Climate change

Climate Change: How to Lie without appearing to Lie

Spread the love

Here’s almost 40 years of climate models, starting in 1971–when “Global Cooling” was feared, to the Hansen models in the 1980’s, the first in 1981 and the second in 1988, and the last ones by the IPCC, Assessment Reports (AR) from the 1990’s to about 2010.

Notice that the decadal rate of temperature increase remains almost the SAME for the entire 40 year period! And notice how the early models–mostly in the 1970’s when ‘cooling’ was in vogue, are very close to actuals. It’s only when super-duper “climate change models” were devised in the 90’s and later on that the sizable deviations occur.

So, here’s the ‘lie’: these authors claim that climate change models actually stack up quite well to actual temperatures, when, in fact, this is only true because they’ve used very simple models from the 70’s to average out the much larger errors that the super-duper “climate models” are showing. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!” And this is statistical averaging and a big lie!

But, theres MORE:

Here’s a quote from the Phys.Org press release:

Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.

A few times, scientists were wrong in their predictions about the growth of carbon pollution, saying there would be more of the gases than there actually were, Hausfather said. If they got the amount of heat-trapping gases wrong, they then got the temperatures wrong.

So Hausfather and colleagues, including NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, looked at how well the models did on just the pure science, taking out the emissions factor. On that count, 14 of the 17 computer models accurately predicted the future.

So, if LEAVE OUT the amount of “Greenhouse Gases,” then models become accurate. So, what’s the point of the models, then? What a mockery of science this represents!!

120 Replies to “Climate Change: How to Lie without appearing to Lie

  1. 1
    PaV says:

    Without doing another post, here’s the latest:

    VOLCANIC ROCK affects CLIMATE CHANGE: Read all about it at Phys.Org.

    How about this for making a complete mockery of current “climate science.”

    Greenhouse gas emissions released directly from the movement of volcanic rocks are capable of creating massive global warming effects—a discovery which could transform the way scientists predict climate change, a new study reveals.

    Scientists’ calculations based on how carbon-based greenhouse gas levels link to movements of magma just below earth’s surface suggest that such geological change has caused the largest temporary global warming of the past 65 million years.

    For ten years, I’ve been saying that volcanic activity is related to temperature increases. Our modern warming trend began in the early 1800’s, a time of many earthquakes in California. I believe there is a direct link between earthquake activity and volcanic activity.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Anyone who can look @ The GHG absorption/ emission spectrum and come away with “CO2 is a driver of global temperatures”, is definitely on an agenda of deception. Take away the humidity, as with a desert, and the earth heats up, not because of GHG’s, but from the lack of moisture in the air. At night, there is still CO2 but it still gets cold very quickly, because there isn’t any moisture to hold the heat.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    PaV @ 1- The hypothesis for the end of snowball earth pertained to volcanos. What they spewed helped melt some of the ice sheets but the greenhouse gasses produced elevated the atmospheric temps. Which, along with tons of soot, melted the ice packs.

  4. 4
    Mimus says:

    “leave out the emissions”is not a very good way to describe what this study really did. Instead, that measured the model’s accuracy at predicting temperature for the observed changes on forcings (mostly CO2). This is required as some models are inaccurate re: observed temps in part because the overestimated how much CO2 we’d emit.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    mimus- look at the chart I linked to in comment 2. CO2 is not the problem. You have to be a desperate liar to say otherwise given that data

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    So, here’s the ‘lie’: these authors claim that climate change models actually stack up quite well to actual temperatures, when, in fact, this is only true because they’ve used very simple models from the 70’s to average out the much larger errors that the super-duper “climate models” are showing.

    Sorry, but it’s not clear what you mean – what averaging are you talking about? I can’t see where the authors do any averaging over the models.

    So, if LEAVE OUT the amount of “Greenhouse Gases,” then models become accurate.

    As Mimus has pointed out, you’ve interpreted this incorrectly. To make the projections into the future, the authors of the original studies had to make some assumptions about how C=2 concentrations would change (this isn’t itself modelled: it’s an input into the model). Some of the authors got these projections wrong, so their predictions about temperature were wrong because their assumptions about human activity were wrong, not their climate models. It makes sense, hten to correct this.

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather have been known climate scammers for decades.

    Do you think that they are going to present anything that says they were wrong all these years?

    These people are criminals. They have no qualms about lying, then lying some more, and then continuing to lie after that.

    Andrew

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV @ 1 – The earthquakes in California didn’t release much lava, so I’ve no idea how you expect that to be relevant. The paper looks at an event where a lava plain 3 times the size of California was formed. Modern day volcanoes are nowhere near as spectacular.

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    If climate scientists know what they are doing, why 17 climate models and not just 1 or 2?

    Andrew

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    Because climate scientists have learned much more about the climate and how it works. And computational power has also increased, so they are able to look at more complex phenomena, and at a finer scale.

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    Bob O’H,

    What have they learned?

    Andrew

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    You should ask a climate scientist that.

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    “You should ask a climate scientist that.”

    Bob O’H

    So you claim climate scientists “have learned much more about the climate” but can’t tell me what it was that they learned?

    Then how do you know they really learned anything? Little birdie whispered in your ear?

    Andrew

  14. 14
    Marfin says:

    Myself and two friends between us will pick the winner of every NFL game this week and for the rest of the season , in each game I will pick the home team my friend will pick the visiting team and my other friend will pick a tie , I think that will cover it.This is all the IPCC and their cohorts do, they do enough models so one of them has to be right and then they can say see we predicted this.Its the same with the so called unprecedented weather events more rain , less rain, more snow, less snow, more storms less storms , they have models and papers to cover all these eventualities.In the last 150 years temperature has perhaps risen 1 deg c in that time we live longer , less and less people live in poverty and deaths caused by bad or catastrophic weather events has fallen by 95% so why the scare tactics , its all about money , power, control.

