. Why would that be when the data point clearly to very few cold records being set and no national ones, whereas hundreds of local warm records have being set and many national ones?
jimmy-cut-and-paste, tundy (good old tundy, we love him) old george, giga, someone-called-eric, mad petey, denier 888 and a martian all think that a book written by an opportunist without a science degree counts more towards our understanding of the IPCC than the opinion of every single national science institution on earth. Why would you think that?
bony and beamer have convinced themselves that no scientist working in climate science is applying what they feel is “the scientific method”. What exactly is this and how should it be applied.
spinner, tundy, brucie and most recently, mad petey and a whole load of others think that there are “real scientists” out there that agree with them. Brucie thinks some work at the IPCC and agree with him that deforestation is causing more GW than is CO2.
Every denier on this group secretly hopes and believes that global temperatures will not reach record levels within the next 5 years, but none will stake money on that belief (i.e. you are all hypocrites). Why is that?
bilbo thinks Miskolczi (2010) is the holy grail of climate deniers. Tell us why hardly anyone cites Miskolczi in their work?
bilbo used to think Lindzen and Choi (2009) was the holy grail of climate deniers. Tell us why you don’t mention this paper any more.
frankie, spinner and mad petey think global warming started in ~1970. Why do you believe that when no-one else working in climate science does?
half-brain thinks……..nah he doesn’t.
spinner thinks the Hadley temperature series started in 1979 and uses that Hadley baseline date to show there is apparently no relationship between temperatures and CO2 increases. Why, when the Hadley temp series started in 1860?
spinner and every other denier thinks that climate models are wrong. Point to a single one that has wrongly predicted a rise in global temperatures based upon a linear increase in CO2 to date. Just *one*.
Spinner thinks that 7 years of data concerning ocean heat content is enough to show a trend. No statistician, or scientist would agree. He also thinks that a 5-years of data in a clear 160-year warming trend is enough to show a reversal of a trend. Again, no statistician, or decent scientist would agree. Why do you think these are long enough, spinner
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight away.
One of their ilk believes that lobsters can’t have colonised the Antarctic shelf, because they couldn’t walk across the abyssal plains. One of the most stupid and ignorant things that has ever been said in this newsgroup. Why did no denier ever criticised him for doing so?
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there has been no warming?
spinner thinks that ships, temporarily stuck in the Gulf of Finland last spring, were evidence that ice melt was slow in the Arctic. Why would you think that the Gulf of Finland is in the Arctic?
spinner thinks that when there are gales in a small area of the UK, every windmill in the UK has to shut down. Why would that be so?
spinner thinks that global heat content has not increased recently and has desperately tried to say it hasn’t. The data shows otherwise. Why do you think you are right.
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight away.
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there has been no warming?
jimmy cut-and-paste thinks oil magically appears in rocks without having any organic source. Why would *anyone* believe that? Explain yourself.
jimmy cut-and-paste and tundy believe that wind power in the UK has not been a success. Why would that be, when there are times when it contributes *10%* to the energy mix, a figure that was not even dreamed about only 5 years ago?
mad petey thinks temporary weather in Germany means that GW has stopped. As do the vast majority of deniers. Why do you think that?
mad petey has been asked to say why he chose to use a video loop ending in July 2010 as evidence for a strong La Nina starting in July 2011 (It didn’t, it hasn’t, but mad petey thinks it started in July and told us that. Tell us.
mad petey thinks ENSO is predictable to within 1 month. Show us how.
mad petey thinks that the fact that heathrow has beefed up its snow defences means that the UK is due another cold winter month and that shows GW has stopped. Why do you think that?
mad petey thinks that a temperature anomaly graph actually shows temperatures from 1880 and thus shows no warming. Explain why you think this.
mad petey thinks there is a country which agrees with his mad views about GW. Which would that country be then?
mad petey actually denies that CO2 can be warming the atmosphere at all. Why would you think this when every single physicist would disagree with you?
The data posted shows significant warming from every year in the 1990s to a decade later, except for 1998-2008, but a host of deniers say the world's temperatures have flat-lined and warming has stopped. Why is that?
There has been significant warming from 1997-present and from 1999 to the present, but because 1998 to the present shows no significant warming, giga and so many others, believe that global temperatures have not increased. Explain yourself.
And the two killers, which every single denier tries anything they can to avoid reality by avoiding, as they have no answer.
1. Given that we had 24 months of below average temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, a negative PDO lasting >5 years, a sunspot cycle that has only just started, after the longest solar minimum for over a century and the earth being on the cooling limb of a Milankovitch cycle…………………..how on earth can global monthly temperatures have stayed consistently in the top 20 on record and mainly in the top 10, for their respective month over this period?
2. Not a single scientific institution *on earth* that believes what you do, deniers. Over 600 of them. Neither does a single national science academy, nor any government that attended Cancun. Are they all wrong?
Every answer you come up with will be answered and it will be good to see them, as you have avoided, dodged, or denied all of them, over the course of the last year, or so.
Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the deniers who have uttered them.
Avoid, dodge, deny………………………
See if you've been added, deniers. Now don't deny that you look at this every time is is posted for you. The idiocy contained within it even stuns me - and I compile it and I've seen most of it dozens of times! Some of these entries just beggar belief. What this list does is that it ensures that none of you can get away by saying "I never said that"........because, deniers, you did. You now have every opportunity to challenge what is in here, but not a year down the line. Please don't use the size of the archive to try to hide your past idiocy and attempt say you never said any of this.........because you did.
Avoid, dodge, deny………………………
I like to monitor the activities of the deniers in the group. None of them can now say, with any credibility that their detractors constantly refer to weather events to back GW happening, or, that mainstream science followers use a failed American politician as some kind of AGW expert, because of that past monitoring (tundy take note). I’ve shown clearly that it is actually deniers who do these two things almost exclusively (and tundy has many wet dreams about his night- time muse) and their opponents hardly ever. As a result, I’ve removed those tools from your (sparse and shrinking) denier arsenal. Weather reports still happen, because deniers can't bear to let them go and can't resist. Al Gore is hardly ever now mentioned, except by tundy.
I’ve been monitoring individuals’ use of dodges, avoidance and outright denial when they can’t answer questions. And these are only to questions that *I've* asked them. There have been many more instances. Every single one is an actual example of where deniers have exercised the techniques of “avoid”, “dodge”, or “deny”.
*Every single one* is also always logged immediately after the denier has failed to answer the question asked, or has posted the idiocy. The list is absolutely damning. Here you go. The most recent are at the top. If, later, someone who is not a denier exonerates the denier, I’ll remove the reference. E.g. harryboy has his old name back.
Deniers, unfortunately, have run away from almost every entry on here. The single worst runaway, by a runaway margin, is an anonymous poster called spinner, who like to call himself “Falcon”. The running away from answering questions is getting worse, as deniers run out of ideas.
NEW**Recently, there are less deniers posting and some names are now history. The deniers that don't post any more haven't been replaced. There doesn't appear to be a new breed. Some will have left because they can't bear being made fools of. Some will have left for the right reason - they've changed their mind, but would never, of course, admit that here.**
Joey is “not convinced” that GW has actually happened, because he remembers more 100 degree days and sees more frosts in his back garden today, than in the past. Everyone else looks at global figures, even some deniers. Why don’t you, joey?
