New Global Cooling Process Discovered As Paris Climate Deal Looms

tropos1As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn’t as much urgency about the matter as had been thought. A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea – a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it. The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assimilate. –Lewis Page, The Register, 30 September 2015

Scientists have discovered a hitherto unknown cooling process which may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory. Though the cooling effects of isoprene are well known, what is new is the discovery that the oceans are producing much more of it than has been accounted for in the alarmists’ climate models. Climate skeptics have, of course, long argued that the models used by alarmists to predict future climate change are fatally flawed because they exaggerate the influence of man-made carbon dioxide and fail to take into account other unknown or ill-understood factors. “Here is more evidence of what we have known for some time: that climate models simply do not mirror the reality of a [complex] system – and that they should never have been trusted in the first place,” says Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. –James Delingpole, Breitbart London, 1 October 2015

The oceans seem to produce significantly more isoprene, and consequently affect stronger the climate than previously thought. Isoprene is a gas that is formed by both the vegetation and the oceans. It is very important for the climate because this gas can form particles that can become clouds and then later affect temperature and precipitation. Previously it was assumed that isoprene is primarily caused by biological processes from plankton in the sea water. The atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, could now show that isoprene could also be formed without biological sources in surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models. —Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, 30 September 2015

For years, scientists and activists have predicted the Arctic would be ice-free during the summers and winter sea ice levels would continue to decline. But what they didn’t count on was sea ice remaining too thick for ships to regularly travel through. The first-ever study measuring sea ice thickness in the Northwest Passage has found Arctic sea ice is still too thick for ships to safely travel through it year-round. Scientists found that “even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.” –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 30 September 2015

The Conservative British government response to the climate crisis in the lead up to the Paris Summit is to argue in public that it’s the market that should lead the changes required. The government’s attitude, as expressed in a number of recent much criticised attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency is emboldening climate sceptics in the country such as Benny Peiser, who runs the cunningly named Global Warming Policy Foundation, and who issued a statement this week calling for energy-intensive industries such as iron and steel to be relieved of carbon taxes. This is an effort by him to influence the new consultation. –David Thorpe, The Fifth Estate, 1 October 2015

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (32)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    I’m sorry, we already know everything necessary about climate change. This is settled science and it is not possible that calls to scrap free market economics in favor of Marxist social reforms could be wrong. -[i]The state of science in 2015[/i]

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Moose

      |

      [quote name=”GR82DRV”]I’m sorry, we already know everything necessary about climate change. This is settled science and it is not possible that calls to scrap free market economics in favor of Marxist social reforms could be wrong. -[i]The state of science in 2015[/i][/quote]

      Whoehahahahahahahahahaha…

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    the British government is attempting to distance themselves from one of the largest frauds in history . “It’s the market that should lead the change ” . How many people are dead because of stupid British government ? climate policies .

    Now that they have squeezed the last drops of political capital from the scam …. well except for the “market ” (bankers ) cap and trade or other scam they want to step aside and just collect a piece of the action .

    All you families of dead seniors and unemployed ,.. well you will just have to go talk to the “market” about the climate scam crimes of the British government and bought climate ‘scientist” fraud’s .

    The British government needs to be accountable for the outsourcing of jobs and fuel poverty deaths caused by their political agenda and rewarding uneconomic rent seekers preying on tax payers with complete government support .

    What a group of clowns .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    This article mistakes the difference between recording what has happend and models to explain and predict. What we are seeing in the real world is overall warming with increasing instability (more extreme heat and cold events) . MORE importantly what is being observed is worse than what MOST of the models predict. We know the models are wrong. There are no doubt many positive and negative heat processes that we dont understand that will need to be studied and added to the models. All that will do is get the models closer to explaining the rapid and accelerating warming THAT IS HAPPENING and moreover is happening at a rate equivalent to the rising CO2 (of course correlation doesnt always mean causuality BUT the warming has continued (in terms of overall – air and water temperates) unslowed regardless of solar output or any other known factor EXCEPT CO2.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ shadow

    Naturally you have scientific method proof of what you’ve just said, right ?

    Don’t just state the conclusion.

    SHOW THE PROOF

    or be relegated as another blathering idiot and phony that we see here so often rejecting logic and reason to embrace quasi-religious cult worship idiocy.

