[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Jobst Brandt wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to
be a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?

I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will take
time for the full story to come out.

Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where
you would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged
in climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to
subvert the peer review system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...bal-cooling-my th/

First make your point, then I will read the myth. Also you might
answer the question I asked.


You know, this "question" has been answered multiple times. Many links
to various answers have been posted. How many times do you want the
question answered? Clearly from your comments, you consider the
question unanswerable. So why waste further time on it?

[Stephen Cowell[_2_]]

"Andre Jute" wrote
....

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the
AGW crowd. Thanks for being real.
__
Steve
..

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote
...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the
AGW crowd. Thanks for being real.
__
Steve
.



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really
know", then ... what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta
conversation.

--
Les Cargill

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Jobst Brandt wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to
be a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?

I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will take
time for the full story to come out.

Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where
you would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged
in climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to
subvert the peer review system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...bal-cooling-my th/

First make your point, then I will read the myth. Also you might
answer the question I asked.


You know, this "question" has been answered multiple times. Many links
to various answers have been posted. How many times do you want the
question answered? Clearly from your comments, you consider the
question unanswerable. So why waste further time on it?

I do not think that you know the question that I asked.

--
Michael Press

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 17, 1:50*am, Les Cargill wrote:
Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote
...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the
AGW crowd. *Thanks for being real.
__
Steve
.

If the only thing we can say is "we don't really
know", then ... what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta
conversation.

--
Les Cargill

Ah, but I was most definitely not saying "we don't really know". I was
commenting on the generality of "realclimate", a site so clumsy it
invariably has the opposite effect to that its makers intend, except
with the most impressionable of the uber-faithful. This is what I said
in full:

"I've been there. I've read the link. I were you, I wouldn't bother.
It is one of those "realclimate" pages which tries to refute some
piece of "skepticism" and does it so clumsily and so gracelessly, one
instinctively wants the contrary to be true. If Jobst is convinced by
anything found on so biased and transparent a source of misinformation
and special pleading as "realclimate", he plummets in my estimation."

As you can see from 'one of those "realclimate" pages which' my remark
was aimed at the generality of the site.

About the subject of that particular page -- the global freezing scare
of the 1970s -- it is very unlikely that I would throw up my hands and
say "we just don't know" because I do know, I was there when it
happened, and I wrote extensively about it at the time.

I find it astonishing that anyone over say five years old who isn't
retarded can be taken in by something as crude as the "realclimate"
site.

****

More generally, I cannot help observing that "we just don't know...but
you have to act all the same" is the way climatologists conduct their
"science". For instance, CO2 has been scapegoated "because we don't
know what is responsible for global warming (which by the way we can't
prove either), so it must be CO2", with the corollary often heard here
from Bill Asher in what he apparently thinks is "science", "If you
don't think manmade CO2 causes global warming, you must provide
another candidate." It's nuts, of course. Skeptics don't have to do
anything except wait for these clowns to come up with real evidence.
They've had 22 years and untold billions in research allocations and
have come up some lies and a lot of bullying of dissenters and other
unscientific behaviour. They can't prove unusual global warming, never
mind manmade global warming ("hide the decline"), and as for the
lunacy of blaming CO2 which, far from causing global temperature to
rise, lags temperature by 800 years... These ridiculous presumptions
of the global warmies just keep piling up like guano on an island I
once sailed past, of which not an inch of the real structure was
visible because it was all covered by ****.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote
...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the
AGW crowd. Thanks for being real.
__
Steve
.



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really
know", then ... what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta
conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU,
East Anglia. That is something we know. We also
know that the emails contain plans to subvert
the scientific peer review process.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU,
East Anglia. That is something we know. We also
know that the emails contain plans to subvert
the scientific peer review process.

And today's revelation -- climate "scientists" intentionally omitted data
readings from Russia because (wait for it), IT'S FREAKING COLD THERE.

Bill "it's melt-down season" S.

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the AGW crowd.
Thanks for being real. __ Steve .



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really know", then ...
what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU, East Anglia. That
is something we know. We also know that the emails contain plans to
subvert the scientific peer review process.

And the ill-mannered comments of three or four people invalidate the
entire field, in your opinion?

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the AGW crowd.
Thanks for being real. __ Steve .



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really know", then ...
what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU, East Anglia. That
is something we know. We also know that the emails contain plans to
subvert the scientific peer review process.