Joey thinks that the record warm temperatures in the USA last summer were not really caused by it being warm, but by it being dry. Honestly; he does. Why would you think that joey? No-one else in science, or anywhere else, for that matter, does.
joey thinks that “spikes” in the temperature record are caused by wars, or the firing of cruise missiles. There’s not a scrap of published evidence to say anything of the sort, but Joey thinks it’s true. Why, joey?
joey thinks the warming of the last decade was down to “changing weather station lists”, or “moving the stations to airports” and not down to actual warming. No scientist thinks this, but joey believes it. Why do you believe this, joey?.
spinner has actually stated that the GHE does not exist as science knows it. Other deniers, like joey and deluded denky have too, so he’s joining a select band. Amazing, but really, he doesn’t understand what it is, so I suppose this one could be forgivable, *>))
In March of 2013, a host of deniers started >50 threads and hundreds of separate posts, to tell us that it was cold in their back yards and thus it was evidence that GW has stopped. Unfortunately for them March was in the top 10 warmest March’s on record, despite no El Nino conditions in the equatorial Pacific. Why did you really post those weather posts, deniers? What was your aim?
spinner tells the newsgroup that Christidis et al 2013 shows that land use changes can explain GW, when the paper in fact shows the exact opposite and that land use changes have perhaps cooled the earth. Why do you lie spinner? You simply didn’t understand the abstract, did you?
tundy, in his abject stupidity and frustration with being outed as a nutbar so many times, tries to “out” one of his educationally far better educated opponents called *Dawlish*. Unfortunately he outs a plumber in *Falmouth*. Tundy; why do you bother <laughing>?
A whole bunch of deniers, including dancer, joey, one-track pony, pauly, jimmy-cut-and-paste, little willy and some really extreme fascist nutbars, were taken in by a hack’s version of what Dr. Pachuari said in an interview. Didn’t any of think to check your sources?
Despite >two dozen studies verifying Mann, Bradley and Hughes’ 1999 paper and an avalanche of rebuttal, nutbars like pauly (and every single denier) will never accept that Mann’s graphs of temperature reconstruction are accurate. There’s nothing anyone can do when belief gets in the way of science.
georgie porgie thinks that sea levels are equal all over the world. Why don’t you just do some simple research, georgie porgie and learn the truth?
joey thinks that CO2 is a nutrient and the Amazon rainforest could survive without trees decomposing to provide other trees with the nutrients they need for growth. What????
dozy thinks that a species of coral that only grows in the Atlantic is going to grow and save the residents of Kiribati from inundation by rising seas. Why on earth would you think that, dozy?
spinner said: “NASA was infiltrated by environmental activists long ago” <shakes head> Did you really say that spinner? I think you’d have one hell of a difficult time selling that idiotic sentence to anyone apart from a science denier.
A whole bunch of deniers saw the word “leaked” and really though AR5 was going to show things that would please them. It took about 12 hours for the reality to sink in. AR5 will show overwhelming evidence for CO2 being the main cause of warming, won’t it, deniers?
Georgie porgie and dozy think Kiribati’s problems with rising sea levels will be solved by coral growth. Why on earth would you think that is remotely possible in 50-100 years, the pair of you?
Tundy thinks it is perfectly OK to associate Michael Mann with child abuse because he received a prestigious award and tundy doesn’t like it. Why did you do that tundy? Will you stoop to saying *anything* to bolster your own far-right wing denial?
Tundy thinks that a study which looked at *every single one* of nearly 14000 articles over a 21-year period used data that was “cherry picked”. Even you must recognise that you’ve been utterly stupid in not reading the study before making comments about it tundy.
pauly thinks that gordo’s opinions are “wrong in nearly every respect”. Unfortunately gordo’s opinions about CO2 and GW are very similar to every single scientific institution on the planet, every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 50/30000 published scientists in a recent survey. Why then, do you think gordo’s opinions are so wrong, pauly?
pauly thinks that papers which support his ideas are being produced on a *daily* basis. In a recent survey, 24 papers out of nearly 14,000 were found to have been sceptical about CO2 being the cause of the current warming (they didn’t all deny the possibility outright, of course). Pauly wants us to believe such papers are being produced on a daily basis. Why would you want us to think that, pauly?
spinner and pauly both think that one published sceptical study about AGW is somehow more important than 14000 other studies which are not sceptical. Why do you ignore the 14000 other studies in favour of this one, spinner and pauly?
one-track pony wrote: “A New Study Suggests That Global Warming Won't Kill Off The Polar Bears (they will actually be better off)”. Unfortunately the study doesn’t even mention how polar bears are likely to be affected by GW. Why did you do that, one-track pony?
spinner; “why did you lie about the NCDC Southeast data? What did you believe your lie would accomplish?”.
bluey says: "AGW will fall and you will take science down with you". Does bluey, or anyone else for that matter, have a clue what that means?
bony thinks sea levels aren’t rising at all. Where on earth do you get that notion from bony?
jimmy-cut-and-paste is now reduced to simply saying; “ There is no human-caused climate change”. Why isn't there a single scientific institution on earth that agrees with you. Why do only 0.001% of published scientists in a sample of nearly 14000 agree with you? Why does no government that attended Cancun, or Rio agree with you? Why does not a single National science academy on the planet agree with you?
chomper posts that there has been 0.16C warming since 1996 (why 1996??) and then in the next sentence says there has been no warming since 1996. Why did you do that, chomper?
jimmy-cut-and-paste copies and pastes separately from two different websites the same piece of out of date, non-peer-reviewed and debunked crap from 2007 without even realising it is the same. Why did you do that, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
denky thinks that the ability of CO2 to trap heat is not an established scientific fact. ?????? <shakes head>
chomper thinks James Hansen thinks that CO2 is not driving climate change. ??????? <shakes head again>
Jimmy cut and paste says there is no greenhouse effect. <shakes head>
one-track pony thinks that global temperatures are; "back at the average for the period 1951 to 1980?". However, every month this year (2012) since January (11th warmest) has been in the top 10 warmest, some close to record breaking and the year sits at 6th warmest, far warmer than *any* year in that period" . How can you think that, pony, in the face of those facts?
Knowing that, which is a fact, how can "Every month this year since January (11th) has been in the top 10 warmest, some close to record breaking and the year sits at 6th warmest, far warmer than *any* year in that period"
tundy says that David Suzuki is a "fraudulent scientist" and chomper says that "he's never had to do science for a living". It’s very easy to verify that actually he’s an emeritus professor at UBC, he’s an Internationally respected scientist and he’s been doing science all his life. You are clearly wrong about Suzuki. Why do you two feel it is necessary to try to defame scientists?
pauly thinks that most of Peru is desert – because he travelled along the coastal desert. Actually about 10% only of Peru is desert. Why did you say such a thing, pauly?
pauly thinks South America’s glaciers “will build up again”. Not a single scientist thinks they will in any timescale which will benefit Peruvians. Why on earth do you think that pauly?
chomper thinks that the Arctic’s polar bear population is perfectly healthy. “And not just healthy but experiencing an overall net gain”. Why do you believe that chomper, when the science tells you the exact opposite and that polar bear populations Arctic-wide, are decreasing.
webby thinks the height of a storm surge is influenced by roads, land use, fields, the water content of the ground and coastal development in general. Why would you persist with this ignorance webby, when a simple google search would tell you that the height of a storm surge is measured as the sea reaches land and has nothing to do with the things you propose.
chomper and tundy think that somewhere, there are scientists that have clearly linked Sandy to GW, but neither of them (nor anyone else in the denialosphere) has been able to find anything more than out-of context tweets, snipped articles, non-sequiturs, outright lies and purely fabricated lists. Why do you both think scientists have made this link when they clearly haven’t?
