On 11/18/25 4:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, that's just fine!a IF what you are claiming is true
Wait. You don't know? You're pretending to be informed, you're
"Arguing" in defense of a climate narrative and you aren't even
aware of the climate basics? That the Holocene is an interglacial,
a brief warm spot between two glaciations? This is news to you?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:11:32 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/25 4:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, that's just fine! IF what you are claiming is true
Wait. You don't know? You're pretending to be informed, you're
"Arguing" in defense of a climate narrative and you aren't even
aware of the climate basics? That the Holocene is an interglacial,
a brief warm spot between two glaciations? This is news to you?
The effects of global warming will become evident before the next ice
age can affect us.
The effects of global warming will become evident before the next ice
age can affect us.
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:11:32 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/25 4:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, that's just fine!-a IF what you are claiming is true
Wait. You don't know? You're pretending to be informed, you're
"Arguing" in defense of a climate narrative and you aren't even
aware of the climate basics? That the Holocene is an interglacial,
a brief warm spot between two glaciations? This is news to you?
The effects of global warming will become evident before the next ice
age can affect us.
And given the hysteresis of the oceans, if it is then evidently hostile
to h sapiens, it will be too late to change.
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:11:32 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/25 4:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
And, that's just fine! IF what you are claiming is true
Wait. You don't know? You're pretending to be informed, you're
"Arguing" in defense of a climate narrative and you aren't even
aware of the climate basics? That the Holocene is an interglacial,
a brief warm spot between two glaciations? This is news to you?
The effects of global warming will become evident before the next ice
age can affect us.
And given the hysteresis of the oceans, if it is then evidently hostile
to h sapiens, it will be too late to change.
On 11/19/25 1:11 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
The effects of global warming will become evident before the next ice
age can affect us.
"If we compare this interglacial to itself we see it doesn't match!"
Yeah, you have to be nine shades of stupid to not see it...
Considering that the last interglacial was warmer than your
predicted Gwobull Warbling, doesn't that suggest that nature and
not humans controls the climate? If anything, it supports the
idea that humans are COOLING the earth.
Sea level was like 16 feet higher, during the previous interglacial,
it was warmer and those poor Neanderthals were still like 130,000
years shy of the Industrial Revolution.
So a reasonable, rational comparison -- comparing one interglacial
to another -- says your AGW is a crock of shit. Which is why you
need to insist on some bat shit crazy "Compare this interglacial
to itself," and pretend that's "Science."
On 11/19/25 1:47 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:20:56 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/19/25 1:11 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
The effects of global warming will become evident before the next ice
age can affect us.
"If we compare this interglacial to itself we see it doesn't match!"
Yeah, you have to be nine shades of stupid to not see it...
Who has suggested that nonsense?
You. 100%. All your GWOBULL WARBLING stupidity is based on a comparison
of the Holocene to itself, and pretending it doesn't match.
Humans used to be cooling the earth with the atmospheric pollutants,
but when those were removed with the proper legislation, all that was
left was CO2, and global warming really took off.
Have you been diagnosed.
"Humans used to be cooling the earth but then we stopped. So the earth
warmed AND OMG CLIMATE CRISIS PANIC WE HAVE TO SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!"
And, again, all based on a comparison of the Holocene to itself.
On 11/19/25 1:47 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
How can you be sure that whatever is driving the glacial cycles will
be unable to counteract oceans high in CO2?
Lol!
So you're "Arguing" that the AGW mythology is completely wrong?
Because
it says CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 300 to a thousand years, which >means precisely ZERO atmospheric CO2 has fallen into the ocean since
before the start of the industrial revolution. Yet...
"GWOBULL WARBLING! THE SEA IS ACID & STUFF! TAX US! TAX THE BREATH
FROM OUR LUNGS, as you fly around in private jets, TO SAVE ALL THE
LITTLE FISHES!"
Do the Google on "Ocean Memory"
https://www.nsf.gov/news/world-ocean-losing-its-memory-under-global-warming
You know what it's saying? It's saying the ocean isn't warming.
Water is natures battery. It stores energy. Most of the sun's energy
falls along the equator, into the ocean, and it gets distributed to
the rest of the planet by way of currents. This is how plat tectonics
and the creation of the Isthmus of Panama led directly to our present
ice age. It changed the way the energy from the sun gets distributed, >invented cold spots... major cold spots.
Antarctica froze over the exact same say. It's far COLDER than it
should be, than can be accounted for as the South Pole. What happened
was plate tectonics. It split off from South America and allowed the >Circumpolar current to form, walling it off from warmer waters brought
to it (by currents) from the equator.
This doesn't happen instantly though. The oceans hold A LOT of energy,
and can hold huge amounts. So after the Isthmus of Panama formed it
still took hundreds of thousands of years for deep water temps to dip
really low. And it was then that we officially entered the ice age,
the Quaternary Period.
Your fake "Science" is calling this storage of energy in the ocean
"Memory."
It's fake. It's made up.
It's saying that the ocean "Lost it's memory" instead of "It's not
warming up like it should, if there was a shred of truth behind the >hysterics."
Now get back on your knees and take what the media gives you, and
call it "Science."
