Good try, but you're obviously tanking because you've lost the argument very badly and are looking for a way out. And, unfortunately, I think you're lying when you say you've got a wife too. It was, however, obvious that you know nothing of AGW, and a shame that you couldn't care less. It's always good practice annihilating know-nothings in debate, so thanks for that. Perhaps one day you'll think about becoming a decent human being, but until then good luck with the 'fun and games'.
Still don't believe you. Sorry. Very few Rush fans know how to communicate with women. And you're a right-wing climate-change denier too. Not generally good with the opposite sex. Why did she have to delete your posts to check you hadn't sworn? Doesn't add up. Say hello to your Mum on the way from the basement...
But back to the matter in hand. I offered you data sources immediately you asked for them. You haven't 'disproved AGW', or even made an attempt to, even though you boasted you could. I've asked you many times now... Still waiting...*crickets chirp*
What?! One poll?! I never asserted any such thing. You were the one saying that the fact that a smaller number (but still a majority) supported the motion after the debate than before in this video put the kibosh on AGW!! Stop building strawmen and show me how you disprove AGW as you claimed. But first I'd go away read some proper science, because your posts so far show a pretty remedial understanding of the issues.
Your logic, or lack of it to be more precise, is astonishing. AGW has been disproven because of a few points shift after a debate?! And also the majority still support the motion?! Dearie me.
'So much for...' is a standard formulation in the English language for dismissing something out of hand. Cannot stand up to scrutiny?! More people in the room here support the motion than don't. It's called a majority. I know you deniers like to be led by unelected corporate leaders and their bottomless coffers, I prefer democracy. I would love to see the evidence against AGW, but if you're going to point me to some right-wing blogs, no thanks. Have you read the Lomborg Deception?
'you really cant comment on music' Strange thing is, Kristella, that's precisely how I've earned my living for many years. And I've seen yours. Rush are a pile of shit, dude, in my humble opinion. Glad we agree on one thing though. Ayn Rand was a dolt. Still waiting for you to disprove AGW however...
Not quite as embarrassing as spelling one of your favourite authors wrong on your home page. Nah, never called Rush fascists. Just a shit band. Anyway, waiting for this 'disproof' of AGW... and an answer to any of the substantive points I've made. By the way, why did you move the first comment you posted here? Made your argument look weak perchance?
Love the CAPITALS dude. And most of these authors would be spinning in their graves if they knew how their work had been mangled by a bunch of pretentious twots... You've given me a good laugh anyway.
Yup, I worked as an editor on several magazines. Cut n pasting from right-wing blogs seems to be your only form of argument. Your sources are terrible and make you look like you're an idiot. I'm sure you're not, but you're doing a damn good impersonation of one.
Maybe it's because they are right-wing that I say they're right-wing. You sound very like a right-winger. Are you on the right-wing? It's looks like a duck, it moves like a duck. I call it a duck. Now, let's have some science from you. How do you disprove AGW as you promised you could very early on here...? I'm waiting... (a wolf howls in the distance, but all else is very, very quiet)...
You haven't posted any science. You have distorted and cherry-picked. You say that the latest temp figures are June 2009. That is palpably bollocks with the most cursory of searches. You seem to think that the difference between two years data is a statistical trend. You have said ridiculous things about computer models. You won't answer a simple question about whether you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. You claimed you could prove that AGW was bunk. You haven't. Man-up.
Erm. The only one screaming here is you. Open your eyes, pick up the rattle, daddy will lead you through this very carefully. Go to UAH. 2009 was hotter than 2008. Go to GISS. 2009 was hotter than 2008. Go to HadCrut. 2009 was hotter than 2008. Baby up.
What?! UAH is satellite records, of course they're going to be global. The full results are at GISS. They're global. It was the hottest year ever in the Southern Hemisphere. It was tied second hottest year ever, oops, since records began, globally. I know from previous experience you have difficulty searching on this new-fangled internet thingy, but do stick with it.
Never was a communist. First voted in 1979 election for the Ecology Party. Went Labour from about 1984 because I couldn't stand the hippies in the Eco Party, but left when Blair took over and rejoined the Green Party. You? Have you found the data sources I supplied to you very promptly and you kept pretending I hadn't?