tundy makes up a list of scientists that have said that Hurricane Sandy was caused by GW. Unfortunately, none of them have. Why did you do that tundy? (31/10/12)
pauly, spinner and a whole bunch of other deniers have been repeating the same idiocy (again) about no warming since 1997/8, but not one of them can explain why there has been warming from 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2000. Why is this the case, deniers? (Oct 12)
dancer thinks there are reports about ice at the North Pole in 1923, but unfortunately for him, no-one visited the North Pole in 1923. Why did you say that, dancer?
pauly thinks that three temperature series, UAH, RSS and HadCRU are actually National science academies who say that GW has “remitted, it paused, it plateaued, it went to a stop, it ceased to increase” (talking about a baseline of 1997/8, of course). Why do you think they are such, pauly?
dancer posts an article from the “Daily Mail” saying that the MetO have produced a “report” and said there has been no warming for 16 years. The MetO denies any such report exists and their view is nothing like that painted by the hack. Why did you do this without bothering to research it dancer. – because it was there when you posted it, if you had bothered to do so.
spinner starts three threads in a week to say that GW stopped in 1998, In all three, he posts a graph starting in the year of the largest El Nino of recent times (1997/8) and ignore the other 148 years of data in the Hadley series. Why did you do that, spinner?
jimmy-cut-and-paste believes that because Pacific Islanders voice their concern about rising sea levels, thus should happen to them “Maybe they should just blow a hole in the islands and let them sink or better yet, tow them all to the Antarctic to replace those big sheets that keep breaking off. Then we wouldn't have to read drivel on this subject any more."
spinner thinks that an email, sent to Christopher booker by a mum who wasn’t happy about her son’s “A” level grade shows that there has been a corruption of science and the corruption of education.Why on earth would you think that, spinner?
one-track pony, who would like us to believe he has an education in science, says this about a piece of peer-reviewed published research: “I haven't bothered to read the paper that you seem to want to read. I can tell without reading it, from the link that gordo gave, that it is a piece of CRAP.” The link was to a newspaper report. I know, it beggars belief, doesn’t it?
pauly says that Jay Zwally predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Why did you lie about this prediction pauly?
spinner thinks that an article about a paper about species diversity covering millions of years is relevant to what is happening to species due to the recent global warming. Why would you think that, spinner?
someone called eric feels that a paper by James Hansen, published in 2000 saying that the NW Passage was not open is evidence that the NW Passage has not been open from 2007-12. You just shake your head at the idiocy and ignorance. Why would you think that, someone called eric?
Some deniers adopt a persona of being impartial, or they are here to learn, or they are not decided about climate change, then, gradually over time, they are revealed for what they are. Spinner, the very stupid seon are two that easily come to mind. fraidy cat and chomper are the latest of this particular breed. Why do they do this, when, actually, it’s so obvious from the start that they are a denier of one sort, or another. It’s so odd.
denky actually thinks GW has not happened. where’s wally thinks it is “maybe” happening. I’ve pointed to three other racists, nymshifters and assorted nutters who have said the same thing, so why do some deniers insist on saying that “no-one believes that GW hasn’t happened” and why don’t the deniers like dancer that have said that, criticise the crazies who say that GW (not AGW, note) has just plain not happened.
pauly thinks that because weather models can’t predict more than 10 days in advance, models can’t therefor predict climate on much longer timescales. Why would you think that pauly when science yells you that there is no connection between the two, as the parameters and inputs are so different?
pauly thinks that Amundsen, taking 3 years to crawl along the NW passage means that it was as open as it is today. Why would you think that pauly, in the face of all the evidence telling you clearly that the NW passage was not fully open in any year that Amundsen was trying to sail along it, in 1903-1906?
tundy thinks that the NW passage could have been open in any year from 1900-1970, simply because there are no written records of anyone passing through it. So does dancer. Have you really thought why that evidence doesn’t exist, tundy?
georgie porgie thinks icebreakers are cruise ships. Why would you think that, georgie porgie?
georgie porgie thinks an icebreaker, the St. Roch in the 1940’s, is an everyday schooner. Why would you think that georgie porgie?
Pony believes that we are in 60 year cycle from eyeballing a graph he’s concocted and thus it will get cooler in the future. Not a single scientist believes that. Why on earth do you believe something that no-one else believes, pony?
Spinner thinks that his eyeball analysis of a graph showing warming over the last 150+ years show no real warming at all. Why do you think that, spinner, when every single scientific institution and National science academy believes that it shows clear warming, which continues?
Michael Mann is an internationally famous and highly respected scientist, who’s work is cited by hundreds of his peers. Spinner is a nobody who feels that Mann is a "putz" who writes "illogical shit". spinner, Why would anyone believe you above them?
Tundy and one-track-pony think that monthly temperatures have to increase month-on-month for the climate to be warming. Why do you think that, the pair of you?
Trekkie thinks that there is “no facts and no proof, just hype” about GW. Other nutcases are convinced that no denier ever says that GW isn’t happening. Why do you convince yourselves of this, deniers and with 400,000 papers and 5 sets of temperature records saying the exact opposite, why do you think there are no facts, trekkie?
nothung believes that some scientific institutions agree with his ideas that “the science of CO2 being the main driver of GW is far from settled". It’s piffle. They *all* feel that CO2 is highly likely to be the driver of the current warming. Every single scientific institution on the planet. Why do you think this is not true, nothung?
tundy believes the GISS data is “rigged” but oddly, can’t point to any credible source, apart from the opinions of other climate deniers, to say that it is. Just hilarious really.
pauly is waiting for experimental evidence to prove to him that AGW exists. How many times? This is science, not mathematics, there will never be “proof”. And could you suggest an experiment that would give you this proof, pauly?
pauly says “ ….we can rule out CO2 as a major factor influencing global temperatures”. There isn’t a single scientific institution on earth and hardly a single scientist who would agree with it, but pauly thinks we should <shakes head>. Why on earth would anyone with any understanding of science say this in the face of the evidence against it? Explain yourself pauly.
tundy, harryboy, catoni and every other denier on the newsgroup will not accept the fact that, globally, warm records have outnumbered cold ones in a ratio of >50:1 since 2002. Why won’t deniers accept these data as at least indicative of what is happening? Some of them actually think there's parity!
dancer feels that scientists aren’t allowed to have interests and speak languages and that is a reason why a scientists’ data shouldn’t be accepted. Why on earth would you think that, dancer?
Again, most climate deniers on alt.g-w will not condemn the racists and crazies that sit in the stupid seats with them. Is it OK for your compadres to spam racist posts about “niggers” onto a climate newsgroup and then try to talk climate change in the next post? Most of you appear to think it is perfectly OK, as the extent of denier criticism has been limited to three people in over a year (and well done to them. I give all 3 respect for doing that). Why do you think these scum deserve listening to, deniers?
Spinner thinks that "The difference between 'a procedure' and judging things by eye, is called manipulation". Does spinner really think that all graphs should be judged by eye and no and statistical testing should be abandoned?