  15. 15
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    After years of hearing critics blast the models’ accuracy, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather decided to see just how good they have been. He tracked down 17 models used between 1970 and 2007 and found that the majority of them predicted results that were “indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”

    You see, Bob, the “majority” of the models got it right. So, the conclusion is that climate models do a good job. That’s the lie.

    Why didn’t they put the year the model was run in each of the columns? Why didn’t they tell us how many are from 1971 to 1981 and those that came later? And why didn’t they include the latest Assessment Report from the IPCC? Why didn’t they include the last three?

    To fool the casual reader.

    They show only 14, 9 of which are from 1971 to 1988. Hansen’s 1988 has 3 temperatures, and the saving grace is the last of the three, which balances the first two. So, let’s throw that out, and we have 9 out of 13 of these models that are “accurate,” coming from 1971 to 1981, a time when “global cooling” was the prevailing view. This is “bait-and-switch.”

    And, Bob, why don’t you comment on the very obvious result that the “observed” rate of temperature increase has not change in over 40 years! From a time when “global cooling” was in vogue, to a time when “global warming” is the cry (though they call it “climate change” because of embarassment), the rate stays the same.

    What do you think? As a scientist, what is this telling you? If you’re unable to answer these questions, then I have nothing more I can say.

  16. 16
    Mimus says:

    I thnk it’s prefectly obvious to anyone reading this OP that you thought the “lie” was leaving out the emissions effect. Now that you’ve been corrected you scrabble for the followin.

    Why didn’t they put the year the model was run in each of the columns?

    I’m not sure why the Associated Press’ graphic doesn’t have that info. The figure in the paper and a senior author’s blog do

    And why didn’t they include the latest Assessment Report from the IPCC? Why didn’t they include the last three?

    Yes! Why didn’t those lyin climate scientists test the long-term accuracy of their models on 3 years of data! There has only been on AR since the 2007 one included in this sudy, so don’t know where the other two you think exist are.

    They show only 14, 9 of which are from 1971 to 1988. Hansen’s 1988 has 3 temperatures, and the saving grace is the last of the three, which balances the first two. So, let’s throw that out, and we have 9 out of 13 of these models that are “accurate,” come from 1971 to 1981, a time when “global cooling” was the prevailing view. This is “bait-and-switch.”

    “Global cooling” was never the prevailing view among climate scientists. Even if it was, the question is do the models work. The answer is yes.

    And, Bob, why don’t you comment on the very obvious result that the “observed” rate of temperature increase has not changed in over 40 years!

    If you want ot look a the rate of temperature increase you should just look at the temperature record, trying to find a trend in a series of overlapping intervals of varying lengths us really the best way to do it. Even then, remember when numbskulls like Barry Arrington used to trot out the “no warming since 1995” meme? Turns out only has there been warming, it’s been trucking along at close to .2C per decade most of the time…

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    Mimus,

    I seriously doubt you actually believe the nonsense you are trying to defend.

    So, tell us what you are doing with all this valuable climate info.

    Riding bikes now? Got an electric car? President of the Greta Fan Club? Eating crickets?

    Please tell us.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    Mimus says:

    ET,

    I looked at your graph. I remain convinced human emissions are responsible for the recent increase in temperature.

    (Water vapour is an important greenhouse gas, of course. But changes in water vapour don’t drive changes in temperature over time. Rather, atmospheric water vapour responds to changes in temperaturre. Sometimes it even falls out the sky as liquid water…)

  19. 19
    Mimus says:

    Hi Andrew,

    I ride a bike to work every day, yes. I also limit my air travel, vote for political parties that support systematic change and try to reduce waste in my life.

  20. 20
    asauber says:

    “I remain convinced human emissions are responsible for the recent increase in temperature.”

    Mimus,

    Convinced by what? A squiggly line graph? Please tell me you aren’t that gullible.

    Andrew

  21. 21
    asauber says:

    “I ride a bike to work every day, yes. I also limit my air travel, vote for political parties that support systematic change and try to reduce waste in my life.”

    Mimus,

    Do you realize that none what you listed here has any effect on the climate?

    Andrew

  22. 22
    Mimus says:

    The weight of evidence, most notably the inabiliy of natural inputs (the sun, volcanoes etc) to explain the magnitude of change. you should read some of it…

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    “The weight of evidence, most notably the inabiliy of natural inputs (the sun, volcanoes etc) to explain the magnitude of change. you should read some of it…”

    Mimus,

    What evidence are you talking about? This is just claims.

    Andrew

  24. 24
  25. 25
    asauber says:

    Seversky,

    “Using biomarkers to reconstruct past ocean temperatures, and through ice sheet computer models”

    Gospel?

    Andrew

  26. 26
    ET says:

    mimus:

    I looked at your graph. I remain convinced human emissions are responsible for the recent increase in temperature.

    You do so despite the data, then. CO2 is only relevant at one wavelength. And water vapor also absorbs in that wavelength. It’s like saying a cargo net could hold the heat in a room if used as walls. Soot on snow makes it melt even in below freezing temps if the Sun’s rays hits it. Every glacier pictured is dirty. Dirty glaciers melt even if the ambient temp < 32F.

    That said, urban heat islands are real. They can easily skew the data to make it appear warmer. Last year I did a comparison of my local area from 40+ years ago and recent records. They were very close to being identical- temps, precipitation, snow, rain- a person time traveling wouldn't be able to tell the difference if transported to a secluded area between then and now. But that's New England.

