The religion of Man Made Global Warming saga continues...

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Feel free to engage in substantive debate at any time, Amanuensis. Your persistent name calling isn't a convincing argument when your opponents have provided substantive arguments.

Substantive debate would require you to discuss the physics of the greenhouse effect which was established 150 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Substantive debate would require you to discuss the physics of the greenhouse effect which was established 150 years ago.

This is why folks like NHE and a couple others only ever discuss it on the Politics forum. Otherwise you have to be able to deal with numbers and data.
 
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
LOL ... You say I misrepresent. You call me a troll. You spew insults at everyone you disagree with ...

Actually no, you are wrong. I'm more than willing to consider actual skeptical information. But you don't provide that. You provide misrepresentation and games with other people's posts. That, of course, deserves what I give it.

... yet you claim that spewing stream of ejected matter belongs to others? :scratch:

You are a troll. You just keep it low key enough that you are basically just an irritant. You derail threads because you don't like to talk seriously about data. When people do provide scientific responses you ignore them only later to demand they gives scientific responses.

As if you could comprehend them.

Best to stick with your denialist blogs.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Actually no, you are wrong. I'm more than willing to consider actual skeptical information. But you don't provide that. You provide misrepresentation and games with other people's posts. That, of course, deserves what I give it.

I am not the troll here. You just keep it low key enough that you are basically just an irritant. You derail threads because you don't like to talk seriously about data. When people do provide scientific responses you ignore them only later to demand they gives scientific responses.

As if you could comprehend them.

Best to stick with your denialist blogs.
No.

I am not the troll here. You've had multiple opportunities to rebut the OP ... and other posts in this thread. When that got too tough for you, you CHOSE to go with spurious insults. Stay classy man. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, and your cause is so unassailable as you claim, then there should be no problem with composing a rational response rather than engaging in spurious personal attacks.

Unless, of course, such personal attacks are the actual desired goal of your posting ... which seems most likely. Prove me wrong though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
No.

I am not the troll here. You've had multiple opportunities to rebut the OP

Which I did. (PLease stop misrepresenting what other people post!!!)

Stay classy man.

How 'bout I stay classy right after you apologize for misrepresenting me?

I discussed SUBSTANTIVE TECHNICAL DETAILS HERE
and HERE
and HERE

Each of these posts contains data and/or links to external sources (ie NOT denialist blogs).

If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, and your cause is so unassailable as you claim, then there should be no problem with composing a rational response rather than engaging in spurious personal attacks.

Which I did. ANd I've now shown you three of them. So you are misrepresenting my posts.

Thanks in advance for an apology.

Unless, of course, such personal attacks are the actual desired goal of your posting ... which seems most likely. Prove me wrong though.

I already did. In fact HISTORY DID. All you had to do was pay attention.

But no, you insist on misrepresenting what others say.

Good luck with that. It seems to be the way the NightHawkTroll works.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Which I did. (PLease stop misrepresenting what other people post!!!)

How 'bout I stay classy right after you apologize for misrepresenting me?

I discussed SUBSTANTIVE TECHNICAL DETAILS HERE
Nice succinct and directly to the point post about CO2 warming the atmosphere. You put your argument out there for people to see.

What's the problem? I didn't take issue with your post ... which wasn't directed at me. Your argument stands on its own.
Another good succinct post with useful data ... data which substantiated my prior post about the increasing glaciers of Eastern Antarctica. Thanks for that, btw.
Another good post with data that I did not take issue with ... as it was not directed at me.
Each of these posts contains data and/or links to external sources (ie NOT denialist blogs).

Which I did. ANd I've now shown you three of them. So you are misrepresenting my posts.

Thanks in advance for an apology.
Not misrepresenting you at all. You entered the zone of insults of your own accord.
But no, you insist on misrepresenting what others say.
If you had wanted me to respond to your other posts it would have helped if you had directed them my way. I did respond to the one post where you expanded on the topic of Eastern Antarctica glaciers which I brought to the discussion. I believe the facts speak clearly for themselves about glacial extant ... as we briefly then discussed.
Good luck with that. It seems to be the way the NightHawkTroll works.
But no, you aren't content to let the facts speak for themselves. Spurious insults are important ... because the facts just aren't ever compelling enough, are they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nice succinct and directly to the point post about CO2 warming the atmosphere. You put your argument out there for people to see.