One-track pony thinks that cold can be transported somewhere else. Where did this pony get his education? Why hasn’t any denier taken him to one side and given him a short, sharp lesson in thermodynamics?
alien and webby think there is a low correlation between CO2 rising and rising temperatures. The correlation between CO2 and temperature, through the temperature record is around 0.9. Demonstrated on here with 2 separate statistical tests. Both were significant at the 99% level. Neither have done any tests and thus believe the correlation is “very poor”. Why do you believe this, alien and webby?
tundy (and other deniers) won’t accept that there are hugely more warm records being set globally than cold ones, despite being shown the ration of warm to cold records recently is over 50:1. Why won’t you accept this fact, tundy?
spinner thinks that a 9 - year period, starting in 1998, is enough to create a new baseline mean temperature to which one should compare current global temperatures. No-one else in science, except Ole would think that is a good idea. Why do you, spinner?
spinner thinks that a professor who thinks that we are currently (June 2012) in El Nino conditions should be a credible source for information about climate science. Why would you believe that, spinner? (spinner *believes* in people - see "Avoid, dodge, deny".
bony thinks that because he attended a class about it once, he understands the “scientific method” and a hundreds of thousands of published, PhD educated scientists simply don’t understand. What makes you so deluded as to think that bony?
Deluded denky thinks that radiative transfer theory is just a “notion”. There’s not a physicist on the planet that would agree with him. Why do you think that, deluded denky?
one-track-pony thinks this: “that 1/3 of the and cooling is important to me, because it shows that YOUR global (3/3) warming is a lie”. So, BEST shows pony that GW has not actually happened. Why on earth would you think that, when BEST and everyone involved with it, plus all scientists who have read the study and anyone with a brain understand that your belief is preposterous and stupid?
tundy thinks that trace gases can only impact the climate by trace amounts. Why would you think that tundy, in the face of all the physics and all the physicists that would tell you that such a statement is utterly ridiculous?
alien thinks that increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will not cause warming and says so. No physicist would agree with this statement. Why do you alien?
pauly thinks that 12 years is enough data to judge that a trend-change in global temperatures has occurred. No other scientist, or statistician would. Why do you think that, pauly?
spinner thinks that a May which is 4th warmest in the UAH series and occurring only 3 months after the end of a La Nina is: “not very warm at all, really”. Why do you think that, spinner?
tundy thinks that May 2012 should be the warmest May on record. Why on earth should you think that tundy? Spinner and dancer won’t criticise this idiocy. Why not, the pair of you?
spinner thinks that “abuse” is being asked questions he can’t answer, then having that failure to answer recorded for posterity on the newsgroup. Spinner and the rest of the deniers reading this think that this list is “abusive”. Why would you think that?
Yet more deniers are failing miserably to put their money where their mouth is and wager that a global temperature record won’t be set next year. Yet they constantly say global temperatures have stopped rising. What does that make them?
Not a single denier can answer this question and back it with any size body of science, though they’ve had every chance to answer: “What’s causing global warming”. Why can’t *any* of you answer this and use a body of science to back your thinking?
pony and catoni think that a 1:3 ratio means a 1-in-3 chance. Did you fail basic mathematics at school, the pair of you?
jimmy-cut-and-paste and where’s wally say again that crazy Monckton has credence, ignoring the fact that he has claimed he may have invented a cure for all the major diseases of mankind. Why do you say that?
harryboy thinks that benny-bison retracted what he said about bison managing to cross the Permian Triassic boundary and avoid the extinction. Why would you think that, when his total idiocy is clearly laid out for you harryboy?
benny-bison thinks that bison were around at the Permian-Triassic boundary, 241m years ago. What on earth prompted you to write that, benny?
tundy thinks that the approx. 1.2C of warming that is predicted by radiative transmission theory from a doubling of CO2 includes forcings from methane emissions. Oh dear. Why didn’t you actually *read* and *understand* the theory tundy, before typing your crap?
dancer cuts and pastes Corbyn predicting that the UK will have its coldest May on record, as an example of global cooling. With half of the month gone, I can assure you it won’t be. How can a forecast for the UK be an example of global cooling? And from Corbyn? Why did you say that dancer?
dancer thinks someone is going round calling deniers “Nazis”, but can’t actually put his finger on who that might be. Why did you tell that particular porky, dancer?
Arctic sea is highly likely to be at a similar extent in early May 2100 and it is at a similar extent to early May 1900. tundy cannot understand that and still posts snapshots of ice extent in May, over a 30-year period, as if they have significance. Why do you do that, tundy?
jimmy-cut-and-paste and a whole bunch of other deniers jumped into the weather trap saying that a high Bering Sea ice extent in April 2012 was an indicator that showed something about Arctic Sea ice extent in general and GW thus is not really affecting the Arctic. One of them can’t spell Bering Sea and another posts snapshots of Arctic sea ice during the melt and freezing seasons, to show that “there has been no change”. Why do you do this?
spinner, why do you feel that homophobia is a tactic that can be use legitimately to escape answering the many questions that hang over you, unanswered?
benny –bison thinks that Roy Spencer should get the Nobel Prize, after “discussing” his work on SS. What actually happened benny is that they very quickly found out you are just another denier idiot; didn’t they? And benny, Spencer actually has only a slightly better chance of getting the Nobel prize than you have; hasn’t he?
webby’s answer to why March 2012 was cooler than March 1998 and why March 2012 was warmer than 98/100 Marches of the last century is………….”nobody knows”. All that scientific knowledge; why has it passed you by webby?
dancer thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
webby thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
spinner thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
denky thinks global temperatures are falling (using 1998 as a baseline)
The BEST study clearly shows otherwise and almost no-one climate science believes that global temperatures are falling, but I’m sure this list will grow over time.
spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that, spinner, when “Goddard” was entirely wrong about the NSIDC “tampering with data”? You lied to attempt to denigrate good scientists, didn’t you?
spinner thinks a blogger who doesn’t even go by his own name “Stephen Goddard” should be believed over the NSIDC. Why do you think that, spinner?
spinner can’t explain why March 2012 was cooler than every other March since 2000, but warmer than 98/100 Marches during the last century. Every scientist knows why, but somehow, spinner can’t find it in him to explain it. If he did, or another denier did, their edifice would crumble.
spinner simply can’t see the “f****** warming”……..well just keep your eyes open during the next El Nino spinner and you are sure to see it.
benny thinks the data actually backs his cause. Why would that be benny, as it certainly does not.
tundy ( whoever he is) feels that it is OK to lie on alt.g-w, then to accuse others of lying. Why is that tundy?
tundy ( whoever he is) feels it is OK to accuse and try to castigate someone for posting anonymously, whilst posting anonymously himself. Why is that, tundy (whoever you are)?
No national temperature records have been set in Europe in 2012, or anywhere else in the world for the last 2 years, but tundy says there has been record cold, because he gets his fact from lazy newspaper hacks, who, like him, can’t be bothered to research the real facts.. Why do you allow your ignorance to tar you with lies, tundy?
jimmy-cut-and-paste cannot explain why 2011 was cooler than 1998. Every climate scientists and anyone with any knowledge can; why can’t you, jimmy-cut-and-paste? Neither can spinner, or any other denier, for that matter. Why, when everyone working in climate science knows the reason?
jimmy-cut-and-paste posts things which destroy denier ideas and he does it because he’s too ignorant to bother to *read* what he posts. It’s both pathetic and wholly ignorant, jimmy-cut-and-paste, isn’t it? Why do you do it?
tundy thinks, as other deniers do, that GW stopped in 1998, but in the next breath says that “28 years of data is nothing in the greater scheme things”. How do you reconcile those two things tundy?
Deniers have posted almost 500 posts saying that local, temporary cold means that the global climate is changing. Not a single denier has ever criticised them for doing so. Why is that?
georgie porgie thinks that a colder spell, in a mild winter in Europe, makes the whole European winter cold and shows that the world has stopped warming. Have you got a brain, porgie?