And you think you don't sound like a right-winger. All the tropes are there. All lefties are communists? Tick. They're all jealous of rich people? Tick. Rush fan? Tick...;-)
Well, since you've been completely humourless up until now, and since it was in keeping with your insulting tone so far, yes, smiley faces would be helpful, thanks for offering. ;-)
Well, if you don't think rising sea levels, increasing temperatures and widespread drought, increase in extreme weather events and severe disruption to agricultural production are things to worry about, you're either an unusually phlegmatic person, or... OK, I won't quite tank in yet... Erm, by the way, quoting something published in 2007 in support of cooling 'in the last decade' is what's known as cherry-picking. I'm afraid your beloved 1998 has gone now...
"Oh my God that Joe Cushley how embarrassing for you". And I'm the one who's doing the name-calling?! Hilarious. You deniers really do live in an Alice Through The Looking Glass world. How is AGW analogous to communism, pray tell? You are making yourself look foolish. And by the way, removing comments which made you look even more foolish won't work. I know what you said. Please 'disprove' AGW' as you said you would. I'm waiting...
No, not predictions, facts. Sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, oceans are acidifying, all substantive facts and all in line with increased manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. We can identify its fossil fuel origins by its signature isotope. Do you at least admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which absorbs infrared radiation? You're also way behind the science on that asteroid as well. No chance it'll hit in 2029 and an astronomically small chance it'll hit in 2036. Do keep up.
If you already knew that, why did you quote out of date info?! Scientists constantly refine predictions in view of new evidence. There was reason to believe the asteroid could prove dangerous at first, but further calculations have shown that it isn't. Where is the new evidence showing that C02 isn't a greenhouse gas, and that the vast bulk of it isn't produced by burning of fossil fuels, which will prompt hundreds if not thousands of highly qualified scientists to U-turn on AGW?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Time and time again I've shown that you're wrong and you keep coming back with the same sad oft-debunked points. You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. All your limbs are off and yet it's still only a flesh wound. I know you can't own up to it here, too much pride at stake, but you owe it to yourself to do some proper research. Start with The Discovery Of Global Warming by Spencer Weart. Good luck.
Where's the partiality? Do you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That's the main thrust of the book. What part is tendentious? It sticks thoroughly to the facts. An alien concept to you, I know...
I'm afraid it is very deniable (I'm a denier!). You claim to have read the IPCC report. How many scientists contributed to that? There are hundreds and hundreds in a wide range of fields, a simple search on Google Scholar would confirm that. Next, how does they censor debate? How did shit papers like Lindzen and Choi's, Douglass et al and Soon and Baliunas, etc, slip through this all-pervasive censorship. It's great they did because it shows what a weak hand the denialists have got to play.
Have a look and learn. I've shown you the facts. Temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising because glaciers and ice sheets are melting, oceans are acidifying and migratory patterns of animals and reaction times of flora are changing. These are all things that were predicted to happen when a greenhouse gas is pumped into the air to the tune of billions and billions of tonnes a year, and they are happening. Now disprove AGW as you promised to do.
One of the oddest things about you right-wing deniers is that you think that climate scientists who believe in AGW (that's around 97% of them) don't look at paleoclimate and water vapour and SO2. They do. It's all there in the literature. CO2 is featured prominently because it's something we can do something about. Methane is going to be a problem soon because the temperature rises instigated to a great extent by manmade warming has started to release larger quantities into the air. Worrying.
Of course I do! I've just told you where the sources are, are you blind, do I have to completely spoon-feed you?! No it hasn't gone where I hoped, because you haven't told me how you disprove AGW. Proud to be a lefty, why are you ashamed of being right-wing?
So why are you falling for right-wing mega-corporate scams, and going on about communism as if environmentalist and communist are interchangeable terms? Ah! Shipyards gives me a clue. You're one of the old Labourites who thinks that anything that interferes with old manufacturing jobs, coal-mining and other polluting industries is a plot against the workers. I get it now. Why should I feel dirty? You're the one talking shit...