It's also interesting that the ire is directed at the victims of theft,
not at the sociopaths who did the thieving and the politicians who have
publicly supported theft. How times in our society have changed from
1972 when the rule of law was apparently taken more seriously than today.

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the AGW crowd.
Thanks for being real. __ Steve .



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really know", then ...
what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU, East Anglia. That
is something we know. We also know that the emails contain plans to
subvert the scientific peer review process.

It's also interesting that the ire is directed at the victims of theft,
not at the sociopaths who did the thieving

Name the sociopaths who did the thieving.

and the politicians who have
publicly supported theft.

Names.

How times in our society have changed from
1972 when the rule of law was apparently taken more seriously than today.

Apparently?

Three unsupported, emotional assertions.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the AGW crowd.
Thanks for being real. __ Steve .



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really know", then ...
what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU, East Anglia. That
is something we know. We also know that the emails contain plans to
subvert the scientific peer review process.

And the ill-mannered comments of three or four people invalidate the
entire field, in your opinion?

I tell you what I think. No need for you to guess.

--
Michael Press

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the AGW crowd.
Thanks for being real. __ Steve .



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really know", then
... what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta
conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU, East Anglia.
That is something we know. We also know that the emails contain
plans to subvert the scientific peer review process.

And the ill-mannered comments of three or four people invalidate
the entire field, in your opinion?

I tell you what I think. No need for you to guess.

It appears you overestimate the completeness of your writing.

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Stephen Cowell wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...

one instinctively wants the contrary to be true.

I'm pretty sure that sums it up, en toto, for the AGW crowd.
Thanks for being real. __ Steve .



If the only thing we can say is "we don't really know", then
... what?

That's always a start, but it makes for a short sorta
conversation.

Nobody repudiates the emails made public from CRU, East Anglia.
That is something we know. We also know that the emails contain
plans to subvert the scientific peer review process.

It's also interesting that the ire is directed at the victims of
theft, not at the sociopaths who did the thieving

Name the sociopaths who did the thieving.

Since they know their actions were illegal, they have seen fit to not
divulge their names.

and the politicians who have publicly supported theft.

Names.

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the hackers
who stole the e-mails.

By the way, this was a useless exercise given the very public statements
made by these characters. Did you have some kind of imagined point to
make, or are you just stalling?

How times in our society have changed from 1972 when the rule of
law was apparently taken more seriously than today.

Apparently?

Three unsupported, emotional assertions.

"Emotional?" Hardly. Perhaps theft no longer bothers you?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:26:21 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the hackers
who stole the e-mails.

No, not stolen but revealed. And very well done to whoever did the
revealing. Fraud should always be exposed - this is actually more
important than the revelations of Watergate.

d

[Neil Brooks]

On Dec 16, 4:38*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:10 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be a
dialogue.
What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?
I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will take time
for the full story to come out.
Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where you
would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged in
climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to subvert
the peer review system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-global-cool....

Jobst Brandt

Are you trying to run interference for the global warmies, Jobst, or
have you genuinely lost the plot? What has your referenced article
about global cooling to do with the slimy, anti-scientific activities
of the Climategate scumbags, which is what Les and Michael are
discussing?

Andre Jute
Thousands want to know

This could be the exception, but I can't recall a single time when Jobst was
asked a pointed question after posting a "hit link" and even had the
courtesy to /acknowledge/ it much less actually answer.

Let's see if history holds...

BS

WTF would you know about "courtesy?"

Delusional, too, huh? Neat!

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Non scrivetemi WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tim McNamara wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the hackers
who stole the e-mails.

You haven't a clue if anyone actually stole anything, you're just
parroting the line because you mistakenly believe it deflect some
of the beating you global warmietards are taking, but if in fact
anything WASm stolen from your criminal warmie handlers it's
something that SHOULD be praised.

Any time ****wits like you get exposed it's a good thing.


Brave words from the anonymous coward.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Nomen Nescio WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tim McNamara wrote:

It's also interesting that the ire is directed at the victims of theft,

So on your planet people who lie, cheat, steal, and generally act
like wholesale ****wits are "victims"?

Your global warming idiocy has tanked dumbass. Find another cause
to make your useless ass feel significant.

Brave words from the anonymous coward.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

noauth WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
RichL wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Uh, dude.... maybe if you didn't get your "science" from sites like
Wikipedia you wouldn't be such a mindless drone of a dog being
wagged by it's global warming zealot tail.