Nutters, racists and climate deniers like catoni and tundy have started threads about temporary cold in Europe not being able to happen with rising global temperatures. Why do you think that?
jimmy cut-and-paste won’t, or can’t, explain why 2012 was cooler than 1998. Why is that, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
dancer thinks that it has to take takes “30 f****** years for CO2 to take effect and has no clue why he’s being utterly stupid in saying that. Why do you say that, dancer and why are you being stupid?
dancer thinks that a fabrication, on a denier blog, is the truth of what the UK MetO has said about global temperatures over the last 15 years. Why can’t you see the lie, dancer?
dancer thinks that when the temperature in Devon, England drops to 0C, it is worth posting the fact in alt.**global-warming** as some kind of evidence that the global climate is cooling. How stupid can you possibly get, dancer?
jimmy-cut-and-paste believes that NASA is somehow not a credible source of information about science. Every scientist on earth knows they are. What do you know that everyone in science does know, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
Deniers constantly plague the newsgroup with tales of global temperatures having , “plateaued”, not risen (always since 1998, of course), “begun to decline” but when you ask them the simple question “has global warming stopped”, they will use whatever tactic they can to avoid answering the question. Why is that?
Despite this list of facts about global temperatures, webby thinks that global temperatures have “plateaued”:
1. 9 of the warmest years in the temperature record have occurred since 1998.
2. The last decade was by far the warmest. globally, in the temperature record.
3. 2011 was a year with a double La Nina. This occurred in *none* of the other years since 1998.
4. 1998 itself saw the strongest El Nino of recent times.
5. There has been not one, but two, years since then that have
equalled or exceeded the temperatures achieved in 1998, without
having an El Nino as strong as that in 1998.
Why would anyone believe you webby?
alien has decided GW has stopped because he thinks Phil Jones has told him it has. There won’t be any global temperature records set in the next 5 years then if that is the case, alien, will there?
Deniers like brucie, catoni, tundy and others say and agree with stuff like; "You have presented examples of short term local cooling. That's just called weather around here" and ignore the 600 times that their denialist friends have said exactly that over the past year, or so. Not once have any of you picked any of these losers up for doing this, despite me recording every single time they’ve done it. Why is that deniers?
Webby thinks that global temperatures were down from their peak “yet again”. However they were at record levels only the year before. Why does webby say he believes that global temperatures were down from their peak “yet again”?
dancer now believes there has been no warming since 1995. Unfortunately for him the last decade was the warmest on record and the period 1995-2010 contained all 12 of the warmest years on record. Why do you think that, in the face of those “hard observational facts” dancer?
Instead of saying what could be causing the current warming, if it isn’t CO2, wally asks for someone to please present an exhaustive list of all other causes which have been ruled out! Why wally? Just tell us what it could be and back that with science.
giga says that leading sceptic Judith Curry uses the acronym CAGW in her writings. She never has. giga made it up. Why did you do that giga, if it wasn’t for effect?
brucie thinks a 10-year period is now enough to start a trend in global temperatures, as do so many other deniers. bluey and spinner think 7 years is now enough to establish a trend in global SSTs. Why do deniers not understand the needs of statistical trends and significance?
Instead of accepting that ocean pH worldwide is reducing, bilbo, tundy, catoni, giga and others would rather indulge in semantics about “oceans not acidifying”. Why do you do that? Why not accept that there is a problem with an obvious cause instead of trying vainly to play word games?
jimmy-cut-and-paste feels that an advertising executive is an expert on global warming. Why do you think that, jimmy-cut-and-paste and why can’t you point to any scientists? <trying to suppress laughter>
bluey thinks that we are the peak of a solar cycle. Despite his total ignorance of what’s actually happening, he’d like us to take his ideas on climate science seriously. Deniers do this kind of thing all the time (see this list). Why don’t they check their facts before posting?
orville thinks that these 4 things are more likely than CO2 to be driving the current warming, but he has no evidence whatsoever to back this claim. Why do you believe this orville?
1. Clearing of forest/woodlands exposing bare earth.
2. Spread of urban areas, with a lot of IR-absorbing asphalt (both roofs
and pavement)
3. Shifting ocean currents
4. Sunspot activity
Instead of accepting undeniable facts – like there has been significant warming from 1979-present, giga has taken to responding by laughing in a deranged way. Why do you do this giga, to a fact that you simply cannot deny?
bluey posts some information about temperatures at 14,000’, but misses the date on the quote from Spencer – it was from the end of *October* and still expects us to swallow a link to a global temperature anomaly being “0”, when the present anomaly indicates nothing of the sort. Why did you do that, bluey?
bilbo championed Lindzen for 6 months, until Lindzen broke bilbo’s little heart by accepting Trenberth’s criticism of his 2009 paper with Choi. Why did you *never* mention this paper again, Bilbo? Were you wrong in your support?
bluebottle thinks that having 38 scientists (wiki) who have made statements which don’t agree with the 3 main tenets of the IPCC is some kind of enormous band of brotherly support. Literally millions agree with those IPCC tenets bluebottle. That places you and yours in the tiniest of tiny minorities, doesn’t it?
pauly; show us a single scientific publication, or scientist that thinks that whole-Arctic ice extent/thickness in the 1920's was less/similar in summer than it has been in the last 10 years. There isn’t; you can’t; so why do you continue to believe that this pile of anecdotal crap is true?
All of the experts in the world say the past decade was the warmest on record. dancer and a host of deniers think warming has not continued past 1998. Why would that be then?
spinner thinks that Christopher Booker, a “Daily Telegraph” hack with no scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who has written articles criticising both climate scientists and evolution, is expert enough to be believable when he criticises the BBC for its science. Why would you think that, spinner?
spinner tries to cast doubt on the extremely strong relationship between CO2 increases and temperature increases in the GISS (or NOAA, or Hadley, or the two satellite) temperature series, but can’t do the calculations himself. Why can’t you do them spinner? Are you afraid of the result?
Apart from these 7 things; Spencer, Misclokzi, Lindzen, lots of right wing hacks, denier blogs, non-scientists like Monckton and the GWPU and cherrypicking 1998 as a datum point, deniers can’t point to anything else they have to support their climate denial. Well can you?
bilbo thinks that a snow in the Scottish highlands is a verification of climate predictions, which he has made up (lied about) which apparently said that the UK would get no more snow. This was after the second warmest Autumn in 353 years in the UK. Why would you lie for effect and say something like that, Bilbo?
wally thinks the sun has been responsible for the current warming, but where’s the correlation that shows that, Wally? You can have correlation without causation , but not causation without correlation. Same for any other denier that thinks something else is causing the warming.
wally, orville and a bunch of other deniers think that a whole load of factors could be causing the current warming, apart from CO2, but cannot point to any body of evidence that they actually are. Why is that?
A whole bunch of deniers, including tundy, denky and recently, wally want to propose that climate science is all a big conspiracy, based on money. As this would include the involvement of 200 governments (yours being one of them) and their major scientific advisors, including all their national science institutions. 660 scientific institutions and their millions of members worldwide and almost every practising scientist in the field, how do you justify this mad belief?
dancer appears to killfile racists without knowing what they are posting. The condemnation is in the killfiling and dancer knows full well why he filters them, so why try to snipe at someone condemning them in a different way? Deniers try to stick together, whatever other views they actually hold and even though the agenda of some is so foul, they’d normally cross the street to avoid them. In climate science, every denier is a denier’s friend – aren’t they, deniers?
