Prominent Climate Scientist: Glaciers Will Melt Faster

bearkat42 said:

I'm willing to bet a week's salary that you actually pulled the lever for this dumb fuck.

Click to expand...

No, I never could stand Palin. She passes the eye test, but that's about it.

However, I did vote for McCain.

Well, I didn't vote for McCain as much as I voted against Obama. I don't like politicians at all. For me, every election choice is about what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils, rather than an endorsement of a candidate. I just don't trust any of them.

MuyLocoNC said:

1350 provided.

You do understand other people read these posts? When you just got handed your ass, covering your ears and repeating La-La-La-La-La only works for your little world. Everybody else actually sees the ass kicking.

Click to expand...

A sterling example of blissful ignorance for all to gape at.
Quite typical.

What is deliciously amusing in regard to the OP's citing of Hansen as some type of credible climate prognosticator, is how he (Hansen) has had to adjust historical temperature records in his favor...always warmer of course!

What a rich farce indeed!

Hansen also has quite an impressive record of his predictions being consistently and egregiously incorrect.
Doesn't matter. Gullible and naive big Government acolytes will blindly follow his self serving doom and gloom.
He is from a Government agency, he has to be correct...lol!

And the OP is a self professed anarchist, who suckles from the engorged Government teat...an anarchist who is beholden to the Government for his scientific beliefs as well as his very sustenance.

Truth beats fiction, hands down!

Oh well.

Wavels said:

A sterling example of blissful ignorance for all to gape at.
Quite typical.

Click to expand...

Except that not a single one of those papers contradicts anthropogenic climate change. The article doesn't even claim that they do.

Yet another sterling example of your stupidity and that of MuyPoco.

Wavels said:

What is deliciously amusing in regard to the OP's citing of Hansen as some type of credible climate prognosticator, is how he (Hansen) has had to adjust historical temperature records in his favor...always warmer of course!

What a rich farce indeed!

Hansen also has quite an impressive record of his predictions being consistently and egregiously incorrect.
Doesn't matter. Gullible and naive big Government acolytes will blindly follow his self serving doom and gloom.
He is from a Government agency, he has to be correct...lol!

Click to expand...

Citations required.

Wavels said:

And the OP is a self professed anarchist, who suckles from the engorged Government teat...an anarchist who is beholden to the Government for his scientific beliefs as well as his very sustenance.

Truth beats fiction, hands down!

Oh well.

Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem is always a fallacy, ya dingus.

abandonconflict said:

Except that not a single one of those papers contradicts anthropogenic climate change. The article doesn't even claim that they do.

Yet another sterling example of your stupidity and that of MuyPoco.

Click to expand...

What a concise and thoughtful refutation...does substance mean anything to you?
Nope!
Tell me about the historical accuracy of Hansen's climate predictions.
Adjusting the temperatures does not concern you...
And we all know that you read each and every one of the 1350 papers that you so cavalierly dismiss.
Like I said, a true farce.

abandonconflict said:

Citations required.


Argumentum ad hominem is always a fallacy, ya dingus.

Click to expand...

You bemoan the use of ad-hom, and yet this is your go to technique...hmmm?
Thanks for playing!

Wavels said:

What a concise and thoughtful refutation...does substance mean anything to you?
Nope!
Tell me about the historical accuracy of Hansen's climate predictions.
Adjusting the temperatures does not concern you...
And we all know that you read each and every one of the 1350 papers that you so cavalierly dismiss.
Like I said, a true farce.

Click to expand...

My refutation was concise enough, it's your poor reading skills that are the issue. The ARTICLE (read: he didn't cite a peer reviewed study) doesn't claim that any of those studies contradict anthropogenic climate change. Read that again if you don't understand what I'm telling you. Maybe sound out the bigger words one letter at a time.

