Oh, the irony. Lets see if dumbrock can spot it
I'll give you a hint, rockie. It rhymes with erect.
Something you probably seen a lot of in your life :biggrin1:
Also its *your post*, not you're.
What were you saying about intellect??
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
I'll give you a hint, rockie. It rhymes with erect.
Something you probably seen a lot of in your life :biggrin1:
Also its *your post*, not you're.
What were you saying about intellect??
I suspect your Spelling Nazi helmet is too tight. All that to point out spelling mistakes. As has been said, you have no more creditable debating points to make, so you revert to your sub par crapola, but this is not a your first time to do this in this thread.
Yeah, thats what I just said
No, you don't. Climatology is extremely complicated, you need a PhD in it to even begin to understand it.
Do you have a PhD in climatology, groggy?? Answer the question, yes/no??
I already did, and you failed miserably for my ruse.
And your bullshit excuse of how you skim posts is complete horseshit
You're the one who brought up "intelect", rockie.
Make sure your own intellect is optimal, lest you get hit with the big karma stick
Actually no you don't, There are plenty of researchers, scientist and technicians alike, working in the field for corporation, and government agencies who are not PHDs. Nice try.
The number one face in Canada is David Phillips and he has just an honorary doctorate.
Which has little to do with my point. When you have nothing creditable to add, your default is class clown.
This is an admission that you don't understand climatology.
It's a point we've been returning to repeatedly, you don't understand yet feel qualified to judge the science.
I can explain to you the basics, but if you aren't smart enough to understand even that then you will just buy some snake oil from some charlatan lobbyist because that's what you want to believe.
And did you also get your computer virus fixed by someone who called you up and told you it was infected? How many pyramid schemes have you invested in?
You are a rube.
Ha ha, my bad.
Oh no, I think he can very well tell the difference. Ask him what the standard issue was when he was in the force? I want to level the playing field.
Oh no, I think he can very well tell the difference. Ask him what the standard issue was when he was in the force? I want to level the playing field.
Ha ha, you mean a "duel".
Here's the gun rockie gets. I'm pretty sure he can't tell the difference:
At least you've given up the rather sad arguments.Nice
That's a start.
Now for you to just man up and admit that you don't understand the science and have been suckered by lobbyists.
Why don't you ask me? The fact is anyone who can use both sides of their brain already knows the answer. You apparently can't.
Hey be nice to me. I'm just a bystander poking fun at you both. I don't know what that issue was for you, whether Smith or Wesson or Glock, but certainly better than his suggestion.
I noticed you skipped past the part that explains the difference between a table of contents and an index. It's passing strange, to say the least, that the self-proclaimed expert on "the science" clearly isn't keen on reading books.
Nonetheless, if you had read my post the first time, you would have seen the context: Page 202 of Chapter 7 of the IPCC's 1990 report shows the chart with the Medieval Warm Period, and the chart clearly shows (according to the IPCC) that the Earth was much warmer than it is today.
Ok, let's start at the beginning of the IPCC's first report -- that would be the table of contents, not the "index."
No one who enters this discussion comes out unscathed, at least in terms of schoolyard insults.
Here's a development that's more entertaining than Groggy's ignorance about the structure of books.
A number of news organizations, including the Washington Post, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, Dow Jones, Reuters and 12 others are supporting legal action to force fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann to release his Climategate-related emails from his time at the University of Virginia.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_versus_the_press.php?page=1
How did it get to this? I thought Mann's defenders were insisting he has always been completely transparent.
I'm sure Groggy will want to blame the influence of Big Oil and the Koch brothers, but it's tough to imagine NPR (or the Washington Post, for that matter) taking part in a vast right-wing conspiracy.
A number of news organizations, including the Washington Post, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, Dow Jones, Reuters and 12 others are supporting legal action to force fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann to release his Climategate-related emails from his time at the University of Virginia.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_versus_the_press.php?page=1
How did it get to this? I thought Mann's defenders were insisting he has always been completely transparent.
I'm sure Groggy will want to blame the influence of Big Oil and the Koch brothers, but it's tough to imagine NPR (or the Washington Post, for that matter) taking part in a vast right-wing conspiracy.
I'm on Blackrock's side for the most part but I guess he took it too seriously.No one who enters this discussion comes out unscathed, at least in terms of schoolyard insults.