Benny-bison appeared to want to bet me $5,000 that there would not be a new global temperature record set in the next 5 years. Why have you squirmed out of it, uncle ben?
Other deniers won’t go anywhere near an equal and opposite bet, offering to bet that there will be no cold global record set over the next 5 years. Wonder why?
georgie and a couple of other deniers think that the melting and freezing of the Arctic ice in summer and in winter is absolutely normal and shows no variation from past years. In the face of overwhelming evidence from so many scientists that this is not “normal”, why do you continue to believe such denialist idiocy?
dancer happily criticises me for outing and exposing the abhorrences that spout racism on the newsgroup, on a daily basis, but will not criticise the racist. It happens regularly, as deniers will crowd with whoever denies the science; no matter what their agenda, or other views. What does that say about people like dancer?
7 enquiries about emails and deniers such as tundy and mad petey are still squealing about none of the 7 finding what they wanted to. Why do you do that?
tundy and a few other deniers that can scrape up enough interest have dragged up emails again because they’ve found them on a denier website. 7 enquiries; all found what deniers didn't want to see - deniers still squealing about the unfairness of it all. Why do you bother? No-one cares.
frankie is a fundamentalist, as is wally, as is giga. They believe in miracles. Why should anyone take another word of a creationist, about any aspect of science, in the remotest bit seriously?
georgie, tundy, jimmy-cut-and-paste and giga all think Monckton is a level headed sort of guy who talks sense about climate science; but the same guy thinks he cured his own incurable Graves disease and probably his invention cures all major diseases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I Why would you think he is believable when he has made a claim like that?
giga and a few other deniers, thinks that the Heartland conference is important, but he can’t point to a single person, with any power, or influence that thinks that it is. No-one cares what the Heartland foundation says giga, do they? (No-one posts about it either).
giga thinks that CAGW stands for “Citizens against Public Waste” and that a google search that pulls up reference to this organisation term is evidence that the deniers’ CAGW exists. There is stupid and there is stupid. Why do you think this giga?
brucie thinks that long standing maximum temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show that area can't have warmed like it has and and GW overall can't have happened. Why is that?
giga, spinner and others deniers think CAGW is a real term, used in the climate debate. Why then can they not point to a single published paper that refers to this. You made it up, didn’t you?
spinner-cut-and-paste thinks that papers published in Chinese journals, that quote Lindzen and Choi 2009 (that Lindzen himself accepted was a flawed paper) has something to say about climate science. Why do you think that, spinner?
spinner posts an unsourced graph, showing CO2 increases and temperature increases on different vertical scales, over a cherry-picked time period of 40 years, with no accompanying statistical analysis and says that it shows that GW isn’t happening. Why did you do that, spinner?
denier 888, (now one-track-pony - nymshifted to reflect this, as this piece of ignorance has taken over his alt.g-w life)now thinks the BEST report came to the conclusion that the BEST report shows global cooling over the last 70 years, because 1/3 % of land stations show no warming/cooling over that period. Why would anyone who has read the report think that could possibly be its conclusion when every single scientific institution, every national science academy and every stable government *on the planet* disagrees with you. You think you know better. Why is that?
All deniers deny the fact that CO2 is the major driver of the current global warming, but not one of you can point to a body of evidence that points to anything else that drives it. Why do you employ this as your mantra, instead of cogently suggesting other possible causes and pointing to the scientific evidence to back it?
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"
"I don't know what it is, but it can't be CO2"……………..?
jimmy cut-and-paste believes……oh honestly; who cares what he believes. He clearly doesn’t understand the posts he culls from denier blogs anyway
dancer , now webby, (and every other climate denier in the group) feels there is no strong relationship between CO2 and the recent warming, though 2 separate correlation coefficients between the two are 0.87 and 0.91 and are significant at the 99% level (1880-2010), as there are so many data points. Why do you feel there isn’t a strong relationship?
trekkie believes that the Arctic and Antarctic exist under identical climate influences. Why do you think that when a simple Google search would educate you?
trekkie, and many other deniers believe that GW has not been confirmed by the BEST study. Why do you think that?
bilbo believes that photons know the temperature of the object to which they are travelling. How can that possibly be, Bilbo?
spinner and dancer think the strongest El Nino of modern times should be used as a baseline from which to judge warming over 13 years. Why would that be?
spinner and dancer think that 13 years is now considered a long enough period after which to judge that a new climate trend has been established, especially when you pick 1998, one of the warmest years in a 200-year temperature sequence, as the baseline for that trend. Why do you think that?
mad petey, tundy, several racists and every other denier thinks that when it is temporarily colder in one small locality, e.g. New York City, it means that global warming has stopped – as not a single one of them has ever criticised the 420 discussion treads that have been opened by deniers to say that this cannot be happening with global warming. How can you believe this? Yes, *you* denier reading this; *you* believe this, don’t you? If you don’t, why don’t you say so?
A bunch of deniers, including denier 888 (pony), spinner, tundy and giga, catoni, mad petey and someone called eric think that the opinion of a blogger without a science degree, who has written a book about the IPCC, is worth more than the opinion of every single scientific institution on earth. Why would you think that?
giga, tundy, mad petey, frankie, ray and a host of other deniers believe that god is ultimately responsible for the world’s climate. Why would that be then and why have you not stepped out of the 14th Century?
bilbo accepts Miscolkzi’s theories (but he’s not a scientist). Why do so few other actual scientists accept Miskolczi’s theories if they are correct, bilbo?
jimmy-cut-and-paste, tundy, mad petey and a whole tribe of deniers will not accept that the BEST report confirms that there can be no more arguments about the temperature record not being cogent. Why is that?
denier 888 thinks that because the BEST report found that 1/3 of stations show no warming, global warming cannot have happened. Why is that?
tundy and denky believe that 14ppm is the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2. Show us why, taking into account the science that tells you clearly that it isn’t 14ppm.
brucie thinks someone has said that all 20 ocean/atmosphere coupled models are correct. Who’s done this?
Almost all deniers in this group refuse to criticise the racists that post outright scum and subhuman view. Why is that?
tundy believes that Al Gore is a science expert and has many wet dreams about him. Why do you do that tundy?
giga thinks CO2 is going to reduce in the next few years. Tell us where the evidence is for this thinking.
Giga, tundy, mad petey and a bunch of other deniers think that GW is much more likely to have been ordained by god, than caused by CO2. Tell us why you think that?
giga believes that “most scientists are wrong” about AGW. Why would you think that, giga?
Why do obvious climate deniers, like tundy, spinner, and all the other deluded deniers on here, think they are climate sceptics. Explain yourselves.
catoni thinks that more cold records than warm are being set globally. Why would that be when the data point clearly to very few cold records being set and no national ones, whereas hundreds of local warm records have being set and many national ones?
jimmy-cut-and-paste, tundy (good old tundy, we love him) old george, giga, someone-called-eric, mad petey, denier 888 and a martian all think that a book written by an opportunist without a science degree counts more towards our understanding of the IPCC than the opinion of every single national science institution on earth. Why would you think that?
bony and beamer have convinced themselves that no scientist working in climate science is applying what they feel is “the scientific method”. What exactly is this and how should it be applied.
spinner, tundy, brucie and most recently, mad petey and a whole load of others think that there are “real scientists” out there that agree with them. Brucie thinks some work at the IPCC and agree with him that deforestation is causing more GW than is CO2.