Tell me about your claims of Hansen's historical accuracy, include some kind of citation. Which predictions in particular? How far off was he? You know, citations.

abandonconflict said:

My refutation was concise enough, it's your poor reading skills that are the issue. The ARTICLE (read: he didn't cite a peer reviewed study) doesn't claim that any of those studies contradict anthropogenic climate change. Read that again if you don't understand what I'm telling you. Maybe sound out the bigger words one letter at a time.

Tell me about your claims of Hansen's historical accuracy, include some kind of citation. Which predictions in particular? How far off was he? You know, citations.

Click to expand...

How many of the cited peer reviewed studies did you read?
Yes, sorry to inform you the 1350 are all peer reviewed...lol
You did not even read one...lol
It occurs to me that you do not even know what dingus means, because it does not fit the context within which you employ it!
And I am the moron...
Wow...you are too good to be true...thanks for exposing your woeful degree of ignorance regarding most topics.
Call me a dingus again...hahahaha

Wavels said:

How many of the cited peer reviewed studies did you read?
Yes, sorry to inform you the 1350 are all peer reviewed...lol
You did not even read one...lol
It occurs to me that you do not even know what dingus means, because it does not fit the context within which you employ it!
And I am the moron...
Wow...you are too good to be true...thanks for exposing your woeful degree of ignorance regarding most topics.
Call me a dingus again...hahahaha

Click to expand...

OK, for the third time. READ CAREFULLY.

None of the studies contradict anthropogenic climate change (I know because none exist which do) and the ARTICLE doesn't claim they do, ya dingus.

abandonconflict said:

OK, for the third time. READ CAREFULLY.

None of the studies contradict anthropogenic climate change (I know because none exist which do) and the ARTICLE doesn't claim they do.

Click to expand...

You "know" that none exist...yikes, you are a super genius who does not even know what dingus means...
And so you now admit that you read not even one of them.
Carry on.

Wavels said:

You "know" that none exist...yikes, you are a super genius who does not even know what dingus means...
And so you now admit that you read not even one of them.
Carry on.

Click to expand...

Unless you want to cite one.

Even just one would do, ya dingus.

Can you even cite a single peer reviewed study contradicting anthropogenic climate change?

Yes, but what is the point since you know already that "none" exist...1350 cited you simply dismiss without having read even one...
You prefer your blissful bubble of ignorance to the encroaching inevitable sunlight of reality.
It probably hurts.
Call me a dingus again, please!

Wavels said:

Yes, but what is the point since you know already that "none" exist...1350 cited you simply dismiss without having read even one...
You prefer your blissful bubble of ignorance to the encroaching inevitable sunlight of reality.
It probably hurts.
Call me a dingus again, please!

Click to expand...

For the fourth time, please actually read it, ya dingus.


THE ARTICLE DOESN'T CLAIM THAT ANY OF THOSE STUDIES CONTRADICT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.

Did you read the article?

All the ice melted in my cooler , Crap.

abandonconflict said:

For the fourth time, please actually read it, ya dingus.


THE ARTICLE DOESN'T CLAIM THAT ANY OF THOSE STUDIES CONTRADICT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.

Did you read the article?

Click to expand...

Well you certainly did not read the article.
You even fail to understand the headline.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#1500

What do you think an argument against something is?
This is your cue to call me a dingus again...
HAHAHA

Wavels said:

Well you certainly did not read the article.
You even fail to understand the headline.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#1500

What do you think an argument against something is?
This is your cue to call me a dingus again...
HAHAHA

Click to expand...

GOD DAMN YOU'RE FUCKING DENSE!!!!!!!

Supporting skeptic arguments against climate alarmism does not mean contradicting anthropogenic climate change, ya dingus.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting anthropogenic climate change.

Even just ONE would do.

abandonconflict said:

GOD DAMN YOU'RE FUCKING DENSE!!!!!!!

Supporting skeptic arguments against climate alarmism does not mean contradicting anthropogenic climate change, ya dingus.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting anthropogenic climate change.

Even just ONE would do.

Click to expand...

Speaking of climate change, ... nice meltdown.

Still waiting for someone to cite a peer reviewed study contradicting anthropogenic climate change.

Even just one...