If you want to disagree, OK, but please don't lie.

[TDPerk]

"This is an outright lie."

No, it's literally the truth. Do you understand the supposed physical basis for AGW? Do you acknowledge you have supported AGW on this forum?

It requires "gains" for human released CO2 not seen in history (for that matter, it's only seen in the climate "records" which the AGW proponents ginned up to support their theory!).

[Schneibster]

Sorry, you claimed I said what I did not.

There just isn't any chance that I'm going to let you off.

You suck. It doesn't matter how many times you lie.

You are spamming us with fairy tales about how human released CO2 is somehow different from other CO2,

This is an outright lie. You said it here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4895&start=15#p107153

[TDPerk]

"you claimed I said what I did not."

No, and neither did I say you wrote it.

I said a true thing, that you are a supported here of the AGW fraud, and that that fraud to in fact be valid would require human released CO2 to have gains with respect to global temperature which are not seen in the climate record.

Not one lie in there.

[Schneibster]

But here it is:

You are spamming us with fairy tales about how human released CO2 is somehow different from other CO2,

This is an outright lie. You said it here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4895&start=15#p107153

You're just denying and lying. There's nowhere to hide and you should stop compromising your honor.

[TDPerk]

"You are spamming us with fairy tales about how human released CO2 is somehow different from other CO2, "

But you ARE spamming us with just such fairy tales. AGW requires that human released CO2 be magically unlike other CO2. And you are certainly spamming us with AGW.

[Schneibster]

AGW requires that human released CO2 be magically unlike other CO2.

I don't believe this is true; I think you made it up.

You claimed it.

Prove it.

Try to stay away from sources that have been disgraced, like Roy Spencer who caused the resignation of the editor of Remote Sensing, and Willard "Tony" Watts who is being sued for defamation, or the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or the Heartland Institute, or National Review, all of whom are his co-defendants.

[TDPerk]

I don't believe this is true; I think you made it up.

So you don't know the basis of AGW as it is claimed? But you're firmly a supporter?

Try to stay away from sources that have been disgraced, like Roy Spencer who caused the resignation of the editor of Remote Sensing, and Willard "Tony" Watts who is being sued for defamation, or the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or the Heartland Institute, or National Review, all of whom are his co-defendants.

Disgraced in whose eyes? The eyes of those trying to sell AGW?

They have no validity.

They've been doing the cherry picking, editor firing, and decline hiding which caused this whole mess--and they've been peer reviewed by reality, they are wrong.

Their models do not permit the globe not to have warmed over a 15 plus year period, although human released CO2 has continued to go up regularly. Their models are all wrong.

AGW is bunk where it wasn't fraud outright.

[Schneibster]

You said,

You are spamming us with fairy tales about how human released CO2 is somehow different from other CO2,

This is an outright lie. You said it here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4895&start=15#p107153

You also have now said

AGW requires that human released CO2 be magically unlike other CO2.

This is a direct outright lie.

You said it here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4962&start=30&p=107 ... ow#p107224

Now you're lying twice. The longer you go on the more lies you tell.

Go ahead. Bring the next one.

[TDPerk]

"AGW requires that human released CO2 be magically unlike other CO2."

"This is an outright lie."

That is no lie, it is literally the truth. There have been times in the planet's history which are geologically recent where there was more CO2 in the air, and the planet was colder. AGW hand-waves this away by doctoring the data to claim it isn't so, and then the AGW fraudsters made up "gains" and "forcing" unique to the last century, when human released CO2 went noticeably up. Then they claimed the perfectly normal and usual increase in global temperature seen in the 80's and early 90's was caused by this magical human released CO2 which had gains and forcings to it.

AGW is a screw-up and a fraud from the get go.

[Schneibster]

You have been challenged multiple times to quote proof of these claims.

You have failed.

You are lying.

[TDPerk]

Is it more funny than sad that Schneibster doesn't know what AGW theory is?

[Schneibster]

You haven't made any claims about "global warming theory," whatever that is.

You've made claims about what I said, and they've been lies.

And now you're lying again.

[GIThruster]

Perky, please stop feeding the troll. Don't read his posts and don't respond to him. You're only encouraging him.

And if its any consolation, if he weren't acting this way toward you, he would simply have picked someone else. This is why he's here.

[Schneibster]

So he's your sockpuppet?

Thanks for letting me know.

[paperburn1]

bye