jerry k

Waverly, OH

#41 Mar 9, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
And your posts will continue to be free of any science content and dominated by bumper-sticker sloganeering and repetitions of long-refuted anti-scientific lies and fallacies.
Thanks! For the average schmuck with no scientific knowledge or even very skilled at critical thinking, the piss-poor quality of your denier "arguments" and blatant refusal to deal with reality are the best tool we have for persuading them that science is not some hilariously improbable global conspiracy and that you deniers are raving nutters.
This is global warming dipstick, its there or it isnt prove it.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#42 Mar 9, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry you have a limited mental capacity and you can't grasp real science from scientific science fiction. Now go back and engineer something that doesnít need to be recalled. Arenít you one of those engineers that successfully bankrupt the Auto Ind.?
Do you smell that? That's the smell of fear. When a net troll takes a factoid learned about another contributor on another thread, strains to concoct an insult around it, and posts that instead of ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING A SUPPORTABLE ARGUMENT, the obvious conclusion is that said troll is flailing.

If you know what real science looks like, then stop stalling and do what I've tried to embarrass you into doing about 20 times:

Post some real science that supports the denier viewpoint. I should say "viewpoints" as there are several, many of which are mutually exclusive.(Though many a denier wingnut has argued for them almost simultaneously - they just want anything but the truth)

So you pick your poison. What denier viewpoint would you care to post some REAL SCIENCE to support?:

1) It's not warming.(Possibly even claim that it's cooling)

2) It's warming, but forcing "X" is the cause, not GHG's.

3) It's warming and CO2 is the cause, but it isn't warming enough to be a problem.

4) Same as #3 except admit that it's warming a lot, but insist that we can't practically do anything about it.

There are other variations, of course, so don;t feel constrained by that list. Just POST ANY SUPPORTING SCIENCE FOR ANY DENIER POSITION!

Or keep doing as you have been and discredit the denier movement better than most defenders of science.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#43 Mar 9, 2013
jerry k wrote:
Skip 1998 and go to ,97 and take the average temp from there. How much warming have we had ?
You're pretty damn dense, nutter. First, I just told you that 17 yrs is the minimal period for statistical significance. Since it's not 2015 yet, your point is effin' retarded. Second, what temperature data are you referring to? The cherry-picked land-only or the meaningful global? Do you have a point - other than on your head?

Besides, why don't you post data and source it instead of asking me to do it for you? Are you deniers so science averse that you can't force yourself to click on a science site?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#44 Mar 9, 2013
jerry k wrote:
See I just gave you the chance to cherry pick the years.
What the hell are you talking about? First, I had to assume that you were directing this at me. I easily could never have seen this - or your previous post - because you're to damn dense to reply my posts!
Kyle

Knox, IN

#45 Mar 9, 2013
jerry k wrote:
<quoted text>
This is global warming dipstick, its there or it isnt prove it.
Huh? I'm having trouble with your gibberish. Did you mean to say that the subject is global warming and that I need to prove it to you?

If so, let me remind you that I'm the one trying to drag you nutters back to the subject at hand when you prefer to yammer on about politics, run-on insults, and anything but the science. So why do you think I need to be reminded of the subject?

As for "proving it" to you? How many ways is that ridiculous?:

1) "Proof" is for mathematics and the term is never used and has no meaning in science.

2) The science is freely available to you and you loons claim to know what you're talking about, so you should know that many thousands of peer-reviewed science papers support AGW. It's the wingnuts that claim to have a unicorn - the real science that refutes AGW. So you need to post science, not me. This is especially true because ....

3) You know damn well that there's literally nothing I could post that would affect your closed minds one iota.

So give me a link - one solitary link - to REAL SCIENCE - that supports the opposite of the conclusion of everyone else. Why can't/won't any of you nutters even attempt it? Because you KNOW that handful of attempts to pass off denier BS as real science have all been debunked. Shredded. Revealed as not only wrong but as amateurishly wrong; grossly incompetent. Revealed as dishonest, either outright, or intellectually.

The last few nutters have never even attempted it. Will you be the first?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#46 Mar 9, 2013
jerry k wrote:
<quoted text>
This is global warming dipstick, its there or it isnt prove it.
You're not fooling me; I know that you have never learned anything about the science. So I thought I'd post a link to a very good starting point for easing into the science, filled with links to more science than you can handle. I also know that there is a 99.99% chance that posting this is a waste of electrons because, if you use it at all, it will almost certainly be to search for some bogus attempt to discredit it:

