UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
one time you did one of those and it was some creep paying a child for sex and you called it "consensual"I have a hypothetical story for your enjoyment
one time you did one of those and it was some creep paying a child for sex and you called it "consensual"I have a hypothetical story for your enjoyment
Prove it won't be stinkbug?How can Greenpeace founder not understand world will be destroyed in 12 years if we do not do GND?
https://pjmedia.com/video/greenpeace-co-founder-the-whole-climate-crisis-is-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/
Ya mean the guy who left green peace right away to start lobbying for oil companies?How can Greenpeace founder not understand world will be destroyed in 12 years if we do not do GND?
https://pjmedia.com/video/greenpeace-co-founder-the-whole-climate-crisis-is-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/
one time you did one of those and it was some creep paying a child for sex and you called it "consensual"
Look, bageye does science!How can Greenpeace founder not understand world will be destroyed in 12 years if we do not do GND?
https://pjmedia.com/video/greenpeace-co-founder-the-whole-climate-crisis-is-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/
Bageyes friend does science too!
How can Greenpeace founder not understand world will be destroyed in 12 years if we do not do GND?
https://pjmedia.com/video/greenpeace-co-founder-the-whole-climate-crisis-is-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/
bugeye considers facts inconvenient. He mocks those who cite them.View attachment 4299810 View attachment 4299811
Yeah, very reliable source that uses the term 'fake news' concerning climate change.
Bugeye the wingnut whore misleads
again. Facts last, ideology first.
Idiot.
Oh, ohbugeye considers facts inconvenient. He mocks those who cite them.
Your irritation appears misdirected. I'm doing my best to reduce my carbon footprint despite my anti-scientific opinion that CO2 is not a pollutant. Sorry if my efforts are not good enough for you. I would take the GND far more serious if I believed that 1) water vapor really is a significant positive feedback variable, 2) increases in CO2 were not a logarithm function on warming, and 3) we were seeing warming in the troposphere over the tropics as predicted by the models as the place where most warming should be occurring. I even think it is possible that the world will not be destroyed in 12 years. Silly me.View attachment 4299810 View attachment 4299811
Yeah, very reliable source that uses the term 'fake news' concerning climate change.
Bugeye the wingnut whore misleads
again. Facts last, ideology first.
Idiot.
yes it isCO2 is not a pollutant.
Funny how you would pin your hopes on people becoming science deniers by repeating some dumb quote probably taken out of context. I don't know why you don't care that human caused global warming is underway and probably already past a tipping point for disaster but I'm pretty sure you know this is true. So, why repeat the meaningless quote?Your irritation appears misdirected. I'm doing my best to reduce my carbon footprint despite my anti-scientific opinion that CO2 is not a pollutant. Sorry if my efforts are not good enough for you. I would take the GND far more serious if I believed that 1) water vapor really is a significant positive feedback variable, 2) increases in CO2 were not a logarithm function on warming, and 3) we were seeing warming in the troposphere over the tropics as predicted by the models as the place where most warming should be occurring. I even think it is possible that the world will not be destroyed in 12 years. Silly me.
Feel free to address the 3 concerns I outlined above. Until then, I will consider the climate models to be EAPs.Funny how you would pin your hopes on people becoming science deniers by repeating some dumb quote probably taken out of context. I don't know why you don't care that human caused global warming is underway and probably already past a tipping point for disaster but I'm pretty sure you know this is true. So, why repeat the meaningless quote?
Trumptards are dumb.
those aren't concerns, they're conspiracy theories you've adoptedFeel free to address the 3 concerns I outlined above. Until then, I will consider the climate models to be EAPs.
Is there a reason for discounting a couple hundred years of science behind our understanding of heat capacity? Has there been some new understanding? Has some new information come to light that changes the models for heat absorption in the atmosphere? If so, please do let us know.Feel free to address the 3 concerns I outlined above. Until then, I will consider the climate models to be EAPs.
he's gone. brainwashed. married to websites laden with brain pill ads.Is there a reason for discounting a couple hundred years of science behind our understanding of heat capacity? Has there been some new understanding? Has some new information come to light that changes the models for heat absorption in the atmosphere? If so, please do let us know.
I don't think you actually disagree.
Or Pie eyeEwwww!
That would be bugeyepie.
Nobody likes that!