shame you intellectually lack opposing thumbs
science is NOT settled until you've proved your point
science is NOT settled until you've proved your point
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Actually that's all your post is. Another in an endless vomit
of evidence free ad homina.
of evidence free ad homina.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
It's obvious from the spelling, grammar, and knowledge of science this guy knows less then the average 9 year old. He thinks the earth is a rock without an atmosphere or molten core and he calls the atmosphere 'magical gasiness'. All he's done for a hundred posts is repeat the same stupid shit over and over again. It's almost impressive.
I'm still waiting for proof that there is a greater diversity of species during a global optimum then a glacial maximum? Of course I won't ever see it because he made it up like everything else.
I've said this before but this is the sort of dimwit who represents climate deniers nowadays. There's no longer a real scientific debate about it. The only people left to oppose it are the mentally deranged, crack pots, and oil companies.
One other thing here for The Powers That Be. I hate censorship, even crackpots should have their say. But this guy's destroyed this thread. It's up to 161 posts without any meaningful exchange going on. I looked to see if this guy's a grower or has contributed anything cannabis related. I don't think he has. All I see is a hundred posts about climate. I think a tidier site would be better for everyone...
I'm still waiting for proof that there is a greater diversity of species during a global optimum then a glacial maximum? Of course I won't ever see it because he made it up like everything else.
I've said this before but this is the sort of dimwit who represents climate deniers nowadays. There's no longer a real scientific debate about it. The only people left to oppose it are the mentally deranged, crack pots, and oil companies.
One other thing here for The Powers That Be. I hate censorship, even crackpots should have their say. But this guy's destroyed this thread. It's up to 161 posts without any meaningful exchange going on. I looked to see if this guy's a grower or has contributed anything cannabis related. I don't think he has. All I see is a hundred posts about climate. I think a tidier site would be better for everyone...
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Stop lying, and your desperate hand-waving, you're not getting more scientific nor credible by now claiming
"Ice is more habitable than the grasslands and forests that appear when it melts,"
warm optima are warm optima. Your name calling and hand wringing just make you look all the more desperate.
https://i.imgur.com/sRnFBqU.png
Start contributing some evidence for your claim ice supports more life than the grasslands and forests, that appear when ice recedes.
That would be a change; for you to do something besides name call.
Of course it's so ludicrous on it's face, it's the mark something's wrong with your thinking to even try to claim it. No evidence for it's going be coming forth, you're just having an ''I can't get my way so then I'll squeal till I do'' meltdown.
"Ice is more habitable than the grasslands and forests that appear when it melts,"
warm optima are warm optima. Your name calling and hand wringing just make you look all the more desperate.
https://i.imgur.com/sRnFBqU.png
Start contributing some evidence for your claim ice supports more life than the grasslands and forests, that appear when ice recedes.
That would be a change; for you to do something besides name call.
Of course it's so ludicrous on it's face, it's the mark something's wrong with your thinking to even try to claim it. No evidence for it's going be coming forth, you're just having an ''I can't get my way so then I'll squeal till I do'' meltdown.
Last edited:
kickarse
Active member
Its like some dodgy religion, full of deniers and believers
where the truth never gets a gig, forget the record cold of the last two years
just keep on telling every tnuc its the warmest month ever,
half will believe the bullshit half wont
the flogs can't get the weather right for tomorrow, but can tell you what it will be in 100 years, never underestimate the gullibility of the human race,
especially after a lefty controlled education, forget math and real science
its all climate change and gender theory
where the truth never gets a gig, forget the record cold of the last two years
just keep on telling every tnuc its the warmest month ever,
half will believe the bullshit half wont
the flogs can't get the weather right for tomorrow, but can tell you what it will be in 100 years, never underestimate the gullibility of the human race,
especially after a lefty controlled education, forget math and real science
its all climate change and gender theory
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
We were just exchanging humorous images about science and other jokes.
Here's one for you to think about while you're out there on the beach sobbing because nobody will believe your story about the magical gases that make more than 100% of available energy come out of the rocky planet they make 29% less go into.
https://goo.gl/KnLVVd
All you keep getting is good news. There's no climate panic, we're still calibrating all our instruments using the same values the French first published in 1 8 6 4.