On 11/19/25 5:33 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:41:04 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Do the Google on "Ocean Memory"What's this one "saying"?
https://www.nsf.gov/news/world-ocean-losing-its-memory-under-global-warming >>>
You know what it's saying? It's saying the ocean isn't warming.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2418093122
"Idiots will believe anything."
What are you claiming is the motivation behind support for the idea
that the earth is getting warmer?
Im not "Claiming" anything.
There is a massive shift, a directed,
top-down shift AWAY from capitalism, consumerism, meat, fish,
economic prosperity... education... but only for the useful idiots.
The self imposed elite still sly around in private jets.
Before it all started running out, they could sell you a Jeep Grand
Cherokee and stash away $7k in profit. And they did. When it's gone
they need to make all their wealth on the basics -- food, housing,
clothing, water.
The war on food was well underway in 2020. The war on water is going
on right now!
Energy? You already begged them to ass rape us over energy.
Here in the Boston area if you cut natural gas prices to ZERO, gas
bills can only drop about 33%. The rest of it is ass raping the
worthless "Bottom" 80 to 99% of the people... "Transmission fees,"
under public roads.
When they concocted these plans generations ago -- and my first
exposure to the details was in a late 1980s "Documentary" -- the
plan was for energy-poor Europe to sell Africa low energy
appliances in exchange for all their "Carbon Credits."
The result? Business as usual in Europe, poverty as always in
Africa because, without the poverty they'd need their "Carbon
Credits."
They left out that last part. Go figure.
FROM THE BEGINNING this is resource rationing. THAT is where the
"Carbon Credits" came from! They imagined a global energy
budget, expressed in terms of CO2, and divided it equally between
all nations on a per capita basis. And because the west used more
than it's budget, they would have to trade for the credits from
impoverished nations.
That was always the plan, literally spelled out for all of us.
A variation or new label is called "Cap & Trade."
The so called "Documentary" from the late 80s was "After the
Warming" with James Burke. It presented GWOBULL WARBLING from
the perspective of the future, looking back at how mankind
solved it with the institutionalization of poverty for the
dark-skinned.
Now go back to sleep and remember the ABCs of Gwobull Warbling:
Agree. Believe. Comply.
Vincent Maycock wrote:
Do you even want to save the polar bears? Why or why not?
Do the Google on when polar bears evolved. They've already survived
tens of thousands of years of hunting and a couple of massive
swings in climate.
No one & nothing is threatened by AGW, but everyone is threatened
by the self imposed elite weaponizing the media, education and
science itself against us.
The National Academy of Sciences is composed of idiots?
Now go back to sleep and remember the ABCs of Gwobull Warbling:
Agree. Believe. Comply.
You mean "disagree, disbelieve, deny."
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 19:34:33 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
Do you even want to save the polar bears? Why or why not?
Do the Google on when polar bears evolved. They've already survived
tens of thousands of years of hunting and a couple of massive
swings in climate.
And what if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be more severe
than what polar bears have experienced since their appearance in the
arctic?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 19:49:29 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/19/25 5:33 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:41:04 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/19/25 9:34 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
The National Academy of Sciences is composed of idiots?
Lol! You're not the National Academy of Science! Honest!
And they elected me to tell you!
But you being absolutely no different from a Christian
fundamentalist, let me point it out to you and then you
can continue to miss it:
You're arguing that they're right because they said so.
Agree. Believe. Comply.
You mean "disagree, disbelieve, deny."
No. I meant exactly what I said. Disagreement is not an option, you
must agree. You must believe. And you must comply.
On 11/19/25 9:35 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 19:34:33 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Do the Google on when polar bears evolved. They've already survived
tens of thousands of years of hunting and a couple of massive
swings in climate.
And what if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be more severe
than what polar bears have experienced since their appearance in the
arctic?
What did they experience? How large of a shift? How many shifts? How
fast?
On 11/20/25 10:07 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
So the National Academy of Sciences
Look. You're name dropping. You're not discussing "Science,"
you're not arguing data you're name dropping. You surrendered
your thinking to your high priests.
Literally you are arguing that they have to be right cus they
said it.
That's it. And this was already pointed out to you. And you
STILL couldn't grasp it. That's how far you are from the
reasonable, rational person you pretend to be.
Time for you to pick a new handle!
When did your precious Gwobull Warbling start?
What were CO2
levels at that time?
These are excessively important
questions and that's why you need to avoid them.
On 11/20/25 2:31 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
I'm not discussing science
I know that.
I pointed that out. You're just name-dropping.
Which is weird, because the name you're dropping is just
going along with the garbage narrative that you REFUSE to
even think about, merely believe. You know, the narrative
that just isn't true.
I have no reason to want them to be right.
You need to be right. You need to be not wrong. And you are
wrong.
Your "Argument" is stupid. You're just repeating what was
already defeated, thinking that if you name drop that makes
idiocy smart.
Time for you to pick a new handle!
You first!
Lol! The jillary line, and just as random/inappropriate!
When did your precious Gwobull Warbling start?
From:
See? Every handle is the same narcissism.