Scientists, and by scientists I mean *real* scientists not your
bought and paid for crooks who doctor the books to fit their
handler's agenda, have thoroughly debunked so called "global
warming" a long time ago. Your liberal tree hugger media still runs
with it so your average dimbulb still makes a fool of itself by
parroting the rhetoric and citing Wikipedia laugh, but the
actual SCIENCE has proved global warming to be a falsehood to
anyone with the capacity to think for themselves.


Brave words from the anonymous coward.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:26:21 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the
hackers who stole the e-mails.

No, not stolen but revealed. And very well done to whoever did the
revealing. Fraud should always be exposed - this is actually more
important than the revelations of Watergate.

d

A) The e-mails (and other docs) were LEAKED, not "hacked".

B) Libs like Timmy love actual leaks as long as they're compromising
national defense or administration of justice. But Enviro-Fraud...not so
much.

BS

[Chalo]

Don Pearce wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the hackers
who stole the e-mails.

No, not stolen but revealed. And very well done to whoever did the
revealing. Fraud should always be exposed - this is actually more
important than the revelations of Watergate.

This whole affair just makes me wonder what exquisite corruption would
come to light if the most incriminating emails of the denialists'
emails were made public.

Chalo

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:42:46 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the hackers
who stole the e-mails.

No, not stolen but revealed. And very well done to whoever did the
revealing. Fraud should always be exposed - this is actually more
important than the revelations of Watergate.

This whole affair just makes me wonder what exquisite corruption would
come to light if the most incriminating emails of the denialists'
emails were made public.


That's really very funny.

d

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:42:46 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the
hackers who stole the e-mails.

No, not stolen but revealed. And very well done to whoever did the
revealing. Fraud should always be exposed - this is actually more
important than the revelations of Watergate.

This whole affair just makes me wonder what exquisite corruption
would come to light if the most incriminating emails of the
denialists' emails were made public.


That's really very funny.

d

No kidding. (Pssst. Shallow. Climate REALISTS actually openly discuss
their views and back them up with real data on websites, blogs and other
forums. Try "Junk Science" for an example of transparency.)

HTH

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

FLUSH

Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?

Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?

Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous coward?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous coward?

I leave the identification of the logical flaws in the above as an
exercise for the student.

d

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous
coward?

I leave the identification of the logical flaws in the above as an
exercise for the student.

d

What a concise description of the /tactics/ of radical envirowhackos (Neo
Marxists).

Bill "how fitting that Nancy and BHO had to run home to beat the blizzard"
S.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 19, 7:42*pm, Chalo wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Jim Inhofe in particular, publicly praising the actions of the hackers
who stole the e-mails.

No, not stolen but revealed. And very well done to whoever did the
revealing. Fraud should always be exposed - this is actually more
important than the revelations of Watergate.

This whole affair just makes me wonder what exquisite corruption would
come to light if the most incriminating emails of the denialists'
emails were made public.

I love it. The subtext here is: "Only I, Chalo, know how to think for
myself. Anyone who disagrees with me is a bought and paid-for tool of
the filthy capitalists." Way to go, Chalo, make friends by calling
everyone else a corrupt idiot. -- Andre Jute

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 19, 8:27*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES: Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

FLUSH

Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?

Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?

Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous coward?

Hey, Liddell Tommi, how is it that I've never seen you make a single
argument about global warming? All you do is hurl limp insults. Is it
that you don't have the brains to contest the facts with people you
scorn as "ignorant"? Or is it that see no need to talk because you're
such a little "sociopath" that you dream of converting us to your
viewpoint at gunpoint?

Just asking.

Andre Jute
Liberal, with the scars to prove it

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 19, 9:01*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:04 -0600, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous
coward?

I leave the identification of the logical flaws in the above as an
exercise for the student.

d

What a concise description of the /tactics/ of radical envirowhackos (Neo
Marxists).

Bill "how fitting that Nancy and BHO had to run home to beat the blizzard"
S.

Well, at least under the commies Liddell Tommi would have had a
meaningful job instead of writing how-to leaflets for bricklayers. The
commies would have sent him to work on a hydro scheme in the frozen
wastelands of Siberia on the principle that, if the generator is
frozen 11 and a 1/2 months in the year, even Liddell Tommi can't do
too much damage.

Andre Jute
who made the most famous Soviet joke ever, told by the entire Soviet
bloc:
Q: What comes after perestroika?
A: Perestrelka. [Shooting.]