    Naturally of course being of such intellectual caliber you will submit the scientific proof before blathering further.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    UUmm Not sure WHAT you want proof of ? The the article confuses the difference between models and actual observed data ? Or do you want proof that we are observing warming ??? well for that – you could start here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf and then you could look here http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ That one is particularly interested because its a project that was set up by a vocal climate change and funded by industry to show that the mainstream position of climate science (i.e. Green house warming was occurring ) and they ended up finding instead the data is overwhelmingly in support of man made climate change. They indeed went back redid the data and calculations (took a lot of work and money ) Then they had to say that their findings were not what they were looking for…. then theres NOAA http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html So what proof specifically are you after ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ shadow

    You’re not sure

    I interpret that that as you have no proof of what you’re saying.

    If you’re not sure, why do you speak dogmatically about speculative unproven fanaticism ?

    I don’t care what your answer is, if you have one. You’re just another phony trying to create speculative inquiry and blathering discussion when there is no need to discuss the fact that your hysterically fervent side has

    NO PROOF OF WHAT YOU;RE TALKING ABOUT.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    You could interpret it that I I am unclear as to specifically what you are asking. I did make a guess – and provided proof of warming and CO2 correlation. SO the fact you state I have no proof when I offered some is illogical – (thus wrong) …. see https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ Again – if you state specifically what you want proof of (in addition to the 000’s of studies and double checked (industry audited) data – then rather than assume I dont have proof – just explain – politely – what proof you think is needed. For the benefit of other readers – context or why would be polite also .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JJayPee

    |

    @shadow

    You’re saying you provided proof ?

    I’m condemning you as a LIAR.

    Have ever heard of the scientific method , JERK ?

    You’re just another phony.

    Is your name Anrzjewski ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Or do you want proof that we are observing warming ??? well for that – you could start here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf [/quote] The IPCC? Every prediction that agency ever made was wrong.
    [quote] and then you could look berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ That one is particularly interested because its a project that was set up by a vocal climate change and funded by industry to show that the mainstream position of climate science (i.e. Green house warming was occurring ) and they ended up finding instead the data is overwhelmingly in support of man made climate change. They indeed went back redid the data and calculations (took a lot of work and money ) Then they had to say that their findings were not what they were looking for. [/quote] Sorry but BEST failed Peer Review and Richard Muller was never a Skeptic.
    “I was never a skeptic […] I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
    – Richard Muller, 2011
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html
    He is promoting his Geoengineering “solution”.
    [quoteDr Muller of the Berkley Earth Surface Group is a tangle of contradictions. He knows all the faults of Warmist “science” and dissects them ably. Yet he goes on to say that he believes in Warmism despite all that. And he does not say why. What the heck is going on?

    If we follow the old advice “Follow the money”, however, we have an answer. He is the front man for a geoengineering organization. And they want to say that theirs is the only means of controlling the earth’s temperature. So they employ Dr. Muller to rubbish all the carbon control proposals — which he ably does.

    Skeptics Corner gives chapter and verse of the matter so I will just post below an excerpt from their extensive analysis