Every denier on this group secretly hopes and believes that global temperatures will not reach record levels within the next 5 years, but none will stake money on that belief (i.e. you are all hypocrites). Why is that?
bilbo thinks Miskolczi (2010) is the holy grail of climate deniers. Tell us why hardly anyone cites Miskolczi in their work?
bilbo used to think Lindzen and Choi (2009) was the holy grail of climate deniers. Tell us why you don’t mention this paper any more.
frankie, spinner and mad petey think global warming started in ~1970. Why do you believe that when no-one else working in climate science does?
half-brain thinks……..nah he doesn’t.
spinner thinks the Hadley temperature series started in 1979 and uses that Hadley baseline date to show there is apparently no relationship between temperatures and CO2 increases. Why, when the Hadley temp series started in 1860?
spinner and every other denier thinks that climate models are wrong. Point to a single one that has wrongly predicted a rise in global temperatures based upon a linear increase in CO2 to date. Just *one*.
Spinner thinks that 7 years of data concerning ocean heat content is enough to show a trend. No statistician, or scientist would agree. He also thinks that a 5-years of data in a clear 160-year warming trend is enough to show a reversal of a trend. Again, no statistician, or decent scientist would agree. Why do you think these are long enough, spinner
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight away.
One of their ilk believes that lobsters can’t have colonised the Antarctic shelf, because they couldn’t walk across the abyssal plains. One of the most stupid and ignorant things that has ever been said in this newsgroup. Why did no denier ever criticised him for doing so?
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there has been no warming?
spinner thinks that ships, temporarily stuck in the Gulf of Finland last spring, were evidence that ice melt was slow in the Arctic. Why would you think that the Gulf of Finland is in the Arctic?
spinner thinks that when there are gales in a small area of the UK, every windmill in the UK has to shut down. Why would that be so?
spinner thinks that global heat content has not increased recently and has desperately tried to say it hasn’t. The data shows otherwise. Why do you think you are right.
spinner thought that GW was measured by global SSTs and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that this was not true. Explain why you did that and didn’t just accept your obvious mistake straight away.
spinner, mad petey and others have been trying to tell us that the oceans have not warmed. Source data from NOAA shows there has been significant warming from 1955. Why do you continue to believe there has been no warming?
jimmy cut-and-paste thinks oil magically appears in rocks without having any organic source. Why would *anyone* believe that? Explain yourself.
jimmy cut-and-paste and tundy believe that wind power in the UK has not been a success. Why would that be, when there are times when it contributes *10%* to the energy mix, a figure that was not even dreamed about only 5 years ago?
mad petey thinks temporary weather in Germany means that GW has stopped. As do the vast majority of deniers. Why do you think that?
mad petey has been asked to say why he chose to use a video loop ending in July 2010 as evidence for a strong La Nina starting in July 2011 (It didn’t, it hasn’t, but mad petey thinks it started in July and told us that. Tell us.
mad petey thinks ENSO is predictable to within 1 month. Show us how.
mad petey thinks that the fact that heathrow has beefed up its snow defences means that the UK is due another cold winter month and that shows GW has stopped. Why do you think that?
mad petey thinks that a temperature anomaly graph actually shows temperatures from 1880 and thus shows no warming. Explain why you think this.
mad petey thinks there is a country which agrees with his mad views about GW. Which would that country be then?
mad petey actually denies that CO2 can be warming the atmosphere at all. Why would you think this when every single physicist would disagree with you?
The data posted shows significant warming from every year in the 1990s to a decade later, except for 1998-2008, but a host of deniers say the world's temperatures have flat-lined and warming has stopped. Why is that?
There has been significant warming from 1997-present and from 1999 to the present, but because 1998 to the present shows no significant warming, giga and so many others, believe that global temperatures have not increased. Explain yourself.
And the two killers, which every single denier tries anything they can to avoid reality by avoiding, as they have no answer.
1. Given that we had 24 months of below average temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, a negative PDO lasting >5 years, a sunspot cycle that has only just started, after the longest solar minimum for over a century and the earth being on the cooling limb of a Milankovitch cycle…………………..how on earth can global monthly temperatures have stayed consistently in the top 20 on record and mainly in the top 10, for their respective month over this period?
2. Not a single scientific institution *on earth* that believes what you do, deniers. Over 600 of them. Neither does a single national science academy, nor any government that attended Cancun. Are they all wrong?
Every answer you come up with will be answered and it will be good to see them, as you have avoided, dodged, or denied all of them, over the course of the last year, or so.
matt_sykes
May 20, 2013, 3:47:56 AM5/20/13
to
On 20 May, 08:48, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You missed this:
"half brain thinks I am a mongoloid idiot"
Please add it Garvey, my life wont be fullfiled untill you do!
You missed this:
"half brain thinks I am a mongoloid idiot"
Please add it Garvey, my life wont be fullfiled untill you do!
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
May 20, 2013, 3:58:20 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 2:48 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> spinner said: “NASA was infiltrated by environmental activists long ago” <shakes head> Did you really say that spinner? I think you’d have one hell of a difficult time selling that idiotic sentence to anyone apart from a science denier.
I've spoken to people at NASA. They are terrified of that idiot Obama
> spinner said: “NASA was infiltrated by environmental activists long ago” <shakes head> Did you really say that spinner? I think you’d have one hell of a difficult time selling that idiotic sentence to anyone apart from a science denier.
cutting their funding because he and his dragged-from the gutters of
Chicago minions appreciate science about as much as a cow can. So,
they ARE desperately trying to "redefine" themselves by latching onto
the global warming bandwagon. Another interesting tidbit, they've
been offered TWO spy satellites with optical systems just like the
Hubble telescope. Instead of using them for astronomy, they're
actually debating using them for ground metrology! Insane!
Dawlish
May 20, 2013, 4:07:13 AM5/20/13
to
I know; you foul litle prejudiced and discriminatory denier. Your post confirms that you are not simply bright enough to warrant an entry.
matt_sykes
May 20, 2013, 8:44:40 AM5/20/13
to
On 20 May, 10:07, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know; you foul litle prejudiced and discriminatory denier. Your post confirms that you are not simply bright enough to warrant an entry.
Yap yap yap yap. its mr yappit coming!
> I know; you foul litle prejudiced and discriminatory denier. Your post confirms that you are not simply bright enough to warrant an entry.
Dawlish
May 20, 2013, 8:52:44 AM5/20/13
to
Blue
May 20, 2013, 11:47:09 AM5/20/13
to
James
May 20, 2013, 10:40:20 PM5/20/13
to
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>
Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
> It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>
> Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
> deniers who have uttered them.
>
> Avoid, dodge, deny���������
>
> Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
> deniers who have uttered them.
>
>
Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
Dawlish
May 21, 2013, 1:42:15 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:40:20 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>
> > It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>
> >
>
> > Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
>
> > deniers who have uttered them.
>
> >
>
> > Avoid, dodge, deny………………………
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>
> > It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>
> >
>
> > Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
>
> > deniers who have uttered them.
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in compiling it. <laughing>
> >
>
>
>
> Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
Dawlish
May 21, 2013, 4:47:15 PM5/21/13
to
matt_sykes
May 22, 2013, 6:45:52 AM5/22/13
to
Tunderbar
May 22, 2013, 11:52:20 AM5/22/13
to
State. Both were investigated by the same people. Both were let off
the hook by the Penn State "investigators". Both reports spoke about
Mann and Sandusky using similar words and wording to describe them and
using the same excuses to excuse them. It is entirely correct to to
associate these two evil-doers.
>
> Tundy thinks that a study which looked at *every single one* of nearly 14000 articles over a 21-year period used data that was “cherry picked”. Even you must recognise that you’ve been utterly stupid in not reading the study before making comments about it tundy.