www.aip.org/history/climate/
PHD

Overton, TX

#47 Mar 10, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you smell that? That's the smell of fear. When a net troll takes a factoid learned about another contributor on another thread, strains to concoct an insult around it, and posts that instead of ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING A SUPPORTABLE ARGUMENT, the obvious conclusion is that said troll is flailing.
If you know what real science looks like, then stop stalling and do what I've tried to embarrass you into doing about 20 times:
Post some real science that supports the denier viewpoint. I should say "viewpoints" as there are several, many of which are mutually exclusive.(Though many a denier wingnut has argued for them almost simultaneously - they just want anything but the truth)
So you pick your poison. What denier viewpoint would you care to post some REAL SCIENCE to support?:
1) It's not warming.(Possibly even claim that it's cooling)
2) It's warming, but forcing "X" is the cause, not GHG's.
3) It's warming and CO2 is the cause, but it isn't warming enough to be a problem.
4) Same as #3 except admit that it's warming a lot, but insist that we can't practically do anything about it.
There are other variations, of course, so don;t feel constrained by that list. Just POST ANY SUPPORTING SCIENCE FOR ANY DENIER POSITION!
Or keep doing as you have been and discredit the denier movement better than most defenders of science.
The only thing that smells is your mental disturbed capacity that you display. Yes it is a shame that the mental institutions have been shut down and allow you with the general public. Your list only supports what everyone out there has bee telling you seek mental help your scarring the children of the world.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#48 Mar 10, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>The only thing that smells is your mental disturbed capacity that you display. Yes it is a shame that the mental institutions have been shut down and allow you with the general public. Your list only supports what everyone out there has bee telling you seek mental help your scarring the children of the world.
YES! You truly are the gift that keeps on giving. You would have served your denier masters 1000 times better by not responding at all. What are you, 10 yrs old?!

I posted a link, since you obviously are incapable of it. It's not to the primary sources but you can follow its links to the primary sources and do so in an organized way. Should a miracle happen (you become rational), you could educate yourself about the subject of the thread. Maybe it would help you find that science that actually supports your view.

Why wouldn't you want to try? Any sane person in your humiliating position would be desperate to post anything remotely supporting their as yet bare assertion. Desperate to not appear functionally retarded.

Note that the other nutters are at least intelligent enough to stop posting when they've lost. That's a highly dishonest way to concede but at least they aren't embarrassing themselves and discrediting the denier position even further.
PHD

Overton, TX

#49 Mar 10, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
YES! You truly are the gift that keeps on giving. You would have served your denier masters 1000 times better by not responding at all. What are you, 10 yrs old?!
I posted a link, since you obviously are incapable of it. It's not to the primary sources but you can follow its links to the primary sources and do so in an organized way. Should a miracle happen (you become rational), you could educate yourself about the subject of the thread. Maybe it would help you find that science that actually supports your view.
Why wouldn't you want to try? Any sane person in your humiliating position would be desperate to post anything remotely supporting their as yet bare assertion. Desperate to not appear functionally retarded.
Note that the other nutters are at least intelligent enough to stop posting when they've lost. That's a highly dishonest way to concede but at least they aren't embarrassing themselves and discrediting the denier position even further.
As mentioned several times thatís all you have is cut and paste scientific science fiction. Put on your big boy, girl pants and post your peer reviewed published work. Until you can shut your pie hole and go away.
litesong

Everett, WA

#50 Mar 11, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
scientific science fiction......
I never tire telling the true traits of "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend". It lied saying it had a PHD. It isn't a doctor, while it diagnoses wrongly. It has no science & mathematics degrees. It has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(if it has that).

However, "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" IS a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener supporter & is such. "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" hates dirtling because dirtling was a worse slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener, and "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" was jealous.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#51 Mar 11, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>As mentioned several times thatís all you have is cut and paste scientific science fiction. Put on your big boy, girl pants and post your peer reviewed published work. Until you can shut your pie hole and go away.
Do I understand your latest insanity correctly? Are you actually attempting to distract from your inability to post ANYONE'S peer reviewed science that supports the wingnut position by insisting that none of the tens of thousands of such papers supporting AGW mean anything unless I PERSONALLY have published such papers?

Can you even attempt to construct something resembling a logical argument for such an OBVIOUS EVASION FROM YOUR DEFEAT?

This is a classic sign of a true denier - willing to make any claim or argument, even if they appear retarded by doing so, rather than admit the tiniest sliver of reality.

BTW, where's your published science that qualifies you to dismiss a million real PHD's? Hmmm?
PHD

Overton, TX

#52 Mar 12, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I understand your latest insanity correctly? Are you actually attempting to distract from your inability to post ANYONE'S peer reviewed science that supports the wingnut position by insisting that none of the tens of thousands of such papers supporting AGW mean anything unless I PERSONALLY have published such papers?
Can you even attempt to construct something resembling a logical argument for such an OBVIOUS EVASION FROM YOUR DEFEAT?
This is a classic sign of a true denier - willing to make any claim or argument, even if they appear retarded by doing so, rather than admit the tiniest sliver of reality.
BTW, where's your published science that qualifies you to dismiss a million real PHD's? Hmmm?
As mentioned several times thatís all you have is cut and paste scientific science fiction. Put on your big boy, girl pants and post your peer reviewed published work. Until you can shut your pie hole and go away.
litesong

Everett, WA

#53 Mar 12, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
shut your pie hole and go away.
"fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" tunes toward its best toxic topix AGW denier mentality.