There's no magical gassiness making more light come out of the planet every time it makes less go in,
There's no angry sky daddy, scorching your soul for the sin of having used fire, like Al Gore told you, there's no such thing as 'Climate Sin.'
There's just not, you've been subject to a ruse. We know the temperature of the planet, we know the Atmosphere cools it 29%, you've just been listening to the same people who told you a hockey stick generator was ''a whole new field of math, climate math,''
and who told you it's possible to calculate the temperatures of gases, not using the gas laws.
No, you can't, even if James Hansen told you that he could or can, or else we really would be celebrating his being something other than a criminal & fraud.
It's not the other sciences they refer to as ''the sewers of science'' - Climatology is. Your story is. https://i.imgur.com/MvycMcr.png
The rest of the sciences are as credible and functional as ever, overall. Certainly the ones reminding you the laws of physics don't allow insulation to make more energy come out of the rocky planet it cools,
every time it makes less energy go into it, are doing well.
There's even a group of ex astronauts and NASA engineers who formed an organization to try to keep Hansen and Schmidt from burning NASA's natural sciences departments completely to the ground.
They're called ''The Right Climate Stuff'' or something like that.
50 Astronauts and NASA engineers don't form a scientific organization to denounce your fraud,
if you're not really propagating fraud.
Here's one for you to think about while you're out there on the beach sobbing because nobody will believe your story about the magical gases that make more than 100% of available energy come out of the rocky planet they make 29% less go into.
https://goo.gl/KnLVVd
All you keep getting is good news. There's no climate panic, we're still calibrating all our instruments using the same values the French first published in 1 8 6 4.
There's no magical gassiness making more light come out of the planet every time it makes less go in,
There's no angry sky daddy, scorching your soul for the sin of having used fire, like Al Gore told you, there's no such thing as 'Climate Sin.'
There's just not, you've been subject to a ruse. We know the temperature of the planet, we know the Atmosphere cools it 29%, you've just been listening to the same people who told you a hockey stick generator was ''a whole new field of math, climate math,''
and who told you it's possible to calculate the temperatures of gases, not using the gas laws.
No, you can't, even if James Hansen told you that he could or can, or else we really would be celebrating his being something other than a criminal & fraud.
It's not the other sciences they refer to as ''the sewers of science'' - Climatology is. Your story is. https://i.imgur.com/MvycMcr.png
The rest of the sciences are as credible and functional as ever, overall. Certainly the ones reminding you the laws of physics don't allow insulation to make more energy come out of the rocky planet it cools,
every time it makes less energy go into it, are doing well.
There's even a group of ex astronauts and NASA engineers who formed an organization to try to keep Hansen and Schmidt from burning NASA's natural sciences departments completely to the ground.
They're called ''The Right Climate Stuff'' or something like that.
50 Astronauts and NASA engineers don't form a scientific organization to denounce your fraud,
if you're not really propagating fraud.
Last edited:
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
God damn Yamaha, I love how I can't read your shit. Ignore is a god send.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
When you've gotta hide, you've gotta hide. It's the oldest foundation of debate: when you voluntarily flee the field and hide, it's surrender.
The court system's based on it, it's such a good predictor of belief in possession of valid argument.
At least you left cursing almost every other word like a true believer.
The court system's based on it, it's such a good predictor of belief in possession of valid argument.
At least you left cursing almost every other word like a true believer.
Last edited:
I already did Stupid! I said that melting glaciers provide drinking water and irrigation. I said half the world would dry up without it. You haven't answered it all you've done is babble your witless moronic babble. Show me I'm wrong: let's see the research papers.
Same with global optimum you are still misusing the term like an idiot. Show me some research you've read that says the diversity of species increases during an optimum. Unless you do that you lose.
I've already explained how it's not. A religion relies on faith. Science is based on research. You observe and record the results without letting bias influence what you observe. This is how humanity gets smarter, by understanding the natural world around them.