    My cousin lives on the intercoastal water way in Florida- west coast. Lived there for at least 50 years. The water isn't noticeably higher now than it was then. She's been keeping track, for obvious reasons.

    There are real problems to deal with, such as trash. People like you are preventing us from solving the real problems.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    The magnitude of change that is most likely within the margin of error? Too funny.

    When did temperature recording start- around 1850, right? The little ice age ended around, what, 1850?

  28. 28
    Mimus says:

    Seems like we real useful discussions…

    Andrew, I can’t read for you. But check out the IPCC assessments for the science of attribution

    ET,

    What wavelengths CO2 radiate back to space?

  29. 29
    ET says:

    mimus:

    What wavelengths CO2 radiate back to space?

    2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. Of those 3 only the 15 um is thermally relevant. It’s in the chart you never looked at. Most of the LW IR is unaffected by CO2.

  30. 30
    Ed George says:

    As to ET’s claim that CO2 is insignificant when compared to water vapor:

    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

    There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

  31. 31
    Mimus says:

    ET,
    This argument is about 100 years out of date, having been disproved theoretically and empirically in the atmosphere. A summary at multiple levels here: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-basic.htm

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Wow. Anyone can look at the scientific chart and see that CO2 is a very minor player. It isn’t my fault that my detractors are blind, willfully ignorant and incoherent.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same.

    That’s BS. Without GHGs the sun’s rays heats the surface faster and to a higher temp. That would mean the water would evaporate faster and produce more clouds. The fact is that the clean air acts have allowed this to happen. More of the sun’s rays are reaching the surface.

    Look at the chart

    The big blue chunk is what is radiated back to space unobstructed. The little spikes to its right show the space between CO2 and water vapor. Take away CO2 and all that happens is a little smattering of blue from 14.5-15.5 um. A bump about twice as high as those little spikes, maybe slightly higher. That’s it.

    You have to be a fool to think that blocking such an insignificant smattering would cause anything. And there isn’t any science to support the claim that it has.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    It’s like saying using a cargo net for walls and a roof will hold the heat in. CO2 is very limited. If we compare it to a blanket, the blanket would be like a cargo net- holes strung together. Over 90% of the earth’s radiated LW IR is unaffected by CO2. And considering that less than half of what CO2 emits will be aimed back towards the earth, that 90% is actually higher.

    So what the alarmists are saying is that when about 4% of what is radiated by the earth is aimed back at it, the earth will warm. Got that>? Losing 96% is not going to cause the earth to cool cuz it gets 4% back.

    How stupid and gullible are these people?

    Cue Acartia Eddie and mimus to continue to ignore the facts and prattle on

  34. 34
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV –

    Why didn’t they put the year the model was run in each of the columns? Why didn’t they tell us how many are from 1971 to 1981 and those that came later?

    As has already been pointed out, they did.

    And why didn’t they include the latest Assessment Report from the IPCC? Why didn’t they include the last three?

    They explain this in the paper:

    We assessed model projections over the period between the date the model projection was published and the end of 2017, or when the model projection ended in cases where model runs did not extend through 2017. An end date of 2017 was chosen for the analysis because the ensemble of observational estimates of radiative forcings we used only extends through that date.

    In other words, they couldn’t test how well the models predict actual climate because they didn’t have data on the actual climate.

    They show only 14, 9 of which are from 1971 to 1988. Hansen’s 1988 has 3 temperatures, and the saving grace is the last of the three, which balances the first two. So, let’s throw that out, and we have 9 out of 13 of these models that are “accurate,” come from 1971 to 1981, a time when “global cooling” was the prevailing view. This is “bait-and-switch.”

    I have no idea what you’re trying to suggest – they still show that 9 models from the 70s were accurate. And it’s not true that “global cooling” was the prevailing view:

    A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myths basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.

    (the paper goes on to provide the evidence to substantiate this claim, e.g. they surveyed papers from 1965 to 1979, and “identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming.”)

    And, Bob, why don’t you comment on the very obvious result that the “observed” rate of temperature increase has not change in over 40 years!

    Because that wasn’t a part of my argument.

  35. 35
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    So what the alarmists are saying is that when about 4% of what is radiated by the earth is aimed back at it, the earth will warm. Got that>? Losing 96% is not going to cause the earth to cool cuz it gets 4% back.

    Obviously math and thermodynamics are not your strengths.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    Wow, what a punk reaper is. I challenge reaper to present the math and science that refutes anything that I have posted. Or shut up, coward.

    Obviously reaper’s only strength is being a belligerent coward, quote-mining fool and liar

  37. 37
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    Wow, what a punk reaper is. I challenge reaper to present the math and science that refutes anything that I have posted. Or shut up, coward.

    Obviously reaper’s only strength is being a belligerent coward, quote-mining fool and liar

    Here is an analogy I know you can relate to chubbs. By Joe math, if he continually consumed 4% more calories than he lost through metabolism and other processes, he would not gain weight. However, in the real world he would balloon up pretty quickly.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Wow, reaper is an ignorant punk. Your example proves that you are a clueless moron. My math says that if I got 4% of the calories lost, back, I would still be losing weight, moron. If the earth loses 96% and keeps only 4%, it will definitely not get warmer.

    Lose 100 calories and get 4 calories back means a net loss of 96 calories. reaper failed first grade mathematics.

    Spend a dollar and get 4 cents back means you are down 96 cents

  39. 39
  40. 40
    ET says:

    Reaper’s Plague is non-other than Timmy Horton/ adapa/ occams aftershave/ ghostrider. A total belligerent and pathological liar. Is UD really that desperate for comments? I don’t mind refuting its easily refutable posts. But why waste the bandwidth on a sociopath like Timmy?