'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' knows less than all others, has less moral direction than some toxic topix AGW deniers & wishes to suppress AGW advocates.

I never tire telling the true traits of "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend". It lied saying it had a PHD. It isn't a doctor, while it diagnoses wrongly. It has no science & mathematics degrees. It has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(if it has that).

However, "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" IS a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener supporter & is such. "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" hates dirtling because dirtling was a worse slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener, and "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" was jealous.
PHD

Overton, TX

#54 Mar 12, 2013
More diarrheas from the "pinheadlitesout".
litesong

Everett, WA

#55 Mar 12, 2013
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' flopped:
More diarrhea........
My position is real science ..... shut your pie hole and go away.
//////////
litesong wrote:
"fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" tunes toward its best toxic topix AGW denier mentality, which is immorality, non-education, & suppression of AGW advocates.

I never tire telling the true traits of "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend". It lied saying it had a PHD. It isn't a doctor, while it diagnoses wrongly. It has no science & mathematics degrees. It has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(if it has that).

However, "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" IS a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener supporter & is such. "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" hates dirtling because dirtling was a worse slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener, and "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" was jealous.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#56 Mar 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>As mentioned several times thatís all you have is cut and paste scientific science fiction. Put on your big boy, girl pants and post your peer reviewed published work. Until you can shut your pie hole and go away.
Well, wingnuts, you are incapable of even cutting and pasting. I'm sure you physically can do so; we both know that your real problem is that there is no science that supports your position that you can cut and paste.

I know you'll recycle an already revealed, though too obvious to have required revealing, insanely illogical response/evasion, but here's a link to a well organized intro to climate science from which you can link away, including accessing the primary sources, of which you have zero chance of comprehending 5%:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
PHD

Overton, TX

#57 Mar 15, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
YES! You truly are the gift that keeps on giving. You would have served your denier masters 1000 times better by not responding at all. What are you, 10 yrs old?!
I posted a link, since you obviously are incapable of it. It's not to the primary sources but you can follow its links to the primary sources and do so in an organized way. Should a miracle happen (you become rational), you could educate yourself about the subject of the thread. Maybe it would help you find that science that actually supports your view.
Why wouldn't you want to try? Any sane person in your humiliating position would be desperate to post anything remotely supporting their as yet bare assertion. Desperate to not appear functionally retarded.
Note that the other nutters are at least intelligent enough to stop posting when they've lost. That's a highly dishonest way to concede but at least they aren't embarrassing themselves and discrediting the denier position even further.
THEN WHY DON'T YOU POST THE REASONS FOR ENGINEERING THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE AUTO IND. YOU INSUFFERABLE ASSumption OF YOUR---SELF??!!!!!
Kyle

Knox, IN

#58 Mar 24, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>THEN WHY DON'T YOU POST THE REASONS FOR ENGINEERING THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE AUTO IND. YOU INSUFFERABLE ASSumption OF YOUR---SELF??!!!!!
I must be psychic, eh? You posted the above in response to a comment that included this:

"I know you'll recycle an already revealed, though too obvious to have required revealing, insanely illogical response/evasion,... "

Spooky, ain't it?
PHD

Overton, TX

#59 Mar 25, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
I must be psychic, eh? You posted the above in response to a comment that included this:
"I know you'll recycle an already revealed, though too obvious to have required revealing, insanely illogical response/evasion,... "
Spooky, ain't it?
Well LESS-ON commander of prevarication do show your science peer reviewed published work. To date all you have is cut and paste scientific science fiction. Yo engineer kyle you never answered the question. Why did you engineer the Auto Ind. into bankruptcy?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#61 Mar 26, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well LESS-ON commander of prevarication do show your science peer reviewed published work. To date all you have is cut and paste scientific science fiction. Yo engineer kyle you never answered the question. Why did you engineer the Auto Ind. into bankruptcy?
Show some self-respect. If you can't post anything that doesn't bring shame on you, just don't post. For your own good. Seriously.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 21 min Affleck SlaveTrader 34,158
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 42 min Mothra 52,728
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr superwilly 5,246
Global Cooling 9 hr litesong 5
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 21 hr litesong 2,060
'Talkin Science Game': a game in which the firs... 22 hr TTITT 74
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) Sun Earthling-1 3,783
More from around the web