Where was it a record cold? At the north pole? South Pole? Africa? Your back yard? Last summer or last winter? This is called bias. Of course it's going to be colder somewhere and hotter somewhere else. You need to look at ocean averages because water takes a long time to warm and a long time to cool down. It stores a lot of energy so yearly fluctuations don't affect it the way the land does.
Overall on average it is getting much warmer. This is why the Arctic is freezing later and melting sooner. This is why glaciers that provide water for billions of people are melting.
One minute Yamaha is arguing that the planet is not warming. Then the next he admits it's warming and tries to argue that it's good that glaciers are melting, that snow is bad and desertification is good. He can't make up his mind what he believes.
And as another note I'd never insult or treat another member the way I'm treating Yamaha. He is an exception because he doesn't grow cannabis or discuss gardening or strains or anything. He comes here to spam about climate change. He is trying to confuse people who's strong suit isn't science, make them think there is an actual debate going on. And that this debate is based on faith rather then science. The only debate going on now is between industry, the oil companies and rich corporations that want to continue exploiting coal and oil via government subsidies, and everyone else.
Really excellent post therevverend!
I've seen this guy posting on at least a half dozen other web sites. And on some actual science web sites he's saying the same stuff over and over. The other participants are obviously very science literate and they all complain that he doesn't really understand atmospheric physics. They give him links to university sites that explain physics fundamentals & I doubt that he pays any attention.
On another site he was bragging about posting here, revealing his screen name and talking about how he was making us all look like fools. And so he's under some delusion that he winning the argument.
Clearly, we have a person here who probably has some mental issues....and I'm not at all saying that to sound mean. But, I've never seen anything like this sort of behavior before.
I've seen this guy posting on at least a half dozen other web sites. And on some actual science web sites he's saying the same stuff over and over. The other participants are obviously very science literate and they all complain that he doesn't really understand atmospheric physics. They give him links to university sites that explain physics fundamentals & I doubt that he pays any attention.
On another site he was bragging about posting here, revealing his screen name and talking about how he was making us all look like fools. And so he's under some delusion that he winning the argument.
Clearly, we have a person here who probably has some mental issues....and I'm not at all saying that to sound mean. But, I've never seen anything like this sort of behavior before.
Climate Change Audit: Global Warming Figures Based on 'Careless, Amateur' Data
First ever audit on official data finds major errors making it 'effectively useless.'
By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle on 7th October 2018 @ 12.00pm
The first ever audit on the official data used for Climate Change has found the figures to be "riddled with errors," making it "effectively useless." The world's most important temperature data, HadCRUT4, is used by international governmental bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This dataset is what the dramatic claims about “man-made global warming” are based on, with governments using the data to justify spending trillions of dollars on “combating climate change” while it's also the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.
For the first time, however, the data has been audited by Australian researcher John McLean, who says it’s far too inaccurate to be taken seriously, even by climate scientists.
According to a groundbreaking analysis by McLean, the figures should never have been used by a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world. “It’s very careless and amateur,” he says.
“About the standard of a first-year university student.”
According to Breitbart, among the many errors discovered by McLean were:
Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.
Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.
Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones, giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.
Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.
Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.
A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics).
A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).
Yet this is the temperature record from which the IPCC has formed its judgment that the “global warming” since the mid-19th century is sufficiently alarming for governments around the world to have to take urgent action, which is currently costing taxpayers around $2 trillion per annum.
The HadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (of Climategate notoriety) at the University of East Anglia.
According to McLean: “It seems like neither organization properly checked the land or sea temperature data before using it in the HadCRUT4 dataset.
"If it had been checked then the CRU might have queried the more obvious errors in data supplied by different countries. "The Hadley Centre might also have found some of the inconsistencies in the sea surface temperature data, along with errors that it created itself when it copied data from the hand-written logs of some Royal Navy ships.”
McLean’s report could scarcely have come at a more embarrassing time for the IPCC. On Monday, it will release its 2018 Summary for Policy Makers claiming that the global warming crisis is more urgent than ever.