Don't "Cite" a source. Tell. You were asked a question. Answer.
"1938 - Using records from 147 weather stations around the world,> British engineer Guy Callendar shows that temperatures had risen over
the previous century.
So you're saying 1838 is the start
Okay, what were CO2 emissions in 1838?
What were CO2
levels at that time?
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Nope. Didn't see any number for 1838. Why don't you copy & paste
the figure from your "Cite?"
Come on, put on your Big Boy pants and do this: What were CO2
emissions in 1838?
Why is this important? BECAUSE THIS TELLS YOU HOW MUCH OUR
PRESENT EMISSIONS NEED TO BE CUT TO STOP YOUR GWOBULL WARBLING
MYTH!
What was the population of the planet earth back in 1838?
What is it now?
Humans exhale CO2. Subtract the population of 1838 from the present,
to see how many extra people are exhaling CO2 now.
How does that compare to human "Industrial" emissions in 1838?
Can you work it out, sweet lips, because I promise you that you'll
be surprised.
What are China's emissions right now? Just China. Any clue?
Google it. Compare that figure to emissions in your 1838.
The point, of course, is that your narrative is retarded. It's not
just stupid, it's retarded. It is literally impossible for anything
ever proposed to achieve the stated goals.
AND, it has never ever even been established that a warmer earth
would be a bad thing, much less that any supposed warming is beyond
the natural variation.
IT'S A HOAX!
You believe in a hoax. Maybe at one time it was well intentioned,
as good or better reason as any to push conservation, but it's
been completely highjacked by the most greedy, evil, power hungry
pieces of shit on earth. And here you are, lapping at their assholes,
trying to tongue every wrinkle clean...
And you snipped a lot more than that.
What mystery-factor would lead me to choose mainstream science as the
"right ones" to listen to?
So you're saying 1838 is the start
Okay, what were CO2 emissions in 1838?
You don't need that.
CO2 levels will tell you what you need to know.
From the article that you evidently had trouble understanding: it was
280 parts per million.
On 11/20/25 6:24 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
And you snipped a lot more than that.
What mystery-factor would lead me to choose mainstream science as the
"right ones" to listen to?
Stupidity. Laziness.
A desperate need to be "Seen" as "Right" regardless
of what the correct answer is.
So you're saying 1838 is the start
Okay, what were CO2 emissions in 1838?
You don't need that.
No. You do. You believe the Gwobull Warbling narrative that says #1 CO2
is too high, so you have to establish a baseline, what CO2 needs to be,
or needs to be lower than. And #2 none of the "Solutions" put forward
by your narrative make any sense, BECAUSE it's impossible for them to
achieve any stated goal, which is all too clear when you establish how
low CO2 emissions need to go... according to your mythology.
CO2 levels will tell you what you need to know.
"Too high" can only be established by way of a comparison to some
baseline. That baseline would be CO2 emissions at the point in time
you want to pretend your precious Gwobull Warbling began.
From the article that you evidently had trouble understanding: it was
280 parts per million.
That's impossible because "280 parts per million" isn't talking about >emissions at all. It's speaking of atmospheric concentrations while
your precious Gwobull Warbling narrative is all about human emissions.
NOT the same thing at all!
Secondly, 280 parts per million is pretty low for NATURAL levels with
ZERO human industry.
Back when the Neanderthals ruled during the last interglacial, it was
much warmer, sea level was much higher and CO2 is believed to have
ranged from 270 to 280 parts per million.
Google it, bed wetter.
On 11/20/25 11:36 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Why couldn't I seem right if I had the evidence on my side
This isn't a hypothetical. You don't have evidence.
You never
saw any, you're incapable of evaluating evidence and you just
look at the source, accepting blindly whatever they tell you
if you view them as a high priest.
I would never claim global warming is "precious."
Well you're an idiot. How would you know?
Your narrative is stupid. It doesn't work. It's not consistent.
The so called "Solutions" don't map to any problem. in fact,
as described, your Gwobull Warbling "Problem" isn't even
solvable. It's literally impossible to solve.
THAT, and there
is no "Problem!" A warmer earth would be good, not bad,
and
CO2 simply is not a climate driver anyway.
If you had any evidence
On 11/21/25 12:31 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
If you had any evidence
Your narrative is debunked. It's over. There. Done.
It's not like "OH NO! GWOBULL WARBLING!" is the default
unless I "Prove" otherwise. Your entire narrative is
bullshit. If it weren't for the fact that you refuse to
examine a goddamn thing,
and you gave up thinking in
favor of parroting "Authority Figures" even you would
be denouncing your own narrative.
IT'S NOT HOT!
Sea level has to rise another 16 feet, temperatures need
to rise another 1 to 2 C just to equal the totally normal
and natural highs seen 130k years ago, when Neanderthals
were running around Europe.
YOU LITERALLY COMPARE THE HOLOCENE TO ITSELF,
pretend
that's a legitimate scientific test AND THEN claim that
it doesn't match!
But if you compare the Holocene to the Eemian then it's
COLD. You're entire AGW myth is destroyed!
And it is destroyed.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:52:08 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,470 |
| Posted today: | 1 |