  41. 41
    Axel says:

    First grade ‘arithmetic’, ET. I say that as a specialist in first-grade arithmetic.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    LoL! I stand corrected- well sit corrected

  43. 43
    Reapers Plague says:

    Chubbs

    Lose 100 calories and get 4 calories back means a net loss of 96 calories. reaper failed first grade mathematics.

    You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, or you are just willfully ignorant. You willfully and ignorantly ignored the calories consumed. It’s first grade “arithmetic” chubbs.

    Spend a dollar and get 4 cents back means you are down 96 cents.

    But if you sell something for a dollar, and it cost you 96 cents in materials and labor to produce, you are up 4 cents. Repeat this 25 million times and you are a millionaire. Just because something is relatively small doesn’t mean that it can’t have a significant impact, your intelligence excepted.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Reaper, clearly you are just a willfully ignorant troll and desperate moron. Not one of your examples reflect what is happening with CO2. Both of my examples describe it perfectly.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    The example of losing 100 calories and getting 4 back reflects what happens with CO2. The example of paying a dollar and receiving 4 cents back also reflects what happens with CO2.

    Reaper’s examples just prove what a desperate moron it is

  46. 46
    Reapers Plague says:

    Sharon

    The example of losing 100 calories and getting 4 back reflects what happens with CO2.

    Except that you willfully ignore the original input and quantity of calories in your calculations. If the calories you scarf down in Big Macs exceeds the calories you use or lose then you will gain weight. If you keep it up, you will continue to gain weight. You know this all too well from your personal experience.

    If the earth continues to trap heat without it being lost elsewhere, the earth will continue to heat up.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    CO2 doesn’t trap heat, moron. Clearly your desperation and stupidity don’t have any bounds

  48. 48
    ET says:

    moron:

    Except that you willfully ignore the original input and quantity of calories in your calculations

    Liar

  49. 49
    Reapers Plague says:

    Somebodysdad

    Liar

    Then you ignoring the input of calories was just plain old, everyday ignorance? That is so much better chubs.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    Look, loser’s plague, make your case as oppose to spewing cowardly innuendos. I dare you to try.

  51. 51
    ET says:

    If the calories you scarf down in Big Macs exceeds the calories you use or lose then you will gain weight.

    This is true, but it has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. That you would bring that into this discussion just proves that you are a desperate troll, intent on being belligerent.

  52. 52
    Latemarch says:

    A more technical analysis of the data. Climate Models Have Not Improved In 50 Years

  53. 53
    ET says:

    HT Latemarch:

    The accuracy of the failed models improved when they adjusted them to fit the observations… Shocking.

    (continues reading the article)

  54. 54
    Reapers Plague says:

    Frankie

    This is true, but it has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. That you would bring that into this discussion just proves that you are a desperate troll, intent on being belligerent.

    If the calories you scarf down in Big Macs exceeds the calories you use or lose then you will gain weight. If you keep it up, you will continue to gain weight. You know this all too well from your personal experience. If the earth receives more energy than it uses or loses then it must go somewhere. In this case, an increased atmospheric temperature until an equilibrium is reached. If you increase one of the factors that prevent loss of energy (eg, increased CO2 levels) atmospheric temperatures will increase even further until a new equilibrium is attained.

    An analogy, although not a perfect one, is your house (or, in your case, your mother’s house). If your furnace runs continuously at a fixed rate (no thermostat), and the outside temperature remains constant, at 0 degrees, the temperature inside your house will stabilize at a fixed temperature. Now, if you receive 3 inches of snow and the outside temperature remains the same and the furnace continues to run at the same rate, the temperature in the house will increase until a new equilibrium is reached.

  55. 55
    PaV says:

    Mimus:

    I’m not “scrambling” for anything. I indicated the kind of averaging they did: i.e., lumping ‘accurate’ (the 1970’s models) with the ‘inaccurate’ (1990’s and beyond models), and then saying that, OVERALL, the models are fairly accurate.

    Turns out only has there been warming, it’s been trucking along at close to .2C per decade most of the time…

    It turns out that this rate goes all the way back into the 1800’s, a time when CO2 production was miniscule compared to today’s production.

    Also, if the rate has been constant for 40 years, this comes at a time when CO2 production worldwide (think China and India) has skyrocketed. If CO2 causes ‘warming,’ then why hasn’t the rate increased?

    You can’t, and refuse, to answer the question. If you answered honestly, then it would be completely apparent that the current hysteria is rooted in idealogy, and, no more.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper:

    If the calories you scarf down in Big Macs exceeds the calories you use or lose then you will gain weight.

    I don’t eat big macs. I am a vegetarian AND a gym rat

    If the earth receives more energy than it uses or loses then it must go somewhere.

    It doesn’t go into CO2.

    If you increase one of the factors that prevent loss of energy (eg, increased CO2 levels) atmospheric temperatures will increase even further until a new equilibrium is attained.

    CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration.

    An analogy, although not a perfect one, is your house

    A FALSE analogy.

    A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?

    Again, the scientific chart I provided shows how little CO2 impacts the GHG effect. And I understand why my detractors would ignore it.

  57. 57
    ET says:

    PaV please see the article that Latemarch linked to in comment 52. It deals specifically with your OP.

  58. 58
    Reapers Plague says:

    Virgil

    CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration.

    And lasers only emit a single wavelength. And they can be used to melt steel. There is only one significant solar produced mutagenic wavelength but I’m sure that melanoma suffered would consider it significant.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper:

    And lasers only emit a single wavelength.