    This Berkley Earth Surface Group is part of the Novim Group. It appears based on a quick review of their literature that they are very much into Geo-Engineering….
    ][/quote]
    http://antigreen.blogspot.ca/2011/04/untangling-prof.html.
    [quote] then theres NOAA http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html [/quote] NOAA is currently being investigated for the fake Pause Buster Paper after whistle blowers alerted the Media to the fakery.
    http://www.therebel.media/will_it_snow_in_paris
    [quote] So what proof specifically are you after ?[/quote] AGW a failed hypothesis, unproven by real world experiment, if you have a proof based on observation under controlled conditions share it with us.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    I think its a big call (and unsupported by data if you actually read the IPCC reports) to say EVERY prediction they made was wrong (they have made many AND they are expressed as % and ranges. We are definitely with the ranges they have predicted in most case if not in the most probably bands. (Climate science doesnt deal in Binary. Things rarely are right or wrong in a binary fashion and to think of it that way suggest a total lack of understanding of what they are saying. (A massive simplification which is easier for people but takes them to the point of not understanding the science) The other things about the IPCC predictions – is that we know the models are wrong (which was part of the point I made in the first post) The processes involved are far more complex than we understand. HOWEVER in the majority of cases – what we are seeing – is happening faster or bigger than what the models predict. So all that suggest is not that climate science is currently on the wrong track but that the stuff we dont understand yet is making climate change worse than the predictions …… So for example 2001, IPCC predicted a range of emissions trends, best-case scenario of 7.7 billion tons of carbon each year by 2010 to a worst-case scenario of 9.7 billion tons. What happened – In 2010, global emissions from just fossil fuels alone totaled 9.1 billion tons of carbon (Add in the rest and far more carbon was emitted than predicted.) IPCC 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5° Fahrenheit, with a high probability of 7.2°F. Current data and models say we are tracking to a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100 – So was that prediction wrong ? IPCC projectsions were that the artic ice pack would melt until 2050 – worst case scenario.
    The Reality: Summer ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and we are on track for an ice-free Arctic in years. In 1995, IPCC projected “little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets… over the next 50-100 years Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC’s first three reports. I could go on – but in short – you are correct in saying that the IPCC’s predictions have not been spot on. However the really key thing is that mostly they have underpredicted the changes we are seeing ( so if someone says dont eat that it will make you terribly ill – and in fact someone eats it and dies – do you ignore what they said because they underestimated what would happen – or do you listen to their warning ? ) Ill leave the bit about Novim – other noting that its a non profit and if you follow the money you will find it comes from a variety or places (like the Koch brothers) however – think such points are more to distract from the data which is either right or wrong. Equally – Mullers quote is meaningless. He criticised climate science saying the methodology was flawed. He was considered a skeptic at the time. He got industry funding to prove that and ended up validating the methodologies (although hey found that things are actually worse than what the IPCC was saying) How he wants to rewrite hus position now he has found he was wrong again in no way affects the data. Regarding the Ewart debate – this issue is not that relevant. He disputes the methodology used in corrections for a recent study that suggests there was no pause. Now we can look at this several ways. Firstly – assume the that their correction methodology was invalid (which is possible) – We still see undisputed warming – and the Pause has well and truly ended – what ever caused it. So if you dont like that dataset – that in no way invalidates the 000’s of other studies that build the case many of which are not temperature measurements. We have migration of land and ocean species due to temperature changes. The warming has altered the density of the atmosphere that has had a material effect on orbiting satellites (esp. early ones that didnt take warming into effect in their orbits) . Increasing ocean acidity. Ice cores. Independent temperature data sets ( NOAA is considered the most comprehensive but many other countries have them and all show consistent warming trends. A number of countries have had to add a new high temperature range or two to the metererological report to cover temperatures now occurring with increasing frequency that we havent seen previously. Increasing intensity of tropical storms ( e.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html ) The point is dont miss the forest for the trees. ALL these points show massive, increasing change (consistent with warming) and yes we dont know enough and yes predictions are imperfect but https://www.wmo.int/media/content/wmo-2015-likely-be-warmest-record-2011-2015-warmest-five-year-period

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @Shadow

    Are you trying to win a prose contest ?
    Did you have help ?

    Too bad it’s of no materiality regarding the supposed phenomenon of global warming since it lacks foundation in that it presumes the existence of a CO2 exacerbated greenhouse effect.

    Without assumed but an unproven and unprovable GHE fable, everything you just said falls flat on its face and into the bin verbal garbage.

    I know why none of your kind will ever lay down a solid foundation to support the hysterical superstructure of your theorizing. It’s because the presumed GHE notion is unsupportable for lack of any proof.

    It all means nothing without proof of the mythical GHE.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    You mean the mythical GHE thats knocking satellites out of orbit. That myth ???

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    and you still miss the point. There are many studies that point to warming – that are not climate related. Health trends. Agriculture, Actuarial analyis (for companies which us a different methodolgy to the science actually but give the same answer – warming is happening) , land and marine biology, town planners (based on increasing events that just happen with increasing rapidity AND severity). All of those point to a warming. None of them rely on CO2 or the GHE – but that ALL in many disparate fields of science and business all show warming is happening. GHE is the only explanation that we have that fits ALL the data. HOWEVER dismissing GHE as irrelevant does nothing to alter the observed facts in other fields (which happen to show that climate change as predicted by the GHE is happening but correlation isnt necessarily causuality. Its just it fits. What do you think explains the fact the atmoshere is now Higher (as in expanded as if it was warmer) and therefore causing drag and slowing satellites causing their orbits to decay. Thats observational data. If its not GHE (which happens to predict what we are seeing perfectly) then what has expended the atmosphere. its an observation that the oceans are showing increasing acidity as exactly the same rate as warming. (And its a fact that CO2 dissolves to cause carbonic acid and increased warmth speeds the reaction) How would you explain that observation – which is a fact ? Insurers such as Allianz and Lloyds have observe business impacts that fit with climate change (costing increasingly large amounts in a consitently upwards trend) What do you think is causing these events that just happen to be predicted by climate change and are observed to be happening (and hurting companies) Coca cola , Nike and other companies all have reported on how climate change is adversely affecting their businesses and have introduced projects to help mitigate this REAL change. if its not GHE causing the issues they are having – what is ? Take out GHE you dont take out the data that supports it – so what is it that causes all this data (that looks exactly like GHE)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @Shadow (andrzejewski )

    No proof means NO PROOF !