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-19, Phil W Lee phil wrote:
Nomen Nescio considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:03:26
+0100 (CET) the perfect time to write:

Tim McNamara wrote:

It's also interesting that the ire is directed at the victims of theft,

So on your planet people who lie, cheat, steal, and generally act
like wholesale ****wits are "victims"?

Your global warming idiocy has tanked dumbass. Find another cause
to make your useless ass feel significant.

Strange that I haven't heard of one single reputable scientist whose
mind has been changed by these "revelations".

There was the APS.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...o-climategate/

And more recently:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming....en_letter.html

which is signed by 50 members. I don't know if all those 50 were already
skeptics (who are just now feeling less gagged) though.

Maybe that's because they don't contain any evidence which undermines
the science at all.

I think it's more that reputable scientists never took all that IPCC
crap very seriously to start with.

But the main thrust of the AGW argument presented to the public was:
"trust us we're scientists", and that's what's been most significantly
undermined here.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Anonymous Remailer (austria) WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =3DC2=3DB0_=3DC2=3DB0 wrote:
=20
FLUSH
=20
Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?
=20
Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?
=20
Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous cowar=
d?

*laughing*

Typical Warmieloon stuff. Cherry pick two possibilities because
you think they prop up your failing pseudo-science, and discard
every possibility that you believe doesn't.

Just like your Warmieloon handlers did to try and hoodwing the
population of planet earth.

CLUE: Free thinkers with IQ's larger than their shoe size deny ADW
because too, because AGW doesn't exist and free thinkers with IQ's
larger then their shoe size aren't susceptible to being brainwashed
by a band of asshats with an agenda just because it's sell-able as a
"good cause". IOW, we're not as gullible as knotheads like you.

You know, I just realized something. You "environmentalist" wing
nuts are loony from start to finish. I mean look at your silly self
for a second. Your team has lost. The Warmieloon handlers have been
outed as liars and frauds, by their own ****ing hand no less, but
here's your dumb ass still prancing around screeching "IS TOO! IS
TOO!" like some bobbleheaded cartoon character on dope

How long are you loons going to keep up the charade? How much
bruising can your fragile little egos actually take?


Yet you lack the courage to attach your real name to your "convictions".

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-19, Phil W Lee phil wrote:
Nomen Nescio considered Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:03:26
+0100 (CET) the perfect time to write:

Tim McNamara wrote:

It's also interesting that the ire is directed at the victims of
theft,

So on your planet people who lie, cheat, steal, and generally act
like wholesale ****wits are "victims"?

Your global warming idiocy has tanked dumbass. Find another cause
to make your useless ass feel significant.

Strange that I haven't heard of one single reputable scientist whose
mind has been changed by these "revelations".

There was the APS.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...o-climategate/

And more recently:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming....en_letter.html

which is signed by 50 members. I don't know if all those 50 were
already skeptics (who are just now feeling less gagged) though.

Maybe that's because they don't contain any evidence which undermines
the science at all.

I think it's more that reputable scientists never took all that IPCC
crap very seriously to start with.

But the main thrust of the AGW argument presented to the public was:
"trust us we're scientists", and that's what's been most significantly
undermined here.

True, but unless and until the "mass media" actually REPORT WHAT'S GOING ON,
morons like Timmy and Ground Rat can get away with declaring that only nutty
/deniers/ buck the consensus.

BS

[Simon Lewis]

Tom Sherman °_° writes:

Anonymous Remailer (austria) WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =3DC2=3DB0_=3DC2=3DB0 wrote:
=20
FLUSH
=20
Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?
=20
Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?
=20
Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous cowar=
d?

*laughing*

Typical Warmieloon stuff. Cherry pick two possibilities because
you think they prop up your failing pseudo-science, and discard
every possibility that you believe doesn't.

Just like your Warmieloon handlers did to try and hoodwing the
population of planet earth.

CLUE: Free thinkers with IQ's larger than their shoe size deny ADW
because too, because AGW doesn't exist and free thinkers with IQ's
larger then their shoe size aren't susceptible to being brainwashed
by a band of asshats with an agenda just because it's sell-able as a
"good cause". IOW, we're not as gullible as knotheads like you.

You know, I just realized something. You "environmentalist" wing
nuts are loony from start to finish. I mean look at your silly self
for a second. Your team has lost. The Warmieloon handlers have been
outed as liars and frauds, by their own ****ing hand no less, but
here's your dumb ass still prancing around screeching "IS TOO! IS
TOO!" like some bobbleheaded cartoon character on dope

How long are you loons going to keep up the charade? How much
bruising can your fragile little egos actually take?


