On Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:09:43 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:27:01 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Thursday, 13 February 2014 14:24:58 UTC, Dawlish wrote:



On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:15:02 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:















And they get a free pass with the AGW tripe yet certain members jump on the sceptics calling foul OT for those who hold a different point of view.















And the lies you use to try to back your position larry? You seem to have missed those.















You lied about Fergus, trying to say he said something that he didn't and you lied about me, trying to say I said something I didn't either. I'd like an apology. It's what people do when they are caught lying.







I have never ever used lies



Apart from the fact that you lied for effect, twice in one thread, I'm sure you don't lie, really.



You lied about Fergus - he never said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Look back in the thread and actually read what Fergus said. I'll repeat it again for you, as you won't bother:



"He said, rightly, that if El Nino continued, there could be **a chance** of it happening. There wasn't and it wasn't ice free. Geddit larry? (Probably not)." Were you too stupid to understand this?



Deniers lie for effect. You people always lie, when it comes to climate change denial, as the truth shows you up as bereft.



Now source your second lie - that I apparently offered a bet that the Arctic would be ice-free within 5 years. Bet you can't - as I've already said, because you lied for effect *again* larry.



Do you honestly think anyone believes you here? An apology for lying about the two of us would help.

You are doing your usual job of trying to hide when the going gets difficult.

Why did you lie about Fergus when he clearly didn't predict the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013 and why did you lie about me offering some kind of a bet that the Arctic would be ice-free in 5 years (a bet that, had I offered, I would have immediately taken up!!

You lie for effect larry. Why?

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 08:39:44 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:09:43 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:27:01 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



On Thursday, 13 February 2014 14:24:58 UTC, Dawlish wrote:







On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:15:02 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:































And they get a free pass with the AGW tripe yet certain members jump on the sceptics calling foul OT for those who hold a different point of view.































And the lies you use to try to back your position larry? You seem to have missed those.































You lied about Fergus, trying to say he said something that he didn't and you lied about me, trying to say I said something I didn't either. I'd like an apology. It's what people do when they are caught lying.















I have never ever used lies







Apart from the fact that you lied for effect, twice in one thread, I'm sure you don't lie, really.







You lied about Fergus - he never said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Look back in the thread and actually read what Fergus said. I'll repeat it again for you, as you won't bother:







"He said, rightly, that if El Nino continued, there could be **a chance** of it happening. There wasn't and it wasn't ice free. Geddit larry? (Probably not)." Were you too stupid to understand this?







Deniers lie for effect. You people always lie, when it comes to climate change denial, as the truth shows you up as bereft.







Now source your second lie - that I apparently offered a bet that the Arctic would be ice-free within 5 years. Bet you can't - as I've already said, because you lied for effect *again* larry.







Do you honestly think anyone believes you here? An apology for lying about the two of us would help.



You are doing your usual job of trying to hide when the going gets difficult.



Why did you lie about Fergus when he clearly didn't predict the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013 and why did you lie about me offering some kind of a bet that the Arctic would be ice-free in 5 years (a bet that, had I offered, I would have immediately taken up!!



You lie for effect larry. Why?

Old AGW Fanatic in a Cave made a prediction based on several ifs of which he was confident would happen. He made a ludicrous prediction based on that and he got it totally wrong why can't you just accept that?

By the way is Fergus one of your hundred thousand climate scientist?

You lied and now you are trying to squirm out of it.

Just apologise and try to move on.

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 15:52:43 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
You lied and now you are trying to squirm out of it.



Just apologise and try to move on.

Who's the "Paul" you were referring to? Big slip in the sock dept. old boy.

Stop squirming and apologise for trying to lie for effect.

Vidcapper is Paul Hyett, you stupid man.

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 16:14:52 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Stop squirming and apologise for trying to lie for effect.



Vidcapper is Paul Hyett, you stupid man.

Just checking

You just didn't gave the brains to realise, do you chirped of with your idiotic "sock" rubbish.

Now that is settled - and what a ****ty way to admit your stupid mistake - address your clear lies and apologise instead of trying to deflect and squirm away from them.

Deniers lie. You lie.

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 20:14:11 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
You just didn't gave the brains to realise, do you chirped of with your idiotic "sock" rubbish.



Now that is settled - and what a ****ty way to admit your stupid mistake - address your clear lies and apologise instead of trying to deflect and squirm away from them.



Deniers lie. You lie.

How many Climate scientist are there?

Somewhere in the high tens, if not into hundreds of thousands, it's easy to calculate to the high tens. It's probable that the number is over a hundred thousand worldwide.

Now, having answered your question, which was only asked to attempt to deflect and squirm away from your clear lies; explain why you lied and apologise for them.

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 21:10:18 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
Somewhere in the high tens, if not into hundreds of thousands, it's easy to calculate to the high tens. It's probable that the number is over a hundred thousand worldwide.



Now, having answered your question, which was only asked to attempt to deflect and squirm away from your clear lies; explain why you lied and apologise for them.

Bloody Hell. Nutter warning.