    There aren’t any lasers made from one molecule of CO2. Obviously you are a very desperate loser.

    It’s as if you are such demented person that you don’t care who knows it. Strange, but still not an argument.

    A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
    Again, the scientific chart I provided shows how little CO2 impacts the GHG effect. And I understand why my detractors would ignore it.

  60. 60
    Mimus says:

    The problem with this latest post is that you have it all wrong.

    The 1970s models are not better than the 1990s one, the rate increate in temperature has not been static since the 1800s, the acceleration in that rate is not now static. Simply making up facts to support you case sounds a bit like this “rooted in ideology” idea to me

  61. 61
    Reapers Plague says:

    Mimus

    Simply making up facts to support you case sounds a bit like this “rooted in ideology” idea to me a lot like ET to me.

    There, I fixed it for you. 🙂

  62. 62
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper is in full meltdown and desperate now. Moderators why is that belligerent liar being allowed to post here?

  63. 63
    Ed George says:

    Although reading through ET’s and RP’s discourse has been highly entertaining, in a childish immature sort of way, obviously neither have anything of value to say. Maybe they will do better after their mothers give them their bottles and put them them down for their afternoon nap.

  64. 64
    ET says:

    Earth to mimus- unfortunately, you are not even wrong.

  65. 65
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie, clueless dolt:

    obviously neither have anything of value to say.

    If that refers to you, reaper, Bob and mimus, you are correct

    Maybe they will do better after their mothers give them their bottles and put them them down for their afternoon nap.

    Give it a try. It may help you. But even a nap won’t help with your ignborance

  66. 66
    Reapers Plague says:

    Joke

    loser’s weeper is in full meltdown and desperate now. Moderators why is that belligerent liar being allowed to post here?

    Chubs translation: “Mommy, why are you letting the mean man treat me like I treat him. I am going to hold my breath until you ban him.”

  67. 67
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    There aren’t any lasers made from one molecule of CO2.

    And nobody is suggesting that global warming is caused by a single molecule of CO2. Obviously you are a very desperate loser. But CO2 lasers, which only emit at two primary wavelengths, are commonly used for welding and cutting.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper:

    And nobody is suggesting that global warming is caused by a single molecule of CO2.

    But YOU are suggesting that atmospheric CO2 is like a laser that can melt steel. Talk about desperation. Atmospheric CO2 is NOTHING like a laser. For each molecule of atmospheric CO2 there are around 2500 non-CO2 molecules. You can’t get a laser beam from that concentration. You don’t get much of anything from that

    And CO2 is also used as a coolant.

    A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?

    Again, the scientific chart I provided shows how little CO2 impacts the GHG effect. And I understand why my detractors would ignore it.

    Answer the question. Either way you will have proved my point.

  69. 69
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper is in full meltdown and desperate now. Moderators why is that belligerent liar being allowed to post here?

    translation

    UD doesn’t need belligerent liars like you wasting people’s time and resources. You have thrown out many false examples and infantile innuendos that it is obvious that your intention is just to be belligerent. So why let you do that here when there is your swamp?

  70. 70
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    But YOU are suggesting that atmospheric CO2 is like a laser that can melt steel.

    I see you are suffering from a reading comprehension problem again. Talk about desperation. My reference to lasers was in reference to you lame claim that a molecule that only absorbs at one wavelength can’t have a significant impact. Well, lasers only emit one or two wavelengths but they can be very effective.

    And CO2 is also used as a coolant.

    Now you are really getting desperate. Snow is also used as a coolant but as I have already demonstrated it can be quite effective acting as an insulation.

    UD doesn’t need belligerent liars

    I agree. Are you voluntarily leaving?

  71. 71
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper:

    My reference to lasers was in reference to you lame claim that a molecule that only absorbs at one wavelength can’t have a significant impact.

    That is a twisted view of my claim. You are desperate.

    Snow is also used as a coolant

    Snow isn’t an alleged GHG- it isn’t a gas. What is wrong with you?

    A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?

    We all know why you avoid that question.

    UD doesn’t need belligerent liars like you wasting people’s time and resources. You have thrown out many false examples and infantile innuendos that it is obvious that your intention is just to be belligerent. So why let you do that here when there is your swamp?

    Your quote-mine of that just serves to prove my point. Thank you

  72. 72
    ET says:

    For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (1990-1999). That’s less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.- Dr Roy Spencer

    0.15C has to be close to the margin of error…

  73. 73
    Reapers Plague says:

    Me

    My reference to lasers was in reference to you lame claim that a molecule that only absorbs at one wavelength can’t have a significant impact.

    Joe, in response

    That is a twisted view of my claim. You are desperate.

    Joke, earlier in the thread

    CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration.

    Is lying something you do with conscious effort, or does it just come naturally? Inquiring minds want to know.

  74. 74
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV @ 55 –

    I’m not “scrambling” for anything. I indicated the kind of averaging they did: i.e., lumping ‘accurate’ (the 1970’s models) with the ‘inaccurate’ (1990’s and beyond models), and then saying that, OVERALL, the models are fairly accurate.

    The 3 inaccurate models are from 1970, 1971 and 1988. All, if my mathematics is beyond remedial level, before the 1990s.

  75. 75
    ET says:

    CONTEXT, loser’s weeper. My claim pertained to a specific context which you ignored like the willfully ignorant and desperate troll that you are.

    CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration. Pertains to the atmospheric CO2 and you twisted it to lasers- manmade machines. It’s as if you have no shame, timmy.

  76. 76
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- Please read the article Latemarch linked to in comment 52

  77. 77
    Reapers Plague says:

    Sharon

    CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration.

