The new official climate change thread

[FAST]

Ah, and you were getting so close to asking a question that both made logical sense and used clear English.
Then you went and made it look like you were asking a totally different question:


Is this sentence a victim of your poor English skills or is the question you're trying to ask so unclear in your mind that you can't clearly state what the question really is?

It must be really hard for you in life, if this really is the best you can do for writing.

LIAR.

I did in fact ask a different question, because you kept slithering away from the original one.

So,...loser,...are you going to answer this one,...assuming you have the guts,...???

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

LIAR.

I did in fact ask a different question, because you kept slithering away from the original one.

So,...loser,...are you going to answer this one,...assuming you have the guts,...???

FAST

Liar?
What on earth do you think I lied about in the above post?

By the way, the latest readings have CO2 to at 407.57 ppm.
That answer your question?

Now I think its fair that I get to ask you a question.
Who do you think is ordering the UN to pressure all climatologists all across the globe to falsify climate research and data reports, as you have previously claimed?

 

[JohnLarue]

Lets see if you really are undecided.

Starting off with the premise that I am lying will get you nowhere fast! Asswipe

Someone who wanted to research say, gravity, would do well to look up the latest research, correct?
Someone who is really undecided on climate change would look up and read the latest research, in this case its quite easy as its been summarized and synthesized for you, right here:
ipcc.ch

Someone who is undecided may take their own path to help determine fact from fiction
An intelligent person certainly would look at your absolute approach and be sceptical

You remind me of the evangelical TV preachers
" Throw that heathen money up in the Air ,
What stays up is yours what comes down is meant to do the work of the Almighty"

I have no trust or respect for them either

If you are unbiased and undecided, will you read their reports?

Not if you are pushing them
Now if I come across them on my own, well that is a different matter

Do you get it now ??
It is not your message it is the odour the messenger delivers them with

 

[Frankfooter]

I was doing a little reading tonight and came across the tale of bet on Arctic ice melts made on Scienceblogs.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/26/betting-on-sea-ice-10000/

Rob Dekker made a $10,000 bet on ice melts in 2011 and its coming up to term in Sept this year.

The most entertaining part was this statement:

Let me start by saying that I actually did not want to bet with William at all. I really wanted to bet with the self-pronounced ‘skeptics’, who continue to call AGW a “hoax”, want to dissolve the IPCC, are cherry-pick data that serves their beliefs and accuse this planet’s top scientist of fraud and file Freedom of Information acts to sustain their myth-creation media machine.

However, none of them want to put their money where their (big) mouth is. I made several attempts to bet with these guys, to see if they really mean what they said, but bet challenges always go unanswered. So as an advice to people out who are still arguing with climate-change deniers, offer to bet with them, and see how they try to weasel their way out with ad hominums and more allegations of scientific wrongdoing. Either way, it is clear they do not believe their own words, and instead simply repeat spin generated from their political media.

I almost laughed myself out of my chair reading that one.

see how they try to weasel their way out with ad hominums and more allegations of scientific wrongdoing.

That really sums up the bet that moviefan lost, doesn't it?

 

[FAST]

Liar?
What on earth do you think I lied about in the above post?

By the way, the latest readings have CO2 to at 407.57 ppm.
That answer your question?

Now I think its fair that I get to ask you a question.
Who do you think is ordering the UN to pressure all climatologists all across the globe to falsify climate research and data reports, as you have previously claimed?

OK,...I'll play your childish little game,...what percentage of that value is from fossil fuel burning,...???

Which is what my original question was,...but you ran away from.

And about your last sentence,...another lie,...I NEVER stated that,...but you must be getting used to people calling you a liar by now.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Not if you are pushing them
Now if I come across them on my own, well that is a different matter

Do you get it now ??
It is not your message it is the odour the messenger delivers them with

I see.
You are decided, you decided that you won't read any of the legit science from the IPCC or NASA because I recommended it.
I don't really care about what reason you pick, though that one is really quite pathetic and shows that you are totally closed minded.
Note that I do actually read the links the deniers here post up, usually they are quite entertaining, but I do read them and consider them.

You, on the other hand have decided that you won't read any of the legitimate sources, for whatever reason.
That puts you firmly in the denier camp.

Thanks for confirming that.

 

[Frankfooter]

OK,...I'll play your childish little game,...what percentage of that value is from fossil fuel burning,...???

Which is what my original question was,...but you ran away from.

And about your last sentence,...another lie,...I NEVER stated that,...but you must be getting used to people calling you a liar by now.

FAST

Sorry, you have to answer my question before I answer yours.
Only fair.

Now, you are now claiming that you've never stated that you think the UN is pressuring climatologists, yet you repeatedly refer to IPCC and NASA scientists as if they have only one view, mandated by the IPCC or someone/agency. So I'll try to rephrase the question back a step in your conspiracy claims and see if we can get this cleared up.

Who do you think is the one who is dictating the findings of all climatology reports put out by the IPCC, NASA and all climatologists?

 

[FAST]

Sorry, you have to answer my question before I answer yours.
Only fair.

Now, you are now claiming that you've never stated that you think the UN is pressuring climatologists, yet you repeatedly refer to IPCC and NASA scientists as if they have only one view, mandated by the IPCC or someone/agency. So I'll try to rephrase the question back a step in your conspiracy claims and see if we can get this cleared up.

