Probably you should sue all of the oil companies. They should pay for what they have done.
Then meth addicts can sue their dealers. Seems legit.
Got a cite for that pronouncement Chuckles? From the smell, I can already guess where you got it from.
Just curious. Did you reach up your ass with the whole arm or are you flexible enough to cut the middle man out and just go get it with your mouth?
Maybe FX helped you out? Be an easy talent hack for you guys to pass yourselves off as ventriliquist.
Ohh… guess that wouldn’t work with two dummies. Maybe if you each stuck your hand up the others ass? Bet you guys would have a world of “facts” to work with then.
Hope the meaning of this post wasn’t too ambiguous or “hidden” for you.
I see that Chief Pedant is going just like FX Mastermind for the concern trolling on this very subject over here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16630412&postcount=141
That and the Godwin like maneuver from pseudo scientists when they accuse the scientists and experts of following a religion or using religion for their efforts.
***Absolute bullshit ***as Tim Minchin explains:
I need to add that others did get into trouble with the mods when they persisted on just pestering posters with the same baseless accusation of religion in science and their trolling in the past.
Just a note Chief:
Last time you did get to be branded a troll by the moderators, I already gave my concerns before on that thread, the fact that you forget and just go full JAQ on me is just reaching for the trolling rhetoric.
The subject is the IPCC not my concerns regarding the main points on how to deal with the issue (that I offered before) nor your stupid tricks to continue to ignore the evidence presented and the advise from the economists already linked too.
Unbelievable.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16630471&postcount=147
The deluded fellow does think that copying and pasting my Pit replies on Great Debates is a proper thing to do. For all the talk of being one of our resident Scientific Racists, Chief Pedant **really **shows to all how faulty his inherited intelligence is. 
Now that I think it better it was Chen019 the one being declared a troll in the past by the mods, it is hard to differentiate the racists. 
The point stands that others do get branded as trolls or jerks for the things the Chief is doing.
Nope, since I was just being sarcastic. But since you want to play it straight, let me ask you this:
What EXACTLY is the theory that according to you, 95% of the scientific community supports?
And what does that theory say about water vapor feedback?
Nope, but I have a feeling you won’t be able to answer a few simple questions.
There is no theory of global warming, no global warming theory, no theory of AGW, or AGW theory. It’s just a fact so nobody can disprove it.
Once again, there is no theory involved. When it gets hotter (because of CO2 increase) more water comes out of the ocean and this makes it even hotter, so the world just gets warmer and warmer. It’s basic science. You can see this in the tropics, where it is always hot. Water evaporates from the sea and it gets hotter and hotter and that makes more water evaporate and it gets even hotter, which makes more water evaporate and that makes it even hotter. CO2 increase is speeding this up, which is why soon it will be so hot nobody can live there.
The people who are right don’t have to answer questions. In fact, just asking questions means you are in denial of science. Science doesn’t involve questions, or people trying to prove something wrong. Science tells you what is real, and you should accept it.
Well, he had to talk to show all that indeed he is stupid. 
Gigobuster is very busy, but I’m quite sure that rather than waste a minute of anyone’s time, he will give you a precise answer to that question.
I mean, if he doesn’t, it will mean I was right, and there quite simply is no theory.
I can hardly wait to see what happens!
Now see, this is part of why Global Warming makes me sick. You deniers ask for the theory of global warming, when everybody smart knows it isn’t a theory. You only want some silly theory defined so you can point out flaws in it or something.
See there? It’s silly and wrong, because science is right and you are wrong.
When he says “the overall current theory” he doesn’t mean there is a theory of global warming, it just means ALL the theories support global warming.
I mean, if there was something called “The theory of AGW”, or “the theory of global warming”, he would simply link to the skepticalscience.com page that explains it. The whole idea that there is some theory is just a denier trick. To try and get somebody to say something concrete so you can attack it.
It’s just a fact so you can’t deny it. That is how science works. Facts. Only a science denier would want to talk about some theory.
Well, in your case…
You are like the goofy people in a Gary Larson’s Far Side cartoon:
[Goofy people are looking at scientists working, the scientists notice them and one says:]
“Yes, gentlemen. They’re fools. But the question is, ‘What kind of fools are they?’”
Scientists are indeed working on your case.
Sarcasm Bee? I’m unfamiliar with the concept.
Hmmm…
So you were inferring that the events you posted weren’t going to happen and using said straw man argument to discredit climate change?
Wow. Congrats. Brilliant strategy and a most skillful usage of the WTF strategy to completely stop any counterargument in its tracks. Is it FX’s hand up your ass right now or are these your actual “thoughts”?
So you provide a strawman and I’m supposed to provide actual cites? This could be tough. It’s such an obscure topic, I doubt Wikipedia would have anything on it…
Got any other “feelings” coming on Bee, or you all good now?
I was mocking your claim about 95% of the scientific community. Duh.
Ok, just so we are clear, the precise theory which, according to you, 95% of the scientific community supports, is that:
(1) The climate has warmed in recent decades; and
(2) Human activities have contributed adversely to global climate change.
Do I understand you correctly?
Almost.
So GW is wrong because you can find instances of people dying in the cold. Does this mean GW was right in 2003 and 2006 when many more people died in sudden heatwaves?
Why no hurricanes? If we are in such a hot period, then why are the number of Atlantic Hurricanes dropping? Hasn’t been one so far here.
Al Gore was big on the “natural disaster theme” of AGW-sounds like the corellation might be a bit off!:o
Global Warming Theory says nothing about hurricanes. (Except for when it does, of course. )
Are you trying to use 2013 as your one data point or something? Do you enjoy extrapolating from a single data point when we have decades of data preceding it? That seems to be your MO.
You also understand, I hope, that hurricane season isn’t over yet?
Hurricanes are like everything else. Cold or hot, wet or dry, it’s you that made the baby Jesus cry. Now do like Al Gore and the Gigobuster do, never use another drop of fossil fuel. Follow their lead, it’s the future.