Why is the climate changing. (Page 326)

Sir Loin: It's not an insult to say Loin hasn't flown to the moon using only fart power for propulsion, it's a fact. It's also as irrelevant as everything else you post Bozo. You just turn everything into an insult

Sir Loin: I'm a boomer and proud of it. We grew up in the best time and with the best music, also without the internet so we learned to think for ourselves; something Bozo never learned to do.
I could do without the aching joints though.

bonzono: Oh poor point, you're butthurt that I've called you out about lying...about your colleagues, one of whom is dead and you're slandering her work, and one other scientist you lied about, who you mistakenly believed got the prize for 'whatbwad essentialky your idea'...but ehowrote nothing at all to do with climate change.Yiure that ignorant AND arrogant.

Loin, YOU are the problem here. YOU are getting it wrong at every turn.

I'm just the messenger hun, I'm not to blame for your incompetence (also not an insult, but a proven fact)


So you don't know that most graduates will pull a six figure salary a couple of years out of uni? Times sure have changed, right boomer?


But yeah, if she's doing that AND can't identify your dishonest incompetence (still not an insult) then sure not only is she a fraud, shes managed to scam whomever employed her.


Again. I'm just the messenger. Your failures are not my fault, they're yours.

bonzono: Oh, and the expression 'thinking for yourself ' doesn't mean running off to conspiracy blogs.
It also doesn't mean being so ignorant you inadvertently slander your own colleagues...or perhaps you did it deliberately because you though I wouldn't fact check you?

Well..I did. And, not only do the NOT agree with you loin, the explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you claimed. You've slandered their life's work, armed with nothing but your eit-shatp as a bowling ball, your complete failure to understand basic Chem and Phys,....and an anti science conspiracy blog.

God for you loin. I'm sure Tom will be overjoyed you utterly misrepresented him

Sir Loin: No, Tom's quite happy I remembered his and Sylvia's lecture to the Royal Society, I didn't misrepresent him at all. I do talk to Tom sometimes, I even helped him for a few days building his house and he helped me with mine.
As for you, you haven't proven me wrong on a single point except my misunderstanding of why Clausers won the Nobel. Otherwise you are wrong on every point you try to score over me.
Just claiming you're correct doesn't make it so, which is what you continually do; present your opinion on something as though it's actually correct and an established fact whereas you're completely wrong most of the time.
Face it Bozo, you've had some education and imagine yourself an expert but you aren't. You haven't even learned enough to know that you actually know nothing. You do have a basic beginning of an education so keep it up, learn more and you might eventually be able to make sense without lying.

bonzono: oops, more misinformation and lies from you loin. As usual.


tom does not agree that the ozone depletion is entirely natural.
I already linked you to his presentations where he says exactly that.
you've simply ignored the facts.

I've already linked you to publications where edith says also, human activities are exacerbating the destruction of ozone.
You've simply ignored that too.

as usual, loin, you've ignore the facts you've been given and show you to be wrong, pretended they dont exist,

yet another manifestation of your dishonesty and lies, loin.

bonzono: Hoping people might have a factually defensible point, claim or observation to make here...we're done with these idiot, incompetent denialist conspiracy nutjob frauds.

...there will be a time when they've died out completely...

Sir Loin: What's the point Bozo, you wouldn't understand it? Your reading comprehension is non-existent and you need to go back to primary school.
You've pushed your way into a discussion here that is far beyond your ability to understand.

bonzono: this discussion is already well beyond your ability to deal with loin, which is why you've gone to conspiracy websites, lied about other researchers and failed to produce anything defensible.


loin, there isn't a climate scientist on the planet who would defend your claim.
.. you've had plenty of time to produce one, and for an entire year, you've failed.

again, this issue is now about your incompetence and fraudulence - I have nothing to do with that.

Sir Loin: Once again Bozo you need to read carefully, instead of just skimming a few words, try slowing down and reading sentences from beginning to end. A good tip is to then try to recall the meaning of the sentence without re-reading it.
I have given references to many climate scientists who agree with my hypothesis. It appears you've even googled some of them so you're obviously lying.

bonzono: "I have given references to many climate scientists who agree with my hypothesis"

yup, tried that, no names turned up. not a soul thinks your solar grand cycle is responsible for planetary heating of the scale we are now seeing.

in fact, NASA explicitly and specifically reject it - as you know - as I've already told you, and as you ignored..


apparently you think the only 'expert' that should be heeded, is you - and you are .. definitely.. not expert; running off to conspiracy blogs you haven't even bothered to read, to try to validate your claim.


