Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Scroll up, read my question, understand my question, then answer it, if possible.
No, that is your role. Same as Silly Billy, Frankie Boy, and jc. Your peers, and mental level.I thought that was comedy.I've yet to see anyone even challenge the OP's contention that the larger the number of experts supporting a position, the more likely it is to be correct.
One would hope a "scientist" would understand sig figs.I've always wondered how they measured temperatures in 1880-1930 accurate to a tenth of a degree
You did NOT answer my question.Scroll up, read my question, understand my question, then answer it, if possible.
I answered the question you asked, which made you cut and run, and everyone saw that. You're my little bitch now.
Now, if you've got a different question, then simply locate your balls and state it clearly and directly.
But if that's too difficult for you -- the ball-locating thing -- you can just keep on with your current weasel-tap-dance routine.
so Frank, me and others in here have continuously asked for the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2. And, all of the posts made on your question, are similar or the same as the ones we got on our question. it is now three years for me and still no answer. And they want actual science. How much more actual science can you have but to demonstrate the affect of 120 PPM of CO2 on temperatures? I mean WTF is wrong with these pretend pseudoscience folk?You did NOT answer my question.Scroll up, read my question, understand my question, then answer it, if possible.
I answered the question you asked, which made you cut and run, and everyone saw that. You're my little bitch now.
Now, if you've got a different question, then simply locate your balls and state it clearly and directly.
But if that's too difficult for you -- the ball-locating thing -- you can just keep on with your current weasel-tap-dance routine.
Thinking you did confirms my speculation that you did not even understand my question.
You trashed Popper (laughable) and asked me to affirm a negative (just as laughable).
It is so easy to catch the pretend "scientists" on da boardz.
Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.
....
You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made? None of that post hoc ergo propter hoc that's out there - that's not science.
When THAT happens, the problem still exists of affirming a negative (ie. affirming a "denial").
You're correct. Popper would have many, many issues with the state of the science when it comes to climate change. He'd be just fine with the state of the pure sciences, though. They haven't been fatally polluted with activists in lieu of scientists.
You are correct. The links he provided were not all correlations.Global warming denialism, being totally unfalsifiable, would be defined by Popper as snake oil.
....
You have the cart before the horse. Where is the science to support global warming is man made? None of that post hoc ergo propter hoc that's out there - that's not science.
When THAT happens, the problem still exists of affirming a negative (ie. affirming a "denial").
You're correct. Popper would have many, many issues with the state of the science when it comes to climate change. He'd be just fine with the state of the pure sciences, though. They haven't been fatally polluted with activists in lieu of scientists.
Mamooth answered your question perfectly. You attempted to throw out all of climate science as post hoc ergo prompter hoc, which is shite in and of itself. Mamooth gave you several pieces of evidence, none of which were post hoc, all of which point specifically at greenhouse warming.
What are you babbling about? The links he provided were evidence that the warming we've experienced is due to greenhouse gases. They were precisely what you asked for. That you should now claim don't answer your question simply tells us that you would have accepted nothing for an answer and that your pretense of open-mindedness is a complete lie.
LOL @ evidence.
It's an observation, it's not evidence
LOL @ evidence.
It's an observation, it's not evidence
I see your intellectual gifts are still held at shipping
Okay, Frank, elucidate us. What constitutes evidence?
The hypothesis (and the theory) would be AGW. The folks lacking an actual hypothesis would be you and yours Frank. You have never shown that ANY of the unjustified data manipulation you and your friends have claimed dominates the field, has EVER taken place. Your idiotic demand for lab work is irrelevant. I ask you once again: what constitutes evidence?
Still waiting Frank. Seems like a simple question. You could go to the dictionary if you like. WHAT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE?