But what McLean’s audit strongly suggests is that these claims are based on data that simply cannot be trusted. Though the IPCC uses three main surface temperature datasets – the others are compiled in the U.S. by NASA and NOAA – the UK-based HadCRUT is its preferred one for historical reasons: the founder of the Hadley Centre (where HadCRUT is partly produced) was Sir John Houghton, who also happened to be co-chairman of the Working Group 1 of IPCC and was editor of its first report.
So the fact that the IPCC’s primary dataset has been shown up as shoddy, unreliable and amateurish is not helpful to the IPCC’s credibility.
As McLean says: “Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.”
McLean is the Australian IT analyst who broke another scandal about the global warming scare: that it was effectively the creation of just 53 people. He reached this figure by analyzing the IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report, which, according to the IPCC, represented a “consensus” of the views of “2500 climate scientists.”
But in fact the number of scientists involved in the key Chapter 9 – the one which reached the headline conclusion that human-induced warming was detectable in every continent except Antarctica, and that this was leading to all manner of disasters from melting glaciers and sea ice to changing rainfall patterns and more intense cyclone activity – was just 53.
Furthermore – as Christopher Booker reported in his The Real Global Warming Disaster– these 53 authors mostly belonged to a close professional network, intimately bound with Michael Mann’s “hockey stick.” Not so much a “consensus” then. More – as the subsequent Climategate scandal confirmed – a cabal of vested interests.
McLean’s audit on the failings of HadCRUT is available here from the website Robert Boyle Publishing. It costs $8 which may provide some recompense for his unpaid work, conducted as an extension of his Ph.D. thesis, supervised at James Cook University by Peter Ridd.
Ridd is the professor who was hounded out of his job after telling the truth about the Great Barrier Reef: that it wasn’t being destroyed by “global warming.” Since this didn’t accord with the narrative being promoted by his alarmist institution he was fired on the pretext that he had “engaged in a pattern of conduct that misrepresents the nature and conduct of the disciplinary process through publications online and in the media.”
Such are the inaccuracies in the data record, McLean believes, that it is impossible to know how much global temperatures have really risen. But he estimates that of the 0.6 degrees C that the planet has warmed since 1950, perhaps one third has been exaggerated. So the real figure, he estimates, is a warming of 0.4 degrees C in the last seven decades.
“Most people can’t even notice a change in temperature of 1 degree C for one moment to the next. "So the idea that governments are spending so much money on the basis of a rise in temperature a fraction of that spread over almost 70 years is just idiotic beyond belief.”
The Hadley Centre and Met Office will find it difficult to dismiss McLean as a crank. In March 2016, he advised them of certain errors which they promptly corrected. So he’s an authority they take seriously.
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/news/5261-cl...arming-figures-based-on-careless-amateur-data
© Neon Nettle
First ever audit on official data finds major errors making it 'effectively useless.'
By: Jay Greenberg |@NeonNettle on 7th October 2018 @ 12.00pm
The first ever audit on the official data used for Climate Change has found the figures to be "riddled with errors," making it "effectively useless." The world's most important temperature data, HadCRUT4, is used by international governmental bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This dataset is what the dramatic claims about “man-made global warming” are based on, with governments using the data to justify spending trillions of dollars on “combating climate change” while it's also the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.
For the first time, however, the data has been audited by Australian researcher John McLean, who says it’s far too inaccurate to be taken seriously, even by climate scientists.
According to a groundbreaking analysis by McLean, the figures should never have been used by a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world. “It’s very careless and amateur,” he says.
“About the standard of a first-year university student.”
According to Breitbart, among the many errors discovered by McLean were:
Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.
Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.
Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones, giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.
Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.
Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.
A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics).
A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).
Yet this is the temperature record from which the IPCC has formed its judgment that the “global warming” since the mid-19th century is sufficiently alarming for governments around the world to have to take urgent action, which is currently costing taxpayers around $2 trillion per annum.
The HadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (of Climategate notoriety) at the University of East Anglia.
According to McLean: “It seems like neither organization properly checked the land or sea temperature data before using it in the HadCRUT4 dataset.