Who do you think is the one who is dictating the findings of all climatology reports put out by the IPCC, NASA and all climatologists?

More BULL SHIT footer.

You never answered my original question,...but slithered every which way you could to avoid it.

So here's the thing folks,...

If anybody expects footer to answer any question he doesn't like the answer to,...expect a lot of slithering around and lying,...but NEVER an answer.

And now I really don't need an answer form you on my original question footer,...because you have confirmed just what you are,...and everybody here knows it.

So you lose either way.

FAST

 

[bver_hunter]

Too funny,...1st the Unemployables say we are going to die because of "global warming",...then when they realize they got it wrong,...it became "climate change",...now when they realize they were wrong again,...we're back to "global warming".

FAST

You are saying that NASA have got it all wrong?
So the tobacco scientists are right then? Hilarious.

 

[Frankfooter]

More BULL SHIT footer.

You never answered my original question,...but slithered every which way you could to avoid it.

So here's the thing folks,...

If anybody expects footer to answer any question he doesn't like the answer to,...expect a lot of slithering around and lying,...but NEVER an answer.

And now I really don't need an answer form you on my original question footer,...because you have confirmed just what you are,...and everybody here knows it.

So you lose either way.

FAST

I answered your first question, your problem was it was phrased so poorly that you asked a different question then you thought you were asking.
So that makes two questions I've answered from you, now its your turn.

C'mon, you keep telling us how you think that the IPCC, NASA and all government paid scientists all have fudged the results of their work.
Its time to give us some more details.

Who do you think is the one who is dictating the findings of all climatology reports put out by the IPCC, NASA and all climatologists?

 

[FAST]

i answered your first question, your problem was it was phrased so poorly that you asked a different question then you thought you were asking.
So that makes two questions i've answered from you, now its your turn.

C'mon, you keep telling us how you think that the ipcc, nasa and all government paid scientists all have fudge the results of their work.
Its time to give us some more details.

Who do you think is the one who is dictating the findings of all climatology reports put out by the ipcc, nasa and all climatologists?

LIAR

Fast

 

[FAST]

You are saying that NASA have got it all wrong?
So the tobacco scientists are right then? Hilarious.

Nope,...you did.

And when did I mention "tobacco scientists",...footer,...oh sorry,...bver.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

LIAR

Fast

Ah, poor FAST.
Your language skills are so bad you can't tell what questions you asked and can't tell when they've been answered.

Speaking of bad language skills, I spent a couple of minutes trying to figure out the answer to the question you won't answer.
Namely, what is the nature of this conspiracy theory you keep talking about then denying.

I think I found it through these posts:

If, for example, the 91% are with NOAA, IPCC and NASA, and the 9% are independent, then the 9% actually outweigh the 91%, who are with only THREE organizations.

FAST

Implying that you believe that all government funded researchers are told what their results should be.

The point in my posts has ALWAYS been about the claim that the 9% of those INDEPENDENT scientists who disagree with the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA,... carries more weight than THREE clubs staffed with unemployable redundant "scientists".

FAST

Again, similar claim.

I have NEVER stated there is a hidden agenda,...that's your theory, although it does look like the ass wipes at the UN may have.

Just because the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA have a large numbers of unemployable "scientists", does NOT give those THREE organizations, that exist solely for their benefit,...any more weight than the 9% of independent scientists in the debate.

FAST

Again, implying that government funded researchers are told what their results have to be and implying that the UN has a hidden agenda and something to do with your conspiracy theories.

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

And here's the answer I was looking for, the reason why you think that the all powerful UN controls the outcome of all climatologists across the planet.
You think that the UN wants to de-industrialize the advanced countries and the way that they will achieve their evil plan (muahahah) is through......

drum roll.....


wait for it......

(insert spy music here).....

Through forcing the world to use solar cells and wind turbines and through evil carbon taxes!


The FAST climate change theory seems to be that the UN wants to de-industrialize the wester countries and plans on doing this through faked climate change research!

FAST, you really are the poster boy for the deniers.

 

[FAST]

Liar
FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Liar
FAST

Ah, poor FAST.

C'mon, tell us more about your theory about how the UN wants to de-industrialize the developed countries and their nefarious plan is to do it through faked climate change research.
C'mon, please?

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

 

[FAST]

SNAKE

With apologies to snakes.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

SNAKE

With apologies to snakes.

FAST

Ah, c'mon FAST.
Please tell us about your theory about the UN's nefarious climate change plot.
I really, really want to hear some more details.

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

 

[FAST]

loser

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

loser

FAST

Pretty please?
C'mon FAST, tell us how you think the UN is plotting to take over the western world through faked climate change research.
Please?

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

 

[eznutz]

tell us how you think the UN is plotting to take over the western world through faked climate change research. Please?

The UN web-site for Sustainable Development calls the Paris Agreement a milestone in their agenda, a.k.a "the plot to takeover (control/transform) the western world".
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/processes/timeline

Climate Change is just one part of a much larger transformation taking place, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Especially when the UN is kind enough to layout their whole agenda for everybody to read.