    You haven’t goy any nor
    any of the phonies you listen to.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    OH I misunderstood – I thought you meant proof but you mean that you have faith that you are right and so actual data and facts about the real world are not proof because reality is not relevant to your belief system indeed you preference is so see things how you want them to be – not how they are.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrzewjewski

    You do not understand the Scientific Method nor its concept of proof.
    You do not understand the fundamental principles of basic Logic.

    But you arrogantly cling to your presumption that your claims are self-evident and bolstered by admittedly cherry-picked and altered ( fraudulent ) data,

    Your position is not just simply untenable and ridiculous, but laughably ignorant as well.

    Keep blathering.
    I’ll keep laughing, albeit pathetically.
    You’ll never understand.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]I think its a big call (and unsupported by data if you actually read the IPCC reports) to say EVERY prediction they made was wrong (they have made many AND they are expressed as % and ranges. We are definitely with the ranges they have predicted in most case if not in the most probably bands.[/quote]
    73 IPCC Models vs Reality.
    [quote]John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.[/quote]

    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]
    [quote]Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.[/quote]
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

    Your completely fact free and almost unreadable walls of text are meaningless drivel.
    The fact is every single one of the IPCC’s 73 Models have failed. Your talk about percent ranges are false. If it has no predictive skill it is not scientific.
    [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrzewejewski

    What Amirlach has just stated for the umpteenth time has not only not been refuted by you or any other associated liar, it stands as catagoric proof of the idiocy of your position.

    The fact that you have come here and LIED incessantly ( at least 15 times ) not only destroys your credibility but demonstrates your religious fanaticism on this subject and

    YOUR ABJECT STUPIDITY.

    Nobody expects you to understand.

    Nobody of common sense agrees with you.

    You are justifiably the target of all derision possible.

    And I expect more laughable commentary from you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    Hi there

    Now Ive been told by JP that Im stupid but there are fundamental issues with the methodology of the graph. This is a cutdown version of his original (and now accepted incorrect) graph. Here http://archive.is/yn62e They use a 4 year 79 – 83 baseline and they chose a spike ( and upswing) and didnt include the following downswing in the baseline – so for example If plotted the use of my local post office and chose 10 minutes at opening Ive chosen a spike – the busiest time of the day. If I did it in december It would show an even higher spike. I could use that to show that my local post office’s numbers were falling when in fact – they arent – I rigged the baseline.
    So the first point is that the standard for climate baselines is many decades – the IPCC tend to use 30 year base lines – to ensure that el ninos or sunspots or any other temporary factor doesnt skew the data (indeed the ONLY reason for a short baseline IS To choose a period that gives you the answer you want – rather than one that is reflective of the real trends. Christy’s 4 year baseline is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the 30 year baseline. Change that – and suddenly his graph shows inexorable warming.

    Secondly – he’s used a [flawed] methodology that was also used in the Early Draft of the AR5 reports. In that particular analysis the model was aligned with a single datapoint when they should be aligned with the trendline. Using a single datapoint allows you to choose an anomalous point (in this case the top of a short temperature spike rather than an average over time . Doing this gives an answer that is in no way indicative of what is actually happening (and its interesting the someone one would try to use a tactic that was pointed out very clearly by climate skeptics at the time…..

    Additionally in the original graph everything starts from a single point – that looks nice but is blatentely incorrect (and is not representative of the data). This is caused by a “Harmonisation” process that altered the data before he plotted it although he gives no methodology for that process or even explains WHY he needs to do that…. Little green men on satellites may ? we dont know because he doesnt tell us …..

