Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@H2O MAN,

Why do I care that RWers lie?

hmmmmm...
Why do you not care about the truth Squirt?

@Walter Hinteler,

Really? I must have missed that. Who is the author? In my observation, I could be wrong, but it seems that very few credible scientists put their name on a Real Science post.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parasite, you only care about yourself and what others can do for you.

Main Entry:
par·a·site
Pronunciation:
\ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for
existence or support without making a useful or adequate return (a.k.a. democrat or liberal)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Gavin A. Schmidt. You have mised that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except 'group' posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.

Yeah, it's a "shadowy organization" because everyone SIGNS their posts.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Ah yes, one of Hansen's buddies. A mathematician who does climate modeling and calls himself a climatologist though I don't believe he has had any formal training in climatology. He's a great one to question the credentials of those he is discrediting huh?

He is one though who can't take data that we know exists and feed it into his model and produce the climate that we have today. I believe he is the head honcho at Real Science, and has seemed to dedicate his life to suppressing or attempting to discredit any science presented by AGW skeptics.

He and two other AGW religionists participated in a public debate against three relatively unknown skeptics a year or two ago. After hearing all the 'evidence' the audience voted that the skeptics won.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

You don't need to post definitions Squirt. English is my first language and I have a rather large vocabulary.

Do you think you are rich Squirt? Or that I am flattering you?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Ah yes, one of Hansen's buddies. A mathematician who does climate modeling and calls himself a climatologist though I don't believe he has had any formal training in climatology.

But those in your above link have of course long formal trainings in climatology.

But how can someone give any information that would convince an anti-climate-change religionist like you are?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Well, I don't suppose you would see it, but I wasn't arguing credentials, Walter. You actually changed the subject. Again.

I was pointing out that people like you and some others think it is fine to suppress information that supports the skeptics point of view, while you moan and whine and excoriate any presumed suppression of the point of view of the AGW religionists.

Just another example of the double standard.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Ah yes, one of Hansen's buddies. A mathematician who does climate modeling and calls himself a climatologist though I don't believe he has had any formal training in climatology. He's a great one to question the credentials of those he is discrediting huh?

Is that supposed to be an objective critique Fox?

Guilt by association.
Questioning his credentials when you admit you don't know what his credentials are.

Schmidt works at GISS. It doesn't make him a buddy of Hansen. It only means they work in the same place.
He does climate modeling but you question his credentials of being a climatologist? Wow.. Yet you accepted someone that does NO climate research as somehow having some legitimacy in the field? Your arguments are nonsense Fox.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

There was no suppression of information Fox. You didn't read very well. There was NO NEW INFORMATION from an economist. It was recycled garbage that has been refuted in the past and is non scientific in nature.

Funny how you claim your statement had nothing to do with credentials Fox after both Walter and I got the same idea from you. We are left again with Walter and I arguing what you said instead of what you are now claiming you meant.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, I don't suppose you would see it, but I wasn't arguing credentials, Walter. You actually changed the subject. Again.

I was pointing out that people like you and some others think it is fine to suppress information that supports the skeptics point of view, while you moan and whine and excoriate any presumed suppression of the point of view of the AGW religionists.

Just another example of the double standard.

Okay, I truely admit that I didn't see it.

I'll re-post you post to which I answered:

Foxfyre wrote:

Ah yes, one of Hansen's buddies. A mathematician who does climate modeling and calls himself a climatologist though I don't believe he has had any formal training in climatology. He's a great one to question the credentials of those he is discrediting huh?

He is one though who can't take data that we know exists and feed it into his model and produce the climate that we have today. I believe he is the head honcho at Real Science, and has seemed to dedicate his life to suppressing or attempting to discredit any science presented by AGW skeptics.

He and two other AGW religionists participated in a public debate against three relatively unknown skeptics a year or two ago. After hearing all the 'evidence' the audience voted that the skeptics won.

Where did you point out here that people like I and some others think it is fine to suppress information that supports the skeptics point of view, while I moan and whine and excoriate any presumed suppression of the point of view of the AGW religionists?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It' s interesting how Fox spins things

Quote:

He and two other AGW religionists participated in a public debate against three relatively unknown skeptics a year or two ago. After hearing all the 'evidence' the audience voted that the skeptics won.

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12
Lindzner is an unknown? Hardly
Chricton has written how many best sellers? and yet he is an "unknown"?

The question debated was "Global Warming is not a Crisis". It in no way implies that global warming doesn't exist.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Forget it Walter. Are you intentionally avoiding the post in that started this whole line of discussion? I don't think you'll get it because I don't think you want to. You are too interested in wanting to discredit me--I saw the post you deleted--and I don't think you are the least bit interested in discussing the topic. But do have a great day.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox falls back to the "You don't get it, so I won't argue with you" tact she seems to be quite fond of.

0 Replies

@parados,

Why must you continuously reinforce the fact that you are an ignorant asshole parasite?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Is he still posting here? Glad to hear he's well and kicking.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Is he still posting here?

Yeah, the little parasite is still here posting away ad nauseam.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Glad to see you are revealing your true self by agreeing with Squirt's personal attacks.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

So, Squirt. Do you think Foxfyre has me on ignore because I can't understand what she really means compared to what she really says?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know