Tell me where Hadley provided IPCC figures showing global cooling? Over what period? You say you've read the IPCC Report and yet you've stated a load of baloney about it. You're also talking complete pony about computer model useage. And what do you mean latest available figures are June 2009? According to GISS, 2009 in its entirety was tied as the 2nd warmest year ever. There are satellite data for Jan 2010 which state it is the warmest ever. Really, really do try to keep up.
2009 was a lot warmer than 2008 by all records. Do keep up. You show no understanding of what constitutes a statistical trend. Of course I mean warmest since satellite records began. Stop quibbling and 'disprove AGW' as you claimed you could. Where is your proof of Hadley 'destroying raw data'?! That is a defamatory claim for which you have no evidence. Really, you won't admit it to me, you have too much invested here, but you are out of your depth. Go and read some proper science.
Show me the evidence that this data was destroyed deliberately. Then have a look at the recent paper which confirms the results of that previous paper. And next the most silly statement of the lot so far. 2009 is warmer than 2008 in the UAH satellite data, at GISS, at HadCrut, you know, the major places that measure temperature. And yet you're still saying that June 2009 are the latest figures?! Do you not know how to use a search engine? It beggars belief how wrong you can be and not see it.
You're really not very good at maths either. A drop from 44% to 31% is a 13% drop. Typical figure-fiddling from the denialist camp. And, yes, you lot are the true figure-fiddlers, cherry-pickers and liars. The science remains untouched by this storm in a teacup over small IPCC mistakes and CRU e-mails. You wait and see, reality won't change in the face of denialist hot-air. 2000-2009 was hotter than 1990 to 1999 and 2010 to 2020 will be hotter than the decade just gone.
Ooh dear. Where have you gone?
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Good try, but you're obviously tanking because you've lost the argument very badly and are looking for a way out. And, unfortunately, I think you're lying when you say you've got a wife too. It was, however, obvious that you know nothing of AGW, and a shame that you couldn't care less. It's always good practice annihilating know-nothings in debate, so thanks for that. Perhaps one day you'll think about becoming a decent human being, but until then good luck with the 'fun and games'.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Still don't believe you. Sorry. Very few Rush fans know how to communicate with women. And you're a right-wing climate-change denier too. Not generally good with the opposite sex. Why did she have to delete your posts to check you hadn't sworn? Doesn't add up. Say hello to your Mum on the way from the basement...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
But back to the matter in hand. I offered you data sources immediately you asked for them. You haven't 'disproved AGW', or even made an attempt to, even though you boasted you could. I've asked you many times now... Still waiting...*crickets chirp*
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
What?! One poll?! I never asserted any such thing. You were the one saying that the fact that a smaller number (but still a majority) supported the motion after the debate than before in this video put the kibosh on AGW!! Stop building strawmen and show me how you disprove AGW as you claimed. But first I'd go away read some proper science, because your posts so far show a pretty remedial understanding of the issues.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Your logic, or lack of it to be more precise, is astonishing. AGW has been disproven because of a few points shift after a debate?! And also the majority still support the motion?! Dearie me.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
'So much for...' is a standard formulation in the English language for dismissing something out of hand. Cannot stand up to scrutiny?! More people in the room here support the motion than don't. It's called a majority. I know you deniers like to be led by unelected corporate leaders and their bottomless coffers, I prefer democracy. I would love to see the evidence against AGW, but if you're going to point me to some right-wing blogs, no thanks. Have you read the Lomborg Deception?
joecushley 2 years ago
Ah! I get it. You're a Rush fan. You obviously still think that Ayn Rand is a 'serious thinker'...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
'you really cant comment on music' Strange thing is, Kristella, that's precisely how I've earned my living for many years. And I've seen yours. Rush are a pile of shit, dude, in my humble opinion. Glad we agree on one thing though. Ayn Rand was a dolt. Still waiting for you to disprove AGW however...
...cue sound of tumbleweed...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Not quite as embarrassing as spelling one of your favourite authors wrong on your home page. Nah, never called Rush fascists. Just a shit band. Anyway, waiting for this 'disproof' of AGW... and an answer to any of the substantive points I've made. By the way, why did you move the first comment you posted here? Made your argument look weak perchance?