I've asked repeatedly for names and their analysis which shows their claims are sane, and you have ALWAYS refused.


Having said that, the few names you HAVE listed, eg. clauser, is not a climate scientist and he's never written a single paper on the matter. no analysis. no defense, nothing.
The other three single climate scientist you've listed explicitly disagree with you. there is also no analysis there because - well, they never agreed with you in the first place.

funny how easy it would have been for you to simply write the names down in your post above, but instead you decided to use it to effectively puke your usual obfucatory crap.

and you will continue to refuse to list names, exactly as you will continue to refuse to identify ANY analysis, ANY science, ANY publication.

why loin? do you REALLY not know how science works? are you REALLY that breathtakingly incompetent?

what's actually wrong with you loin? Why can't you behave like an actual adult? Why the constant whining and bleating? why the perpetual complete lack of anything other than... constant whinging and bleating? why are you so UNABLE to list a name, give analysis.. to do anything - anything at all that has to do with presenting a sane, intelligent, reasonable defense of your .. uh.. 'hypothesis'? What is WRONG with you loin?

bonzono: it's breathtaking to me that for decades, you'd thought tom, sylvia and edith 'agreed' with you - but you'd never once actually read any of their work. Not even once.

and for decades, you'd thought they agreed with your amaturish, uninformed, science-less junk.. and it's only in the past few weeks you've found out...

... that they never did.


that would be profoundly sad, actually, to find out a man you thought you'd always respected was in fact, part of your hated 'AGW brigade' AND that he rejected outright another of your pet brainfarts that the ozone hole is 100% natural.

in the world of climate and atmospheric science, loin, you're alone, because YOU dont understand the data, and YOU cannot parse, interpret or analyse the data; because, loin, you are incompetent, arrogant and ignorant.

Sir Loin: Once again you're posting crap from your imagination which is lying.

bonzono: where's the lie loin?

I keep asking, you never manage to point one out.

Sir Loin: Bullshit, pointed out many of your lies, you're just too stupid to accept them or even understand how you've lied. Instead you rely on misquoting me (and others).
For example: I NEVER said the ozone hole was 100% natural, neither did I say Tom or Sylvia said that but I did say it was a natural phenomenon that occurred every winter. I have never said it is not exacerbated by ODS's.
You need to learn to read more carefully Bozo, then you might not seem so dumb

bonzono: oh loin, it's so funny watching you wet your little panties about people talking off-topic, and here you are whining about Ozone hole this climate change forum?

I doubt there are people my pathetically hypocritical than you are. I doubt there are people more pathetic than you are.

but let's look at your latest fecktardery:


lol, so, you're saying that the forum where you ask 'why the fuss about the antarctic ozone hole, it's natural"
and "All this blaming industrial CFCs and Nitrous oxides from agriculture is nonsense."

is you 'never saying it's exacerbated by ODS's" - in case you didn't know, CFCs ARE ODSs.

so, yes, you've directly claimed that it's nonesese to blame ODSs.


so .. yet again, you've lied.

oh, and tom, sylvia and edith ALWAYS blamed CFS.

so yes, you've lied again


tell you what, little loin. IF you really are sincere about the issue that ODS's DO actually do things, then you really need to modify your opening salvo in your forum to state that, quite explicitly, because right now 'blaming industrial CFCs is nonsense' MEANS that you dont think they contribute- at all.
My goodness aren't you a lying turd loin?




and pulling you BACK to this forum - which is a DIFFERENT topic, you semiliterate asshat - yes, I'm still waiting for you to show your claims that 1. solar cycle is a major driver for climate change and 2. that CO2 increase leads temperatures.


of course, you and I both know you can't and wont produce anything to validate these claims. You never have - and each time I ask about it you consistently fail to show if, and where you have.


you're such a monumentally despicable human, loin. The world certainly does not benefit from your inept, backward and false contributions.