Yet you lack the courage to attach your real name to your
"convictions".

Is there anything more boring that someone who insists valid points can
only be so if they are represented by a human name. Grow up.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Simon Lewis wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° writes:

Anonymous Remailer (austria) WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =3DC2=3DB0_=3DC2=3DB0 wrote:
=20
FLUSH
=20
Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?
=20
Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?
=20
Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous cowar=
d?

*laughing*

Typical Warmieloon stuff. Cherry pick two possibilities because
you think they prop up your failing pseudo-science, and discard
every possibility that you believe doesn't.

Just like your Warmieloon handlers did to try and hoodwing the
population of planet earth.

CLUE: Free thinkers with IQ's larger than their shoe size deny ADW
because too, because AGW doesn't exist and free thinkers with IQ's
larger then their shoe size aren't susceptible to being brainwashed
by a band of asshats with an agenda just because it's sell-able as a
"good cause". IOW, we're not as gullible as knotheads like you.

You know, I just realized something. You "environmentalist" wing
nuts are loony from start to finish. I mean look at your silly self
for a second. Your team has lost. The Warmieloon handlers have been
outed as liars and frauds, by their own ****ing hand no less, but
here's your dumb ass still prancing around screeching "IS TOO! IS
TOO!" like some bobbleheaded cartoon character on dope

How long are you loons going to keep up the charade? How much
bruising can your fragile little egos actually take?

Yet you lack the courage to attach your real name to your
"convictions".

Is there anything more boring that someone who insists valid points can
only be so if they are represented by a human name. Grow up.

You consider hurling insults behind the screen of anonymity to be making
valid points?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Simon Lewis]

Tom Sherman °_° writes:

Simon Lewis wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° writes:

Anonymous Remailer (austria) WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =3DC2=3DB0_=3DC2=3DB0 wrote:
=20
FLUSH
=20
Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?
=20
Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?
=20
Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous cowar=
d?

*laughing*

Typical Warmieloon stuff. Cherry pick two possibilities because
you think they prop up your failing pseudo-science, and discard
every possibility that you believe doesn't.

Just like your Warmieloon handlers did to try and hoodwing the
population of planet earth.

CLUE: Free thinkers with IQ's larger than their shoe size deny ADW
because too, because AGW doesn't exist and free thinkers with IQ's
larger then their shoe size aren't susceptible to being brainwashed
by a band of asshats with an agenda just because it's sell-able as a
"good cause". IOW, we're not as gullible as knotheads like you.

You know, I just realized something. You "environmentalist" wing
nuts are loony from start to finish. I mean look at your silly self
for a second. Your team has lost. The Warmieloon handlers have been
outed as liars and frauds, by their own ****ing hand no less, but
here's your dumb ass still prancing around screeching "IS TOO! IS
TOO!" like some bobbleheaded cartoon character on dope

How long are you loons going to keep up the charade? How much
bruising can your fragile little egos actually take?

Yet you lack the courage to attach your real name to your
"convictions".

Is there anything more boring that someone who insists valid points can
only be so if they are represented by a human name. Grow up.

You consider hurling insults behind the screen of anonymity to be making
valid points?

And you consider abuse and insult with a possibly random name to be?

,----
| Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous cowar=
`----

Methinks you need to take yourself a tad less seriously.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Simon Lewis wrote:
[...]
And you consider abuse and insult with a possibly random name to be?
[...]

Sorry, I am a real person using a real name, as the person who sold me
this can verify:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/in/set-72157619269876565/.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

You don't seem to realise that the climate modellers were predicting
the rise in global temperature IF CO2 levels increased long before
they rocketed to anything like their current levels.

The increase in global temperature is a confirmation of the science of
computational climate modeling, which had already been proven by the
accurate prediction of short term global cooling from volcanic
eruptions.

This arrived at 12.46am on Sunday, which is generally taken as the
first day of the week. But I'm prepared to declare it the funniest
post of the week right now. I nearly choked laughing...

Phil W Lee's riprorter of a comedy skit is accompanied by a notice
that reads: "Note: The author of this message requested that it not be
archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Dec 27,
12:46 am)." Yes, one can quite understand why Phil wouldn't want such
a blatant lie to to stand in public view for too long.

Actually, Phil, my boy, one of the Climategate scumbags has already
declared the inability of the IPCC "scientists" to forecast climate
change to be a "travesty". But, listen up, anytime you're jobless and
broke, write to me and I'll get you a job writing advertising for
Conmen, Inc: anyone who can turn a "travesty" into the riproaring
success you describe above will surely be a huge success when all that
is stake is selling the Brooklyn Bridge.