    Finally its worth noting how these flawed methodologies play play out. Christies graph shows a marked deviation from the models very early on. This indeed is not the case – in the 80’s and 90’s the models tracked quite well. They did (in terms of air temperatures fall to track the lower end of the predictions around 2010. In 2013 there was a deviation from the low side. (However with the largest El Nino on Record currently bringing stored heat up form the lower oceans – termperature anamaloies are tracking to highs that significantly break previous records ( in english – In the last two years there been a sharp rise in temperatures that will bring the model and the graphs much closer into alignment (if current trends continue – and there is no sign of the oceans cooling this year – the observations will then be in the higher range of models)

    Look at Page 64 for the actual graphs he is criticising http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf Note also they he talks as if there is one graph but indeed – as is usual with the IPCC – they do the analysis using multiple methodologies and data sets to increase the certainty involved

    Sadly if Christie graph were presented as a university assignment – he would fail because of such basic flawed methodology – and as Ive noted – not one mistake but a number of them…. (and all somehow having the same effect of flattening observations whilst exaggerating the observations. And then only using 1 graph to try to prove that 6 different ways of looking at this issue – using different approaches all of which agree – are incorrect. Its also worth noting that Christie and the IPCC agree on a number of things… in his words “it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way:” and that the Models are incorrect. The IPCC knows the models are imperfect – and now that the observations don’t track… This takes me back to my original point . Christie doesn’t argue that warming isn’t happening although he argues against the models that have been produced. He does not however produce a peer reviewed model or mechanism that does explain what he – and the IPCC see’s – which is a long term continual warming trend that does not correlate with anything else but CO2 levels……

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @Andrzewski

    Apparently you have an aversion to handling the truth.
    Maybe you just don’t understand English.
    Maybe you just don’t understand.
    Volume of verbiage is meaningless when none of it is truthful or logical.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @And…………ski

    Btw, what part of your extended digression shows actual proof of the mythical GHE ?

    You know, the fundamental presumption
    sine qua non
    that makes your entire sermon

    MEANINGLESS and a LIE.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    Latin may be a dead language but it was still taught when I went to school – and so I understand what you actually said I do demurr however – I dont think you are correct – but I appreciate the compliment Cuilibet fatuo placet sua calva

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrzewejewski

    Unfortunately for you , it is you who are the fool, the ignoramus, the idiot, the dope who follows the dictates of political and quasi-religious jerks who are possibly even dumber than you.

    And you demurr ?

    Are you once again pretending to be a lawyer , Drewski ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    I cant imagine why you would think Im a lawyer. (except perhaps you have a thing for lawyers maybe ) I have made no claim to be one at any point . If you have deduced it from my having learned latin – I would note that I learned it in school before any thought of a career although I have found it very useful in life – and full of wisdom and humour – semper ubi sub ubi I do know many non lawyers that know latin. Its not uncommon in certain fields of medicine, philosophy, science, history and linguistics. A surprising number of Geeks have a smattering also. You can never speak enough languages actually ! Im still learning new ones…. (its good for your general cognition.)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrezrjewski

    You claimed so before under them name of Drewski. I’m not going too bother looking it up because I remember it.
    That’s what’s wrong with people like you.
    When you lie like you do,
    you have to remember those lies.
    Otherwise you expose yourself.

    If you tell the truth,
    there are no lies you have to remember.

    I don’t expect you’ll understand even that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Additionally And……………ski,

    You are grammatically incorrect
    ” ubi ” always means ” where”

    and not ” wear “

    so much for your prestigious knowledge of anything.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    1) I have made no claim to know everything
    2) I am not Drewski and have only one login to this site (which is providing lots of interesting psychological data BTW)
    3) I now know you laugh to yourself (disturbing but interesting) and DONT have a sophisticated sense of humour (or not able to understand that when someone mentions humour and follows it with a joke its funny to most people)

    Sadly you have confused me with someone else (but your posts suggest a lot of confusion so that is not unsurprising)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    I have outted you as a phony and LIAR.
    If you can’t take it, too bad.

    I should think that out of your own self respect you wouldn’t make yourself a useful idiot of those who are making trillions off of this scam while you’re blathering in the hope of credibility.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Shadow

    |

    Ah – the certainty of delusion

    You haven’t outed anyone although seeing as it gives you so much pleasure to think so that you resort to uppercase insults I wont bother looking at this others persons posts and doing a analysis. (Linguistic or otherwise)

    You have actually been very useful in demonstrating the difference between the climate change world who understand that we don’t know everything and that all claims must be checked against data continually and those so scared by the world they insist they know – and present no evidence to that effect – because that’s more comforting to them that dealing with reality. Congratulations – you are a case study !

    Otherwise my friend
    Не делай из мухи слона

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Drewski
    You’re a phony proven liar and it matters not that you don’t accept that.
    Everyone else knows it and that’s all that’s necessary.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.