Sir Loin: Hey Bozo, I have a great idea; stop lying and misquoting me. Read carefully what I write and you might learn something about atmospherics.
I know it's a complex subject but even a mental midget such as yourself should be able to understand it when I explain it so simply.
Another suggestion is stick to the topic! This is the climate change forum but you constantly drag us back to ozone.
Ozone and climate are 2 different issues in case you don't know. Newbies often confuse the two, perhaps because they're both researched by the same govt department.

Matt_ Johnston: This bonzo dude's as obtuse as that blackshoes.

bonzono:
I'm to blame for you raising the issue of ODSs above?

Nope, that was you hun.
"For example: I NEVER said the ozone hole was 100% natural"
"I have never said it is not exacerbated by ODS's."

Here we see how the poor idiot climate denialists blame other people for their failure to keep track of their own issue

Yet a other demonstration of loin doing whatever he has to do to avoid the focus, which is his incompetence.


Hun, the issue was about YOU failing to show ANY scientists who "agree" with you, YIU change the subject into ozone.
Lol... you constantly drag us back to ozone.
Ozone and climate are 2 different issues in case you don't know. Newbies often confuse the two...

Apparently you've failed to. Otice you called yourself a newbie.




Now I've shown - yet again- you're a lying hypocrit, I want to laugh .ore at your other failures.

You've claimed you've done analysis, where is it?
You've claimed scientists share your viewpoint. Show you didn't make that up.


Of course, you'll simply detrailbthe conversation then blame me for it, as you always do.


Go on Liu. Show me analysis you E done. ANYEHERE , show me ANY climate scientist who agrees that the solar cycle is a 'majir driver behind climate change '

I've been asking for months, you're still to show any.
Lol, you're so pathetic.

bonzono: I love it, loin starts talking about ozone hole, 5 posts above, then blames me for it glorious. Such a wonderful demonstration of his typically incompetent uselessness

Sir Loin: YOU are the newbie obviously Bozo, once again using your imagination about what I say. Or is it just more lies? I can't tell any more, they're both so similar. You are a compulsive liar, unable to tell the truth since your mind is so addled.
Lies again; I've told you several scientists who support my hypothesis however it makes no difference if they agree or not, I have sufficient evidence to support it without them. Some of which I've posted but you don't understand it.
Tip #2 learn the topic before arguing about it.

Sir Loin: And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn to read!

bonzono: "Lies again; I've told you several scientists who support my hypothesis however it makes no difference if they agree or not"

identify any.
you can't because you wont.
STILL WAITING


" have sufficient evidence to support it without them."
show any, along with something better than 'looky at this graf wot I found online'
you can't because you wont.
STILL WAITING

"Tip #2 learn the topic before arguing about it. "
heh, that's pretty funny coming from somone who thinks they knows more than hundreds of research scientists around the world.


my goodness, you're going round in circles!
you make the same claims over and over and over, I point out you can't justify your claim, you simply repeat your claims, I repeat you haven't jusitified your claim, you cry, whimper, repeat your absurd claims... round and round and round and round and round you go.
It's simple, old man.
1. identify any scientists who agree with you - tom doesnt, edith doesn't sylvia doesnt, NASA doesnt, BOM doesnt, NIWA doesn't.
so show some scientists who agree with you. Actually write down their names.

2. show any data which supports your claim
you've constantly bleated you've shown data. ALL you've shown is someone elses utterly inappropriate graph, and failed completely to understand how the graph works. You failed utterly to undestand the scaling AND the correlation of the data in it. you didn't even attempt the most basic analysis, you simply.. pointed to a graph.

loin - you DONT EVEN KNOW HOW A GRAPH WORKS.
you don't even know how to justify your own claim
you don't even know how to reference, cite or quote ANY SCIENTIST.



oh, and I also suggest you learn fundamental physics you dont understand, and I've had to school you on.

you are - an unfathomably incompetent joke, loin.




1. identify any scientists who agree with you
2. show any data which supports your claim
it's that simple.

bonzono: Gee. 24 hours later, loin still hasn't named a name, or provided ANY reference to ANYWHERE.


...could it be?
.. gosh..


Could it be loin has been full of shyte this entire time?
Don't hold your breath folks despite literal MONTHS of claiming, loin has never, ever shown any analysis, or even a relevant graph he can show supports his claims which are explicitly rejected by major research institutes.


..spare him a thought tho, the poor sao only just found out one of his workmates has been part of his hated 'agw brigade ' for decades

Matt_ Johnston: Lotta projecting going on here.