Thanks for the giggle, Phil. I always knew you were good for
something...

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely existing
elegantly

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 20, 12:45*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Simon Lewis wrote:
[...]
And you consider abuse and insult with a possibly random name to be?
[...]

Sorry, I am a real person using a real name, as the person who sold me
this can verify:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/in/set-721576192....

Yo, Liddell Tommi, is that the Little Red Hobbit Bobbit?

How does having bought a Little Red Hobbit Bobbit from a known dealer
excuse your deplorable history of personal insults, whether you sign
them with your name or not?

Surely it is the facts that speak for themselves to those of us with
open and independent minds? Not that we expect any facts from you,
Liddell Tommi, just limp-wristed insults, but the principle stands.

Andre Jute
A public figure for over half a century

[Simon Lewis]

Tom Sherman °_° writes:

Simon Lewis wrote:
[...]
And you consider abuse and insult with a possibly random name to be?
[...]

Sorry, I am a real person using a real name, as the person who sold me
this can verify:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/in/set-72157619269876565/.

Who cares? I dont. It doesn't make your insults as above any less so.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Simon Lewis wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° writes:

Simon Lewis wrote:
[...]
And you consider abuse and insult with a possibly random name to be?
[...]
Sorry, I am a real person using a real name, as the person who sold me
this can verify:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/in/set-72157619269876565/.

Who cares? I dont.

Then why did you bring the subject up? Or did you only stop caring when
you were proved wrong?

It doesn't make your insults as above any less so.


Calling out someone flinging insults from the cover of anonymity is an
insult? I guess on Planet Simon Lewis. Or did you conveniently ignore
the filth the anonymous posters were flinging?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Tom Sherman °_°]

Nomen Nescio WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Anonymous Remailer (austria) WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =C2=B0_=C2=B0 wrote:

Dave U. Random WHO? ANONYMOUSLY SNIPES:
Tom Sherman =3DC2=3DB0_=3DC2=3DB0 wrote:
=20
FLUSH
=20
Are you fondling yourself as you chase me around trying to shove
your nose all the way up my ass?
=20
Or are you just so flustered by AGW being unveiled as one big lie
that all you can do is flail your arms about and screech the same
stupidity over and over?
=20
Only the ignorant and sociopaths deny AGW. Which are you, anonymous cowar=
d?

*laughing*

Typical Warmieloon stuff. Cherry pick two possibilities because
you think they prop up your failing pseudo-science, and discard
every possibility that you believe doesn't.

Just like your Warmieloon handlers did to try and hoodwing the
population of planet earth.

CLUE: Free thinkers with IQ's larger than their shoe size deny ADW
because too, because AGW doesn't exist and free thinkers with IQ's
larger then their shoe size aren't susceptible to being brainwashed
by a band of asshats with an agenda just because it's sell-able as a
"good cause". IOW, we're not as gullible as knotheads like you.

You know, I just realized something. You "environmentalist" wing
nuts are loony from start to finish. I mean look at your silly self
for a second. Your team has lost. The Warmieloon handlers have been
outed as liars and frauds, by their own ****ing hand no less, but
here's your dumb ass still prancing around screeching "IS TOO! IS
TOO!" like some bobbleheaded cartoon character on dope

How long are you loons going to keep up the charade? How much
bruising can your fragile little egos actually take?

Yet you lack the courage to attach your real name to your "convictions".

Oh lookie... another loser who snipes the WAY something is posted
because they can't refute a single shred of what actually WAS
posted.

You losers are pathetic.

One more time to rub your nose in it...

Your precious IPCC "scientists" and their ilk have been outed as
frauds, liars, and thieves. Criminals, poised to steal billions
from the global economy. And the most amusing part of it is that it
was their own words that outed them.

*snicker*

The whole AGW scenario is a total farce. We're not making a
pussyfart's impact in a wind storm on global temperatures, they're
cycling naturally and not even heading in the same direction the
frads at the IPCC want you to believe. The IPCC and their criminal
cronies cooked the books so they could further their self serving
agenda. And by "cooked" I mean blatantly and without any remorse
discarding anything and everything that disproves their AGW idiocy,
as well as "adjusting" the raw data that didn't quite disprove it.
[...]

Wow - not a single true thing posted by the anonymous coward.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.