http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “the science is absolutely certain”
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Terry Shipman on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- arn on “the science is absolutely certain”
- czechlist on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- arn on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Gordon Vigurs on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Gordon Vigurs on AI Climate Math
- Greg in NZ on AI Math
- Greg in NZ on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- conrad ziefle on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
Bring it on, Jim.. just so long as you know that you’re also in the firing line.
So I guess Jim “death trains” Hansen will be surrendering himself to the authorities.
Maybe it should be a capital crime to frighten little children with imaginary grade B disaster movie scenarios, while getting fat and rich in the process.
this was 3 years ago, Jim, what happened?…
Why does Steven Goddard misrepresent climate science and support scam artist @AGW_IS_A_HOAX?
The world’s climate scientists want to know.
Why do they call you BJ?
The question was straightforward. No need to evade it, Goddard.
So was mine.
Why does BJEdwards misrepresent Steve and support scam science?
So tell us why you feel the need to misrepresent climate science, Goddard.
Your focus on detail is like a laser beam.
So tell us why you feel the need to misrepresent Steven Goddard BJ.
There’s no reason you shouldn’t inform us why you choose to misrepresent climate science, is there?
If you can’t support your claim that AGW is a hoax why misrepresent climate science?
I’m overwhelmed by the specifics of your request.
There’s no reason you shouldn’t inform us why you choose to misrepresent Steve, is there?
If you can’t support your claim that AGW is real why misrepresent Steven Goddard?
Baa Humbug,
Goddard’s posts are on the record. It’s instructive to hear the motivations of denialists directly from the horses’s mouth.
Goddard doesn’t want to reveal his
I cover up my secret plans through censorship.
Intent is not specific?
That’s a new one.
Can you bend spoons?
So you have no specific intent with your blog? Do you mind if I inform others?
Please tell everyone you know about my secret blog.
No need to be secretive, Goddard. David Irving wasn’t secretive about his denialism. In fact, he wad quite proud of them.
I see the world literally collapsing all around me due to global warming.
No, you deny that the overwhelming science demonstrates AGW is real.
How does that get you anywhere?
Where does it get you to flap your arms wildly and scream the sky is falling?
bj, is there a point to your babbling?
Since the IAC has spoken about the “IPCC’s slow and inadequate response to revelations of errors in the last assessment“, shouldn’t we follow Hansen’s lead and put Pachauri et al on trial too?
That seems to be what Hansen is Advocating. Watch out Briffa and Mann!!! Hansen’s after you!
Others, except for your gullible followers, know about your blog and what it is. Many want to know why you choose to misrepresent climate science.
Specifically, what is misrepresented?
Do you agree with Goddard that AGW is a hoax?
lol, I asked you a question and you answer it with an unrelated question?
What specifically is being misrepresented here?
So you didn’t catch on that Goddard claims AGW is a hoax?
Gosh.
BJ I don’t know about Steve but I reckon anything above about 0.1DegC per century warming caused by mans activities is a hoax is a scam is a con job.
The idea that warming is nothing but bad bad bad is a hoax is a scam is a con job.
Convince me otherwise.
Exactly. What bj doesn’t understand is that many people have many areas where they disagree with one tenet of CAGW or another. That warming is bad is beyond logic. Humanity has always thrived better in a warmer environment.
As to the hoax and scams, the alarmism has brought us ethanol, which caused a higher price of food, carbon tax schemes…….. we hide divergences, we falsely include opinion pieces in the IPCC, we make stuff up about melting glaciers, historical temps get arbitrarily changed, MSNBC place penguins and polar bears together in an effort to sway opinion, there’s in insane group in Britain that makes snuff films and calls it humor. And I haven’t even got to the nasty stuff …… In my own little world, we exchange perfectly good electric meters that cost $20 and replace them with $250 meters with half the life expectancy. We’ve created a world glut and shortage of REE. (look it up bj, I haven’t time to explain what that is to you) We’ve planted whirlygigs and pinwheels that causes immeasurable suffering to the people dependent up the energy that fails at the worst possible time. All the while making electricity more reliant on nat. gas. Which, could be used in a more efficient form.
suyts,
You’re really a newbie at this. It’s not surprising how gullible you are.
lol, what gives you that impression?
Your responses.
lol, my responses make me seem gullible?
I suggest a moratorium on the question mark, at least on this thread
He certainly is at one end of the spectrum. I think it has all gone to his head, poor chap.
Andy
suyts and Baa Humbug illustrate my case for me.
One can never underestimate the intelligence of you climate change deniers.
You talk endlessly and say nothing.
If you can refute anything I stated, I’m all eyes and ears. You know bj, I first thought that you may have just been a confused young person that came here because you wanted to understand something. But, it appears you’re just part of the alarmist sheeple.
You make no statements regarding the validity of the “science” you seem to agree with, in fact, you seem so out of depth when people approach you with science that you simply ignore it and rant about Steve. Which is fine, you offer yourself up for some humorous one-liners, but really, the longer you remain here without offering anything substantive towards the discourse, the more you make alarmists look frivolous, frothy and futile. You’ve brought no science to the discussion nor any genre of logic all the while, confirming the thought that alarmists are churlish and lack the proper command of language to state their position in a proper manner.
If you can’t express it properly, there’s a good indication you don’t understand it properly.
You stuck your foot in your mouth, suyts. Show me where you have refuted the fact that the overwhelming science demonstrates AGW is real?
Cat still got your tongue? Or is the reality of that fact so stark that you already know admitting it demolishes your house of cards?
I neither have to defend the science nor refute you. I have stated a simple fact that the overwhelming science demonstrates AGW is real. That’s where the science is. Now you blather on that it’s all a hoax but you cannot articulate why or how the science is a hoax. Goddard is no different, caught in the same trap of his own making, unable to give any explanation why he misrepresents climate science and unable to demonstrate any “hoax” or how one could possibly work.
So, try again, suyts. Answer the question and quit evading it.
Gee BJ, you still haven’t replied to the decrease in the rate of sea-level rise. Once you do, we can go from there.
bj, you may be under a misconception about my views. I don’t attempt to refute AGW. Although, I believe they miss the mark by several fold.
I refute CAGW.
My question in my first comment remains on the table. Goddard et al still won’t answer it.
Who is your psychic?
I had one, but she died. 🙁
She died?!?!?! That’s awful! How did it happen?
It’s a sad story. She closed shop one day and took a step off of the curb and BAM! She got hit by a bus……..Never saw it coming.
BWHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA
BJ, When did you stop beating your boyfriend?
When did Goddard retract his claim that “AGW is a hoax?”
I’m melting …..
At last a scientist (Prof Courtillot) with class and knowledge. If only Hansen et al could bring themselves up to the same level?! We might have meaningful debate rather than scandalous, offensive garbage perpetrated against people who do not believe in their AGW religion.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/prof-vincent-courtillot-speaks-with-clarity/