    Chubs, context IS important. How does the fact that CO2 only absorbs and emits at one wavelength change the fact that doubling the concentration doubles the amount absorbed and emitted? You have ignored this like the willfully ignorant and desperate troll that you are. It’s as if you have no shame, Frankie.

  78. 78
    ET says:

    loser’s weeper chokes and carries on anyway:

    How does the fact that CO2 only absorbs and emits at one wavelength change the fact that doubling the concentration doubles the amount absorbed and emitted?

    Does it? Please show your work. And it still doesn’t change the fact that most of the LW IR from earth is unaffected by CO2. And doubling pittance will just give you a little more pittance, if it was a simple as you think.

    A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
    We all know why you avoid that question.

    CO2 will poison the air before it causes any catastrophic warming.

  79. 79
    ET says:

    “For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (1990-1999). That’s less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.”– Dr Roy Spencer

    Well within any natural variation.

    CO2 is irrelevant is humid areas. And as we know it has little effect in dry areas.

  80. 80
    Reapers Plague says:

    Me

    How does the fact that CO2 only absorbs and emits at one wavelength change the fact that doubling the concentration doubles the amount absorbed and emitted?

    Virgil’s response

    Does it? Please show your work.

    Chubs, now you are demanding that I re-prove the work conclusively demonstrated by spectroscopy researchers over the last hundred years. Joke Gallien, world’s dumbest YEC and all-time lowlife loser. 😀

  81. 81
    ET says:

    timmy Horton, bluffing fool:

    now you are demanding that I re-prove the work conclusively demonstrated by spectroscopy researchers over the last hundred years.

    Then you should be able to easily reference it. Meanwhile:

    Epic Warmist Fail! – Modtran: Doubling CO2 Will Do Nothing To Increase Long-Wave Radiation From Sky

  82. 82
  83. 83
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    This one is interesting: Calculations suggest that Global warming caused by the doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.6K < 0.6Kelvin!!!11!!1!! Steamin'

    Yes, very interesting. From the same researcher that brought us:

    New Water-Soluble Photoresists using Polymeric Azides for Color Picture Tube Fabrication

    And

    A new water-soluble photoresist used a polymeric azide compound as a photosensitizer

    And

    Microlithography Fundamentals in Semiconductor Devices and Fabrication Technology (Plastics Engineering)

    Well, I guess his credentials are better than those of a small appliance repairman who got fired for posting threatening comments from a company computer, the world’s dumbest YEC and all-time lowlife loser. 🙂

  84. 84
    ET says:

    As predicted. Timmy’s bluff gets called, and like the infant he is, throws a hissy fit. Torette’s gets the better of this berserk maniac and pathological liar. The math caused timmy to wet hisself. LoL!

    Timmy Horton/ Occam’s Aftershave/ adapa/ ghostdork/ thorton/ belligerent loser, thank you for proving that you are an insipid troll

  85. 85
    ET says:

    You know when timmy loses. He attacks the messenger instead of the math and science. Unfortunately for timmy, that is a daily occurrence.

  86. 86
    BartM says:

    We were told the Maldives would be underwater by now. Instead they are investing BILLIONS in new real estate development and are building FIVE new airports.
    https://maldives.net.mv/31166/maldives-to-open-five-new-airports-in-2019/

  87. 87
    AaronS1978 says:

    Oh boy, I came in to see what the discussion here was like on this topic, and it’s bananas, sure there are climate change alarmists, and they are very real and problem, that doesn’t mean that all climate change science is debunked and we do need to take care of our world, But on the flipside we should not take every drop of research coming from that side of the spectrum as 100% truth either
    As there’s been many predictions of our end in 2014 and 2020 and 2030 where we all will be underwater, That’s my two cents and I’m out

    But holy cow is this a rough op

    Good luck y’all 😉

  88. 88
    Bob O'H says:

    ET @ 76 – read it. It doesn’t address my point.

  89. 89
    jstanley01 says:

    In no particular order: Here’s a video that details how the temperature numbers are systematically and routinely gamed:

    Recorded in Madrid, Spain, the site of the UN’s COP25, Anthony Watts, founder of wattsupwiththat.com and a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, talks about why the surface temperature record is flawed:

    Anthony Watts at COP25: Climate Change and Data Manipulation

    Here’s an article by meteorologist Roger Pielke, that appeared in “Forbes,” discussing what I would describe as the doomsday cult rhetoric of the climate alarmists and the IPCC’s culpability in fostering it:

    It’s true that apocalyptic narratives have always had a place in discussions of climate. In 1989 the United Nations warned that the world had “a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.” But the escalation of apocalyptic climate rhetoric in recent years is unprecedented. The drumbeat of doom has led some prominent figures to turn on the mainstream climate community, complaining that “climate scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change and the severity of its effects.” In reality, climate science has not just accurately anticipated unfolding climate change, but has done so consistently for the past 50 years.

    There is thus an inconsistency here. Discussions of climate change have become more apocalyptic, but climate science has not. I have been working hard to understand this inconsistency, and while I don’t yet have all the answers, I have identified a big part of the puzzle, which I can report here for the first time.

    The Incredible Story Of How Climate Change Became Apocalyptic

    Meanwhile at Anthony Watt’s blog, David Middleton cross examines the claim that the climate models have been accurate:

    How can he write this with straight face?

    Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
    By Warren Cornwall Dec. 4, 2019
    Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn’t accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

    “How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted,” says the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
    […]
    Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.
    […]
    Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years.

    The accuracy of the failed models improved when they adjusted them to fit the observations… Shocking.

    Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

    Enjoy! (lol…)

  90. 90
    Seversky says:

    BartM @ 86

    We were told the Maldives would be underwater by now. Instead they are investing BILLIONS in new real estate development and are building FIVE new airports.

    They are indeed. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story

    As the flattest country on Earth, the Republic of Maldives is extremely vulnerable to rising sea level and faces the very real possibility that the majority of its land area will be underwater by the end of this century.4,9,16,18 Today, the white sand beaches and extensive coral reefs of the Maldives’ 1,190 islands draw more than 600,000 tourists annually.2

    Sea level rise is likely to worsen existing environmental stresses in the Maldives, such as periodic flooding from storm surge, and a scarcity of freshwater for drinking and other purposes.5,11

    Given mid–level scenarios for global warming emissions,17 the Maldives is projected to experience sea level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (half a meter)—and to lose some 77 percent of its land area—by around the year 2100.4,9 If sea level were instead to rise by 3 feet (1 meter), the Maldives could be almost completely inundated by about 2085.18

    The Maldivian government has identified many potential strategies for adapting to rising seas, but is also considering relocating its people to a new homeland.19,20

    After looking closely at the volume of water that could come from glacial and ice sheet melt by the year 2100, scientists estimate that sea level could rise 2.6 feet (80 centimeters)—and that as much as 6.6 feet (2 meters) is possible, depending on the pace at which heat–trapping emissions are released.16

    Given mid–level scenarios for those emissions,17 the Maldives is projected to experience sea–level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (50 centimeters) by around 2100.4,9 The country would lose 77 percent of its land area by the end of the century.4 If sea level were to rise by 3.3 feet (1 meter) and the Maldives did not pursue further coastal protection measures, it would be nearly completely inundated by about 2085.18

    The Maldivian Ministry of Home Affairs, Housing and Environment has identified potential measures to help the country adapt to rising seas. These include protecting groundwater and increasing rainwater harvesting, as well as increasing the elevation of critical infrastructure.19

    Migration is also a potential solution for Maldivians. In November 2008, the president announced the country’s interest in buying a new homeland,20 though this approach would come at a high price, both financially and culturally

  91. 91
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob @ 88- It proves that the models are a joke. But I understand why you would want to ignore that

  92. 92
    ET says:

    seversky- nothing of what you posted contains any science to support it. You may as well post astrology charts

  93. 93
    Reapers Plague says:

    Me

    Well, I guess his credentials are better than those of a small appliance repairman who got fired for posting threatening comments from a company computer, the world’s dumbest YEC and all-time lowlife loser.

    ET’s response

    You “argue” like a little faggot infant.

    Just calling it “anti-science garbage” doesn’t mean anything, you ignorant coward.

    Need I say more?

  94. 94
    Reapers Plague says:

    Arons1978@87, very reasoned comment. I think it is reasonable to expect that climate scientists have gotten some things wrong. As is the case with every field of science. But on what side of the line have they erred? Will it be worse or better than their models predict? But simply saying that CO2 only absorbs at one wavelength and is therefore not significant is just simply not science. But keep in mind, this is being claimed by the same guy who made the claim that Frequency = Wavelength, and four years later still refuses to admit an error.

  95. 95
    ET says:

    LoL! timmy Horton is too stupid to understand the math and science so it attacks me. How much of a lowlife punk are you, timmy?

    But simply saying that CO2 only absorbs at one wavelength and is therefore not significant is just simply not science.

    True, the science says CO2 is insignificant as a GHG

    his is being claimed by the same guy who made the claim that Frequency = Wavelength

    Actually that is a quote-mine and I supported my claim

  96. 96
    ET says:

    How Reaper “argues”

    Joke the dumbfuck regurgitates a 2012 claim from another wingnut AGW denier blog. No published science, just the usual woo and bullshit Joke swallows by the shovelful. Seems Joke likes the taste.

    and

    Posting horseshit from non-peer-reviewed science-free AGW denier websites doesn’t mean anything Joke, except maybe being evidence for how stupid and scientifically ignorant you are. But everyone already knows that you blubbering dumbass.

    That is the extent of its scientific prowess.

  97. 97
    ET says:

    How does reaper feel about UD?

    I gotta believe the clock is ticking on UD and its remaining handful of ignorant yet arrogant nutters. Barry probably has his hand on the plug ready to pull at any time.

    and one of reaper’s more intelligent responses:

    Joke must be fondly remembering all those anal probes he received over the years. HINT: Those weren’t space aliens Joe, just your pals Bubba and Leroy at the county jail.

    THAT is the vile loser that is timmy horton

  98. 98
    lukebarnes says:

    Dear UD, perhaps you could get contributors who have the slightest clue what they’re talking about.

  99. 99
    ET says:

    Lukebarnes:

    Dear UD, perhaps you could get contributors who have the slightest clue what they’re talking about.

    Does anyone else see the irony in that? 😀

  100. 100
    Reapers Plague says:

    Chubs

    Does anyone else see the irony in that?

    Irony? No. Astute observation? Absolutely.

    Or do you want to claim that I argue “like a little faggot infant” again? And explain the CONTEXT under which calling someone a “ little faggot infant” is justified?

  101. 101
    ET says:

    Umm, unless YOU are Occam’s Aftershave, ie thorton/ adapa/ ghostrider, I never said that to you. That said, given YOUR posts that I quoted 96 and 97 , what I said about YOU was an astute observation.

    And explain the CONTEXT under which calling someone a “ little faggot infant” is justified?

    The context of your posts that I was responding to. I challenge anyone to read your spewage over @ the swamp and come away thinking differently.