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Love the CAPITALS dude. And most of these authors would be spinning in their graves if they knew how their work had been mangled by a bunch of pretentious twots... You've given me a good laugh anyway.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Yup, I worked as an editor on several magazines. Cut n pasting from right-wing blogs seems to be your only form of argument. Your sources are terrible and make you look like you're an idiot. I'm sure you're not, but you're doing a damn good impersonation of one.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Maybe it's because they are right-wing that I say they're right-wing. You sound very like a right-winger. Are you on the right-wing? It's looks like a duck, it moves like a duck. I call it a duck. Now, let's have some science from you. How do you disprove AGW as you promised you could very early on here...? I'm waiting... (a wolf howls in the distance, but all else is very, very quiet)...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
You haven't posted any science. You have distorted and cherry-picked. You say that the latest temp figures are June 2009. That is palpably bollocks with the most cursory of searches. You seem to think that the difference between two years data is a statistical trend. You have said ridiculous things about computer models. You won't answer a simple question about whether you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. You claimed you could prove that AGW was bunk. You haven't. Man-up.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Erm. The only one screaming here is you. Open your eyes, pick up the rattle, daddy will lead you through this very carefully. Go to UAH. 2009 was hotter than 2008. Go to GISS. 2009 was hotter than 2008. Go to HadCrut. 2009 was hotter than 2008. Baby up.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Ooh. Is this parody too?! How hilarious. Perhaps you should read some proper fucking science. (No offence meant, that was humorous...).
joecushley 2 years ago
What?! UAH is satellite records, of course they're going to be global. The full results are at GISS. They're global. It was the hottest year ever in the Southern Hemisphere. It was tied second hottest year ever, oops, since records began, globally. I know from previous experience you have difficulty searching on this new-fangled internet thingy, but do stick with it.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Never was a communist. First voted in 1979 election for the Ecology Party. Went Labour from about 1984 because I couldn't stand the hippies in the Eco Party, but left when Blair took over and rejoined the Green Party. You? Have you found the data sources I supplied to you very promptly and you kept pretending I hadn't?
joecushley 2 years ago
And you think you don't sound like a right-winger. All the tropes are there. All lefties are communists? Tick. They're all jealous of rich people? Tick. Rush fan? Tick...;-)
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Well, since you've been completely humourless up until now, and since it was in keeping with your insulting tone so far, yes, smiley faces would be helpful, thanks for offering. ;-)
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Well, if you don't think rising sea levels, increasing temperatures and widespread drought, increase in extreme weather events and severe disruption to agricultural production are things to worry about, you're either an unusually phlegmatic person, or... OK, I won't quite tank in yet... Erm, by the way, quoting something published in 2007 in support of cooling 'in the last decade' is what's known as cherry-picking. I'm afraid your beloved 1998 has gone now...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
"Oh my God that Joe Cushley how embarrassing for you". And I'm the one who's doing the name-calling?! Hilarious. You deniers really do live in an Alice Through The Looking Glass world. How is AGW analogous to communism, pray tell? You are making yourself look foolish. And by the way, removing comments which made you look even more foolish won't work. I know what you said. Please 'disprove' AGW' as you said you would. I'm waiting...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
No, not predictions, facts. Sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, oceans are acidifying, all substantive facts and all in line with increased manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. We can identify its fossil fuel origins by its signature isotope. Do you at least admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which absorbs infrared radiation? You're also way behind the science on that asteroid as well. No chance it'll hit in 2029 and an astronomically small chance it'll hit in 2036. Do keep up.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
If you already knew that, why did you quote out of date info?! Scientists constantly refine predictions in view of new evidence. There was reason to believe the asteroid could prove dangerous at first, but further calculations have shown that it isn't. Where is the new evidence showing that C02 isn't a greenhouse gas, and that the vast bulk of it isn't produced by burning of fossil fuels, which will prompt hundreds if not thousands of highly qualified scientists to U-turn on AGW?
