InB4 the Eco-Loons

abandonconflict said:
He isn't citing. He copy pastes one or two sentances and says it is from NASA, no link, no context and then declares victory.
Click to expand...

Yes, beg for citations instead of reading the actual report yourself.

Here, I'll humor you.

NASA.gov

Lol.

This is where you back peddle, cry foul, make excuses and cement my victory of exposing the alarmism. Any member reading this is smart enough to see you've been pinched.

Just say you fucked up, saw it on HuffPo, didn't check shit for yourself and couldn't wait for it to be true. Then peddled it like it was fact.

Or don't, everyone already knows that's EXACTLY what happened.
 
MuyLocoNC said:
Yes, beg for citations instead of reading the actual report yourself.

Here, I'll humor you.

NASA.gov

Lol.

This is where you back peddle, cry foul, make excuses and cement my victory of exposing the alarmism. Any member reading this is smart enough to see you've been pinched.

Just say you fucked up, saw it on HuffPo, didn't check shit for yourself and couldn't wait for it to be true. Then peddled it like it was fact.

Or don't, everyone already knows that's EXACTLY what happened.
Click to expand...

don't have a meltdown. it'll be OK. there is no need to be so upset.
 
abandonconflict said:
Actually,

THE
REASON
I
AM
ASKING
FOR
A
LINK
IS
SO
THAT
I
CAN
READ
THE
ACTUAL
REPORT
MY
SELF
YOU
FUCK
TARD
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like I did in post #45?

Would you need a link if you'd actually read the report? Is that an admission you get your climate info from dubious websites known for their UNBELIEVABLY obvious bias?
 
I'm done gloating. This one was too fucking easy.

Spotted owl bitches!

You guys have fun, I'll check back tomorrow for a good belly laugh.

Science...lol.
 
abandonconflict said:
So you just made that snippet up from thin air.
Click to expand...

Well, that's odd. You want a link to an article talking about the two reports, rather than reading the actual reports for yourself. Hmm, you guys usually lambaste folk for doing precisely that.

Read the fackin' reports. Not the press releases, the actual reports. I thought you fuckers claimed to be intellectuals? I've given more than I usually do, I'm done holding your hand. Do the work.
 
MuyLocoNC said:
I'm gonna throw you a bone, because it covers two topics under debate in this thread.

38% chance AND when the "ghost hiatus" or "pause" will end. Hmmm, leading climate scientist, MMGW proponent, acknowledges your claims of so many hot years lately, but still admits to pause, why it's happening and when it will end. Weird, huh?

http://www.reportingclimatescience....-over-within-10-years-says-nasas-schmidt.html
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere. A news article which has the NASA and NOAA studies linked.

NASA link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

1)Hiatus never mentioned.
2)No mention of excluding data prior to 135 years ago.
3)No mention of 38% chance of (see item 4)
4)2014 clearly confirmed as hottest year on record

You fail.

Stay tuned for explication of NOAA links.
 
MuyLocoNC said:
I'm gonna throw you a bone, because it covers two topics under debate in this thread.

38% chance AND when the "ghost hiatus" or "pause" will end. Hmmm, leading climate scientist, MMGW proponent, acknowledges your claims of so many hot years lately, but still admits to pause, why it's happening and when it will end. Weird, huh?

http://www.reportingclimatescience....-over-within-10-years-says-nasas-schmidt.html
Click to expand...

is that the same gavin schmidt who defended the "climategate" researchers who were eventually exonerated and whose work was found to be completely within scientific standards?

ya know, the climategate scandal that you cite as evidence in the AGW hoax/conspiracy?

:lol:

i'm gonna start buttering my toast on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top