What's the problem? I didn't take issue with your post ... which wasn't directed at me. Your argument stands on its own.

Another good succinct post with useful data ... data which substantiated my prior post about the increasing glaciers of Eastern Antarctica. Thanks for that, btw.

Another good post with data that I did not take issue with ... as it was not directed at me.

Not misrepresenting you at all. You entered the zone of insults of your own accord.

If you had wanted me to respond to your other posts it would have helped if you had directed them my way. I did respond to the one post where you expanded on the topic of Eastern Antarctica glaciers which I brought to the discussion. I believe the facts speak clearly for themselves about glacial extant ... as we briefly then discussed.

But no, you aren't content to let the facts speak for themselves. Spurious insults are important ... because the facts just aren't ever compelling enough, are they?

Thanks for admitting that amanuensis63 did indeed rebut the OP.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
What's the problem? I didn't take issue with your post ... which wasn't directed at me. Your argument stands on its own.

The problem, Troll, is that you CONTINUOUSLY accuse me of not posting anything germane to the topic.

Not misrepresenting you at all. You entered the zone of insults of your own accord.

Sorry, Troll, but the facts speak for themselves.

How about this accusation:
Feel free to engage in substantive debate at any time, Amanuensis.

Or this Troll-like accusation:
Thank you for the admission that you aren't interested in engaging in substantive discussion on this forum.

You can only run away from your words so long, Troll.

If you had wanted me to respond to your other posts it would have helped if you had directed them my way

I didn't realize that explicitly putting your name on a post would keep you from misrepresenting reality. But then I'm not the troll here.

But no, you aren't content to let the facts speak for themselves. Spurious insults are important ... because the facts just aren't ever compelling enough, are they?

Trolling trolling trolling.

You can apologize when you get around to it. It usually starts with: "Amanuensis, I'm sorry, I was wrong to accuse you of not supplying facts and data or substantive points on this thread, I'm just trolling you. Sincerely, Nighthawktroll."

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
That's pretty much the definition of rebut.
How do you figure?

Here's the OP:
"Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Where are the charts?
Where are the graphs?

Next.../ the chants that this thread doesn't belong in politics...
Did Amanuensis actually provide any data on the ice caps contradicting the OP?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

amanuensis63

Newbie
Nov 29, 2014
1,908
846
✟7,455.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
How do you figure?

Here's the OP:

Did Amanuensis actually provide any data on the ice caps contradicting the OP?

What is your malfunction, Troll? Did I not already provide you with a post in which there is seen POLAR ICE DECREASE???

HERE

If I am supposed to deal with every single point and provide the perfect rebuttal to the point overall I would have to say EVEN YOU don't do that. In fact I have so far provided more science and data on this single thread that you have, Troll.

You misrepresent people willfully in order to anger them. Which means that most of what you've provided on this thread is NOT science but rather TROLLING.

But then I guess the troll does troll.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,492
13,116
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,591.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Why do you say it isn't peer-reviewed? What's your complaint about it, other than that it doesn't fit your agenda?
The last time you quoted that bunkity bunk article, I (in a rather uncharacteristic fashion) clearly explained why that data is imprecise and why the study quoted by that quack of a journalist is irrelevant to the field of study of climatology. In fact, had you read the abstract for the study, that alone SHOULD be enough (for someone with a university background) for you to understand why it's not pertinent.

Out of curiousity, did you read that old post? Did you research or look into that PARTICULAR study at ALL or are you now just quoting a journalist, quoting a study on sociology and trying to pass it off as a scientific study? Because frankly, I would have expected more from you brewmama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.
More like you can lead a horse to water, explain why it needs to drink, show it how to drink, put the drink in a convenient container so the horse doesn't even have to move to drink, and still have the horse refuse to drink.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
What is your malfunction, Troll? Did I not already provide you with a post in which there is seen POLAR ICE DECREASE???

HERE
Your data conveniently stops at the minimum ice extent seen in 2011. The OP concerns itself with the rebound in ice over the subsequent four years.
If I am supposed to deal with every single point and provide the perfect rebuttal to the point overall I would have to say EVEN YOU don't do that.
The OP is about current data, Amanuensis. 2011 was a minimum. 2015 is not. It's not complicated.

Here's the referenced chart of NASA data from the OP.

global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

The rebound in sea ice over the past few years is clearly visible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0