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Time and time again I've shown that you're wrong and you keep coming back with the same sad oft-debunked points. You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. All your limbs are off and yet it's still only a flesh wound. I know you can't own up to it here, too much pride at stake, but you owe it to yourself to do some proper research. Start with The Discovery Of Global Warming by Spencer Weart. Good luck.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Where's the partiality? Do you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That's the main thrust of the book. What part is tendentious? It sticks thoroughly to the facts. An alien concept to you, I know...
joecushley 2 years ago
Name one thing I've got wrong here. There are several you have. Removing comments won't help you love, no matter how shrill and defensive you get.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
I'm afraid it is very deniable (I'm a denier!). You claim to have read the IPCC report. How many scientists contributed to that? There are hundreds and hundreds in a wide range of fields, a simple search on Google Scholar would confirm that. Next, how does they censor debate? How did shit papers like Lindzen and Choi's, Douglass et al and Soon and Baliunas, etc, slip through this all-pervasive censorship. It's great they did because it shows what a weak hand the denialists have got to play.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Have a look and learn. I've shown you the facts. Temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising because glaciers and ice sheets are melting, oceans are acidifying and migratory patterns of animals and reaction times of flora are changing. These are all things that were predicted to happen when a greenhouse gas is pumped into the air to the tune of billions and billions of tonnes a year, and they are happening. Now disprove AGW as you promised to do.
joecushley 2 years ago
One of the oddest things about you right-wing deniers is that you think that climate scientists who believe in AGW (that's around 97% of them) don't look at paleoclimate and water vapour and SO2. They do. It's all there in the literature. CO2 is featured prominently because it's something we can do something about. Methane is going to be a problem soon because the temperature rises instigated to a great extent by manmade warming has started to release larger quantities into the air. Worrying.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Of course I do! I've just told you where the sources are, are you blind, do I have to completely spoon-feed you?! No it hasn't gone where I hoped, because you haven't told me how you disprove AGW. Proud to be a lefty, why are you ashamed of being right-wing?
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
So why are you falling for right-wing mega-corporate scams, and going on about communism as if environmentalist and communist are interchangeable terms? Ah! Shipyards gives me a clue. You're one of the old Labourites who thinks that anything that interferes with old manufacturing jobs, coal-mining and other polluting industries is a plot against the workers. I get it now. Why should I feel dirty? You're the one talking shit...
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Tell me where Hadley provided IPCC figures showing global cooling? Over what period? You say you've read the IPCC Report and yet you've stated a load of baloney about it. You're also talking complete pony about computer model useage. And what do you mean latest available figures are June 2009? According to GISS, 2009 in its entirety was tied as the 2nd warmest year ever. There are satellite data for Jan 2010 which state it is the warmest ever. Really, really do try to keep up.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
2009 was a lot warmer than 2008 by all records. Do keep up. You show no understanding of what constitutes a statistical trend. Of course I mean warmest since satellite records began. Stop quibbling and 'disprove AGW' as you claimed you could. Where is your proof of Hadley 'destroying raw data'?! That is a defamatory claim for which you have no evidence. Really, you won't admit it to me, you have too much invested here, but you are out of your depth. Go and read some proper science.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Show me the evidence that this data was destroyed deliberately. Then have a look at the recent paper which confirms the results of that previous paper. And next the most silly statement of the lot so far. 2009 is warmer than 2008 in the UAH satellite data, at GISS, at HadCrut, you know, the major places that measure temperature. And yet you're still saying that June 2009 are the latest figures?! Do you not know how to use a search engine? It beggars belief how wrong you can be and not see it.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
You're really not very good at maths either. A drop from 44% to 31% is a 13% drop. Typical figure-fiddling from the denialist camp. And, yes, you lot are the true figure-fiddlers, cherry-pickers and liars. The science remains untouched by this storm in a teacup over small IPCC mistakes and CRU e-mails. You wait and see, reality won't change in the face of denialist hot-air. 2000-2009 was hotter than 1990 to 1999 and 2010 to 2020 will be hotter than the decade just gone.
joecushley 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago
Comment removed
ChristellaKury 2 years ago