>
verified as a koolaide drinking moron in the same category as Oreskes.
> pauly thinks that gordo’s opinions are “wrong in nearly every respect”. Unfortunately gordo’s opinions about CO2 and GW are very similar to every single scientific institution on the planet, every National science Academy, all the governments that attended Cancun, Rio and Doha, and 50/30000 published scientists in a recent survey. Why then, do you think gordo’s opinions are so wrong, pauly?
>
> pauly thinks that papers which support his ideas are being produced on a *daily* basis. In a recent survey, 24 papers out of nearly 14,000 were found to have been sceptical about CO2 being the cause of the current warming (they didn’t all deny the possibility outright, of course). Pauly wants us to believe such papers are being produced on a daily basis. Why would you want us to think that, pauly?
>
> spinner and pauly both think that one published sceptical study about AGW is somehow more important than 14000 other studies which are not sceptical. Why do you ignore the 14000 other studies in favour of this one, spinner and pauly?
>
> one-track pony wrote: “A New Study Suggests That Global Warming Won't Kill Off The Polar Bears (they will actually be better off)”. Unfortunately the study doesn’t even mention how polar bears are likely to be affected by GW. Why did you do that, one-track pony?
>
> spinner; “why did you lie about the NCDC Southeast data? What did you believe your lie would accomplish?”.
>
> bluey says: "AGW will fall and you will take science down with you". Does bluey, or anyone else for that matter, have a clue what that means?
>
> bony thinks sea levels aren’t rising at all. Where on earth do you get that notion from bony?
>
> jimmy-cut-and-paste is now reduced to simply saying; “ There is no human-caused climate change”. Why isn't there a single scientific institution on earth that agrees with you. Why do only 0.001% of published scientists in a sample of nearly 14000 agree with you? Why does no government that attended Cancun, or Rio agree with you? Why does not a single National science academy on the planet agree with you?
>
> chomper posts that there has been 0.16C warming since 1996 (why 1996??) and then in the next sentence says there has been no warming since 1996. Why did you do that, chomper?
>
> jimmy-cut-and-paste copies and pastes separately from two different websites the same piece of out of date, non-peer-reviewed and debunked crap from 2007 without even realising it is the same. Why did
>
> read more »
James
May 22, 2013, 12:12:33 PM5/22/13
to
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7eb58b1-21d6-4074...@googlegroups.com
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:40:20 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>>
>>> It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
>>
>>> deniers who have uttered them.
>>
>>>
>>
>> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>>
>>> It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
>>
>>> deniers who have uttered them.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Avoid, dodge, deny���������
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
>
> The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in compiling
> it. <laughing>
Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to contribute.
>
> The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in compiling
> it. <laughing>
Tunderbar
May 22, 2013, 12:35:49 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 11:12 am, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e7eb58b1-21d6-4074...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:40:20 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> >> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>
> >>> It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>
> >>> Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
>
> >>> deniers who have uttered them.
>
> >>> Avoid, dodge, deny………………………
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e7eb58b1-21d6-4074...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:40:20 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> >> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5c413c86-6a75-4b2c...@googlegroups.com
>
> >>> It's not going well, deniers, is it?
>
> >>> Some beauties in here! They just have to be *so* embarrassing to the
>
> >>> deniers who have uttered them.
>
>
> >> Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
>
> > The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in compiling
> > it. <laughing>
>
> Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to contribute.
It certainly not an annoyance when these idiots keep posting shit that
> >> Thank you Cap'n Enso. Now shoo.
>
> > The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in compiling
> > it. <laughing>
>
> Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to contribute.
proves beyond a doubt that they are idiots.
i keep thanking Dawlish and Lloyd Parker for that but it goes right
over their heads. LOL. They just don't get it. LOL.
Dawlish
May 22, 2013, 2:49:55 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:52:20 PM UTC+1, Tunderbar wrote:
> Tundy thinks it is perfectly OK to associate Michael Mann with child abuse because he received a prestigious award and tundy doesn’t like it. Why did you do that tundy? Will you stoop to saying *anything* to bolster your own far-right wing denial?
Mann and Sandusky were both employed in high profile positions at Penn
State. Both were investigated by the same people. Both were let off
the hook by the Penn State "investigators". Both reports spoke about
Mann and Sandusky using similar words and wording to describe them and
using the same excuses to excuse them. It is entirely correct to to
associate these two evil-doers.
Just amazing that tundy feels it is perfectly OK to associate an internationally acclaimed scientist with a paedophile. Guilty by association eh tundy?
> Tundy thinks it is perfectly OK to associate Michael Mann with child abuse because he received a prestigious award and tundy doesn’t like it. Why did you do that tundy? Will you stoop to saying *anything* to bolster your own far-right wing denial?
Mann and Sandusky were both employed in high profile positions at Penn
State. Both were investigated by the same people. Both were let off
the hook by the Penn State "investigators". Both reports spoke about
Mann and Sandusky using similar words and wording to describe them and
using the same excuses to excuse them. It is entirely correct to to
associate these two evil-doers.
You are a foul little piece of work, aren't you?
Dawlish
May 22, 2013, 2:53:28 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:52:20 PM UTC+1, Tunderbar wrote:
> Tundy thinks that a study which looked at *every single one* of nearly 14000 articles over a 21-year period used data that was “cherry picked”. Even you must recognise that you’ve been utterly stupid in not reading the study before making comments about it tundy.
>
They cherry picked the fuck out of that dataset. cook has now been
verified as a koolaide drinking moron in the same category as Oreskes.
You still haven't read the study have you tundy? Read your entry carefully and you'll understand what you are being criticised for.
>
They cherry picked the fuck out of that dataset. cook has now been
verified as a koolaide drinking moron in the same category as Oreskes.
PS Your answer beggars belief again.
Dawlish
May 22, 2013, 2:55:35 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:12:33 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in compiling
>
> > it. <laughing>
>
>
>
> Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to contribute.
Odd, I've just compiled and contributed the most comprehensive list of denier stupidity the newsgroup has ever seen. Don't you like it, jimmy-cut-and-paste?
>
> > it. <laughing>
>
>
>
> Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to contribute.
Dawlish
May 22, 2013, 2:56:31 PM5/22/13
to
James
May 22, 2013, 10:02:41 PM5/22/13
to
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96d47063-cee2-4e34...@googlegroups.com
Dawlish
May 23, 2013, 3:10:38 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:02:41 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96d47063-cee2-4e34...@googlegroups.com
>
> > On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:12:33 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> >>> The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in
>
> >>> compiling
>
> >>
>
> >>> it. <laughing>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to
>
> >> contribute.
>
> >
>
> > Odd, I've just compiled and contributed the most comprehensive list
>
> > of denier stupidity the newsgroup has ever seen. Don't you like it,
>
> > jimmy-cut-and-paste?
>
>
>
> Bring it on stupid.
errrrrrrr........ it's the OP <laughing>
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96d47063-cee2-4e34...@googlegroups.com
>
> > On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:12:33 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> >>> The annoyance this causes to nutbars is worth the effort in
>
> >>> compiling
>
> >>
>
> >>> it. <laughing>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not an annoyance. Proof of your stupidity who has nothing to
>
> >> contribute.
>
> >
>
> > Odd, I've just compiled and contributed the most comprehensive list
>
> > of denier stupidity the newsgroup has ever seen. Don't you like it,
>
> > jimmy-cut-and-paste?
>
>
>
> Bring it on stupid.
0 new messages