"If it had been checked then the CRU might have queried the more obvious errors in data supplied by different countries. "The Hadley Centre might also have found some of the inconsistencies in the sea surface temperature data, along with errors that it created itself when it copied data from the hand-written logs of some Royal Navy ships.”
McLean’s report could scarcely have come at a more embarrassing time for the IPCC. On Monday, it will release its 2018 Summary for Policy Makers claiming that the global warming crisis is more urgent than ever.
But what McLean’s audit strongly suggests is that these claims are based on data that simply cannot be trusted. Though the IPCC uses three main surface temperature datasets – the others are compiled in the U.S. by NASA and NOAA – the UK-based HadCRUT is its preferred one for historical reasons: the founder of the Hadley Centre (where HadCRUT is partly produced) was Sir John Houghton, who also happened to be co-chairman of the Working Group 1 of IPCC and was editor of its first report.
So the fact that the IPCC’s primary dataset has been shown up as shoddy, unreliable and amateurish is not helpful to the IPCC’s credibility.
As McLean says: “Governments have had 25 years to check the data on which they’ve been spending billions of dollars. And they haven’t done so once.”
McLean is the Australian IT analyst who broke another scandal about the global warming scare: that it was effectively the creation of just 53 people. He reached this figure by analyzing the IPCC’s 2007 Assessment Report, which, according to the IPCC, represented a “consensus” of the views of “2500 climate scientists.”
But in fact the number of scientists involved in the key Chapter 9 – the one which reached the headline conclusion that human-induced warming was detectable in every continent except Antarctica, and that this was leading to all manner of disasters from melting glaciers and sea ice to changing rainfall patterns and more intense cyclone activity – was just 53.
Furthermore – as Christopher Booker reported in his The Real Global Warming Disaster– these 53 authors mostly belonged to a close professional network, intimately bound with Michael Mann’s “hockey stick.” Not so much a “consensus” then. More – as the subsequent Climategate scandal confirmed – a cabal of vested interests.
McLean’s audit on the failings of HadCRUT is available here from the website Robert Boyle Publishing. It costs $8 which may provide some recompense for his unpaid work, conducted as an extension of his Ph.D. thesis, supervised at James Cook University by Peter Ridd.
Ridd is the professor who was hounded out of his job after telling the truth about the Great Barrier Reef: that it wasn’t being destroyed by “global warming.” Since this didn’t accord with the narrative being promoted by his alarmist institution he was fired on the pretext that he had “engaged in a pattern of conduct that misrepresents the nature and conduct of the disciplinary process through publications online and in the media.”
Such are the inaccuracies in the data record, McLean believes, that it is impossible to know how much global temperatures have really risen. But he estimates that of the 0.6 degrees C that the planet has warmed since 1950, perhaps one third has been exaggerated. So the real figure, he estimates, is a warming of 0.4 degrees C in the last seven decades.
“Most people can’t even notice a change in temperature of 1 degree C for one moment to the next. "So the idea that governments are spending so much money on the basis of a rise in temperature a fraction of that spread over almost 70 years is just idiotic beyond belief.”
The Hadley Centre and Met Office will find it difficult to dismiss McLean as a crank. In March 2016, he advised them of certain errors which they promptly corrected. So he’s an authority they take seriously.
READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/news/5261-cl...arming-figures-based-on-careless-amateur-data
© Neon Nettle
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Hold on there buckaroo.
On his website McLean describes himself as a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer". In 2006, McLean published his first peer-reviewed paper -- a "review" of CSIRO reports -- in the journal Energy and Environment. In the scientific community, E&E is regarded as a bottom-of-the-barrel journal. It is the journal of choice for loony papers, amateur enthusiasts and semi-retired climate sceptic scientists who have no credentials in the field of climatology.
Yet another right wingnut wannabe climate scientist.
On his website McLean describes himself as a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer". In 2006, McLean published his first peer-reviewed paper -- a "review" of CSIRO reports -- in the journal Energy and Environment. In the scientific community, E&E is regarded as a bottom-of-the-barrel journal. It is the journal of choice for loony papers, amateur enthusiasts and semi-retired climate sceptic scientists who have no credentials in the field of climatology.
