Jesus H.W. Christ, I never realized there were so many fatties in this thread. It’s time to put extra support girders under the posts. I don’t want to be crushed…I’m outa here!
If you mean that these threads are an all-you-can-eat buffet, then, yeah.
And it doesn’t matter what you feed them either. Facts, for example, just go straight on through.
Speaking of which…got any Ex-Lax?
This way to the vomitorium.
Fuckin’ echo-y in here. Spooky. I’m out too.
La-la-la, la-la-la - just gonna write some stuff on the walls first.
Your willingness to indulge in self-parody is admirable and moves to me to reassess my opinion.
Fuck me.
ALERT, ALERT - possible need to dart & 'vene on elucidator. Still assessing sarcasm quotient. Update soonest.
I love this so much. 
God, we missed you. <bear hug>
Let’s just assume for arguments sake the following is factual.
So at least we got a concrete answer on one question.
I can see the alarmists bobble heads all nodding in agreement.
I guess you didn’t keep up with the news during your time out. I’d have expected more from someone so in tune with the science.
Nah, I’m just joshing. I didn’t expect anything else from you.
That, and Pope Francis announcing (or preparing to announce) that climate change deniers are full of crap.
That’s not a scientific view per se, but it amuses me to note that even the Catholic Church has accepted the science faster than FX Mastermind.
Eppur si riscalda.
<pointless trivia slash nitpick>There never was any [del]sex in the champagne room[/del]vomitin’ in the vomitoria. They were the exit hallways in circuses. Presumably so called because when a large crowd pours out of a cramped tunnel, it kinda looks like the stadium itself is ralphing.</ptsn>
Fuck off troll.
And congratulations to the mods who allow an obvious troll to revive a month-long dormant vanity thread that serves no purpose other than to stroke a troll’s withering ego.
Fight ignorance? You’re reveling in it.
Dude, it’s breitbart. My imagination is not that big.
I know the source is considered sensationalist or something. But did David Davies actually say what the source reports he said?
Did two top scientist say what David Davies claimed they said?
That’s why I said “imagine it’s factual”. Imagine they actually said it. I can still see alarmists nodding in agreement.
It’s actually a constant question in the climate wars. What would “you” consider evidence that the theory is not right?
Usually it’s something along those lines.
“The planet would have to cool for 30 years, arctic ice and glaciers would have to start growing, and the oceans would have to drop a foot or two, then I will believe the theory is wrong.”
In any case, it always involves enough time that there is no way for anything to be known now. But really what it says is, the theory is right, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
So, the very fact that so few in the boffin community agree with you is evidence that they are hopelessly stubborn, refusing to see the obvious truth of your cogent and acute analysis? Which you take as further evidence that you are right and they are wrong?
FXMasturbates, you’ve had people bashing you over the head with science, and you respond with a Breitbart story about the opinion of a British MP.
And then, when your new “evidence” is rejected, you conclude that this proves your point?
Jesus, are you ever a complete moron.