    The irony in Luke’s post was that he obviously doesn’t have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Otherwise he would have posted more than just some innuendo. And as far as I can tell it was aimed at YOU and yours.

  102. 102
    Reapers Plague says:

    Chubs, I’m still waiting to hear how the CONTEXT by which calling someone a “ little faggot infant” is justified. Or, as EG has pointed out, the times you have repeatedly called people “ass munching faggots”. And, more importantly, how UD can continue to allow you to comment here knowing that this is how you normally behave. Are you the type of person they want to associate themselves with? I think not.

  103. 103
    ET says:

    The context of your posts that I was responding to. I challenge anyone to read your spewage over @ the swamp and come away thinking differently.

    And, more importantly, how UD can continue to allow you to comment here knowing that this is how you normally behave.

    LoL! timmy the hypocrite

  104. 104

    .
    #98
    I hear ya. All the “critics” on this site lately refuse to engage in earnest fulfilled predictions, famous experimental results, or the well-documented history of biology.

  105. 105
    Reapers Plague says:

    Chubs, I just noticed that occam’s Aftershave is currently posting over at the “swamp”. You know that site. The place that has a dedicated thread for you. A thread that is now into its 852nd page because of your active participation. I strongly recommend that your UD friends check it out. To see how Well you represent ID over there.

    http://www.antievolution.org/c.....7;st=25530

  106. 106
    ET says:

    Yes, please check it out the thread on UD- they have 5 of them and Reaper is a huge contributor as Occam’s afterbirth

    UD at the swamp

  107. 107
    ET says:

    And how did Reaper know what website that I meant by the swamp? It’s as if reaper is Occam’s aftershave/ thorton/ adapa/ ghostrider- the most vile and scientifically illiterate, insipid troll on the internet

    Just sayin

  108. 108

    .
    Why don’t both of you do the planet a service and STFU.

    Please. Pretty Please.

  109. 109
    Reapers Plague says:

    Yes, please check it out. I will provide a few examples of ET’s behavior:

    LoL! timmy smooched the pooch and now lies like a bitch.

    I never made that claim, assface

    Coming from a ignorant ass who thinks that ‘blind watchmaker evolution’ is a strawman, that’s hilarious

    But YOU are my ignorant ass, timmy.

    I said Occam argues like a little faggot infant. I said that because you do. I supported my claim.

    And fuck your cowardly equivocation. with respect to “natural”.

    You are a retard.

    Look, just because YOU are an ignorant asshole, that doesn’t mean I am equivocating over the definition of the word “code”. YOU cannot show that I am equivocating. YOU are a piece-of-shit ignorant asshole

    Because you are a moron how does that have any affect on me?

    And that is only a sampling from the last 3 of the 852 pages of similar vulgarity. If UD is proud of this guy and continues to protect him, then I and all other atheists are fine with it. In fact, we strongly support your position. 🙂

  110. 110
    Ed George says:

    UB

    Why don’t both of you do the planet a service and STFU.

    Although you and I almost always disagree with each other, this is an instance where I have to agree with you. Both ET and RP are acting like spoiled little brats. The sooner the moderators step in, the better.

  111. 111
    ET says:

    Reaper, like Eddie, is just upset because I have supported my claims and exposed them as substance-free insipid trolls. Let’s not forget they are both immoral quote-miners. They have to attack me to try to get me banned because they definitely cannot produce any science nor evidentiary support for the trope they post. And they can’t have me exposing them for that.

  112. 112
    Bob O'H says:

    UB @ 108 – I agree with you (and Ed George).

  113. 113
    ET says:

    All I can say is that Reaper’s first comment in this thread was an attack on me and an attempt at an insult. That is all Reaper does. From there it deteriorated with Reaper never supporting its claims and poo-poo’ing the support for my claims. Reaper attacks the messenger because it cannot deal with the math and science. Its false analogies prove it does not belong in a civil discussion.

  114. 114
  115. 115
    asauber says:

    “I suppose this is all a lie too
    Climate change: Greenland ice melt ‘is accelerating’”

    Seversky,

    Yes. It is. Greenland really isn’t red around the edges, you dolt.

    Andrew

  116. 116
    ET says:

    Soot, seversky. It isn’t the ambient temperature that is causing the ice to melt.

    “For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (1990-1999). That’s less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.”– Dr Roy Spencer

    So what was it- 0.10C below freezing>?

  117. 117
    asauber says:

    “Imbie’s Greenland analysis is published in the journal Nature. Its release has been timed to coincide with the annual COP climate convention taking place this year in Madrid, and with the American Geophysical Union meeting here in San Francisco, where leading Earth scientists have gathered.”

    Hype for the Big Conferences. We’ve seen this before. Countless times. Same ol’ Chicken Littleism.

    Andrew

  118. 118
    asauber says:

    So if Seversky can try to use his brain for a moment…

    It’s clearly stated in the article that this is part of a marketing campaign. And what do marketing campaigns do? Try to sell product with excited verbiage and vivid images.

    But get this, Sev, it’s easy to make stuff up about your product and put it in a marketing campaign. In fact, the most important thing is to sell, not be 100% factual.

    Get it?

    Andrew

  119. 119
    Barry Arrington says:

    When UB and EG agree, it is noteworthy. The two of you should follows UB’s suggestion. Only warning.

  120. 120
    Reapers Plague says:

    Barry

    When UB and EG agree, it is noteworthy. The two of you should follows UB’s suggestion. Only warning.

    I respect the warning and will stop my little experiment of feeding back to ET the same language and abuse that he uses against those he disagrees with. His reaction to being treated as he treats others has made my point and has been very educational, as well as being hilarious. 🙂

Leave a Reply