Yet another right wingnut wannabe climate scientist.
You gotta wonder why these folks haven't noticed, if all the data sets are suspect, then why is everything melting?
Oh, that's right, the ice measurements are suspect too. LOL
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Any time you get some evidence for your claims and lies, you do that.
Till then we'll all consider you don't have any evidence you're just mad because you tried to claim warmth is bad for life and that the planet's warming, and I pointed out the very name WARM OPTIMUM proves you wrong.
https://i.imgur.com/oGyfI0d.png
You're a frustrated believer in the story more energy comes out of rocks magical insulation makes less energy go into.
https://i.imgur.com/TzpXk75.png
Till then we'll all consider you don't have any evidence you're just mad because you tried to claim warmth is bad for life and that the planet's warming, and I pointed out the very name WARM OPTIMUM proves you wrong.
https://i.imgur.com/oGyfI0d.png
You're a frustrated believer in the story more energy comes out of rocks magical insulation makes less energy go into.
https://i.imgur.com/TzpXk75.png
Last edited:
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
'Whenever YOU get some information on how more energy comes out of rocks it makes more energy go into then you won't be just another frustrated child of the story about the magical gassiness,
that makes more energy leak out of the rock it makes less leak into.
You also won't be reduced to rambling name calling and whining you can't figure out how to defend yourself with any evidence, the way reverend is.
More name calling and justifications for your insulting, anti-social behavior aren't evidence for your claims,
just like the government telling people they were dogs for not believing pot's like heroin wasn't evidence for theirs.
https://i.imgur.com/FoAlpG8.png
that makes more energy leak out of the rock it makes less leak into.
You also won't be reduced to rambling name calling and whining you can't figure out how to defend yourself with any evidence, the way reverend is.
More name calling and justifications for your insulting, anti-social behavior aren't evidence for your claims,
just like the government telling people they were dogs for not believing pot's like heroin wasn't evidence for theirs.
https://i.imgur.com/FoAlpG8.png
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Everything isn't melting. More of Earth's glaciers are growing than are shrinking and the amount of ice worldwide is very average. In fact there's more ice in Antarctica, a FAR larger area than the Arctic, than almost ever before, it may be record amounts.
What's suspect is why you never stop lying, lying, lying.
https://quixoteslaststand.com/2017/...0-of-the-worlds-glaciers-are-in-fact-growing/
What's suspect is why you never stop lying, lying, lying.
https://quixoteslaststand.com/2017/...0-of-the-worlds-glaciers-are-in-fact-growing/
Last edited:
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Whenever you stop insisting long, evidence-free, whining, name calling screeds are debate, and living to do it is as old to you
as to everyone who ever argued with one of your church members, we'll all be looking for that evidence you have that Climate Optima aren't really named that because they present much more optimum conditions for life than glaciation.
These long, nearly unhinged name calling posts of yours are an embarrassment to the concept of letting free adults engage in a debate.
Just tell us your LOGIC for it.
LoL.
We'll all wait here.
Obviously there's not much debate going on with your whining and screeching that name calling is justified when you have no evidence.
I supplied your fellow believer with th link showing you NASA admits 90% of all glaciers are growing.
You bring evidence and refute it, and you won't be presenting yourself as just an unhinged sounding, name-calling machine,
who thinks the world's glaciers are melting
when they're not.
as to everyone who ever argued with one of your church members, we'll all be looking for that evidence you have that Climate Optima aren't really named that because they present much more optimum conditions for life than glaciation.
These long, nearly unhinged name calling posts of yours are an embarrassment to the concept of letting free adults engage in a debate.
Just tell us your LOGIC for it.
LoL.
We'll all wait here.
Obviously there's not much debate going on with your whining and screeching that name calling is justified when you have no evidence.
I supplied your fellow believer with th link showing you NASA admits 90% of all glaciers are growing.
You bring evidence and refute it, and you won't be presenting yourself as just an unhinged sounding, name-calling machine,
who thinks the world's glaciers are melting
when they're not.
Last edited:
