Recent Heat Spike Unlike Anything in 11,000 Years

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-anything-11-000-years-10.html#post1062384275

As far as another thread, sorry if I don't recall which threads these conversations took place in, or the title of those threads to search.

I do not have a source for this claim, good thing you never disputed it, until you tried to change the subject away from the fact that you have no source, or refuse to provied one for whatever reason.

 

Oh no no no good Sir. Your post was written in the past tense not the present tense.

Don't try and weasel your way out of this. Would you care to post a link to a previous thread where I made these claims and didn't source them to prove your claim? You accused me of having made this claim multiple time and never sourcing them. Show some balls good Sir.

 

Since you were so quick to catch me in a gotcha moment, where you think you turned the tables, I will repost the edit that took place 30 seconds after the original post.

 

Would you please clear up you post so I can respond to your fallacious argument that I didn't dispute your claim?

 

Dude, I am done with you.

One more chance here.

Either provide the source, or atleast explain why a person would refuse over and over to provide a source.

Do you think I'm playing some kind of gotcha game here?

Because if you do, please notice my post history. Go look at every thread I have ever started and notice how it is always accompanied by a source.

This idea that people should come here to debate ideas, and then have to go find there own sources to verify others claims is the most absurd idea I have ever heard.

If you aren't here to share information, then why the F#ck are you here?

 

Someone isn't too critical of a reader. Of course we know that since you fell for the BEST study.

I'm not providing it to you because I have already provided it to you on another occasion yet you continue to tout the BEST study and ignore that it twice failed peer review, is rejected by its own former coauthor, and was published in vol. 1 issue 1 of an unheard of journal.

 

Dude, I am done with you.

One more chance here.

Either provide the source, or atleast explain why a person would refuse over and over to provide a source.

Do you think I'm playing some kind of gotcha game here?

Because if you do, please notice my post history. Go look at every thread I have ever started and notice how it is always accompanied by a source.

This idea that people should come here to debate ideas, and then have to go find there own sources to verify others claims is the most absurd idea I have ever heard.

If you aren't here to share information, then why the F#ck are you here?

 

I'm not providing a source because I have already provided the source for you. Its a simple enough explanation. You accused me of not having sourced my facts before. That is a lie. I did in fact source them in that thread as I had sourced them months earlier in another thread.

 

That i have told you I have no idea what thread it was in.

Clown pants!!

 

And I already told you its in Environment and Conservation section. If you are going to accuse me of something you should at least have the balls to take a minute to find the thread.

 

No, if you are going to claim something on a debate forum, you should have the information.

If you can't source it, then ST FU!!

If you choose not to source it, then ST FU!!

/Thread!!

 

You accused me of not sourcing it in another thread. When in fact I did. You refuse to link to that thread.

What does that say about you.

 

It says I came in this thread to discuss Climate change, and you came in here to discuss anything but!

Anytime I post about that Berekely Earth Surface Temperature study, you play this same game, because that study is dangerous for your agenda. It is public, and you can't undermine it's sceintific legitamacy, so you play attack the messenger, whether that is the Author, the scientific publication, Berkely itself, but never a challenge of the actual science in it!

 

There exists a loose inverse proportion where the more you 'care' about 'stuff' the less you comprehend math. And no worries insulting them. They don't know an inverse proportion from a Starbuck's latte.

 

Its too bad the wacko environmentalists have been shown to be liars who will say anything to advance their cause.

That makes it very difficult to trust anything they say.

 

Cute vid. It really makes everyone forget your total inability to comprehend a simple Mathematical ratio, or even have a grasp of the most basic facts, in regards to a subject you have the gall to pretend knowledge of.

Your smug nonsense fools only you.

 

I can easily undermine it because as I posted in this thread its own former coauthor rejects its conclusions.

 

I seriously don't understand why people don't think that minuscule amounts of a substance can be harmful. It only takes 70 nanograms of botulism to kill a human. Do you not think that's important since it's such a small amount?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm


So silly.

 

Oh golly...You mean the mean ol coal industry and oil barrons stopped us from dropping into another ice age?

Take a good look folks. This is what these people are screaming about.

How much of a mass extinction event is an Ice age anyway?

Anybody in the AGW demonization crowd want to take a stab at that one? Or are you losers going to ignore it?


Have fun in your Igloo.

 

Straw man much? We are discussing CO2, not random substances.

Are we back to pretending that all compounds have the same properties...again? How many times are you going to try that asinine tact?

 

The word you are failing to find is "tack", NOT "tact".

 

The word you are failing to find is "relevant", as in who gives a rat's ass?

 

That would be attack the messenger.

Let's play attack the science instead.

 

Funny considering we aren't talking about a mathmatical ratio, but instead how you can have a ratio without two referance points.

This is you: The ratio of ________ to our atmosphere is 12.

This is me: The ratio of what to the atmosphere is 12?

You: Co2

Me: How do you measure all the Co2 in the world?

You: You suck at math, and figure it out yourself.

Me:

 

How is the criticisms of a coauthor attacking the messenger?

You demand that I post sources and then when I do you don't read it.

You are hopeless.