Alpine glaciers 50% gone by 2050 no matter what

[ding]

I've told you and once again for the final time: If 98% of climate scientists believe it's true then I believe it too.

If it's some kind of christian charade you're inventing then it's N. A.

As I consider you N.A. until you can refresh your christian schtick.

You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming like a good cuck.

 

[Donald H]

That's what a cuck of climate scientists would say.

The Christian will always reliably turn to the personal attack when his/her position is exposed as hocus-pocus.

 

[Donald H]

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann agrees with you.

Michael Mann probably also believes that an insignificant snowball rolling down hill long enough can produce on the size of a house.

Our resident denialist believes that a man lived in a big fish's belly for 3 days.

Now who ya gonna believe has his shit together?

 

[progressive hunter]

Simply because the climate change denialists have been discredited and relegated to the fringe of humanity.
I'm no Nobel prize winner in climate science like you, but I trust the 98% of the experts who don't deny. It's been settled science with them for decades now.

And why do you deny? Is it something to do with your Christian beliefs that man can't influence the climate in the face of the God's steady hand?

that 98% has been debunked so many times its rediculous,,

its 98% of the scientist they allowed on the survey,,

most were rejected and attacked,,

but yyou cultist continue to repeat what youre told to repeat,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The Christian will always reliably turn to the personal attack when his/her position is exposed as hocus-pocus.

all youve done is personal attacks,,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Donald believes 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

He's not very bright.

 

[ding]

The Christian will always reliably turn to the personal attack when his/her position is exposed as hocus-pocus.

You never said it was unreasonable to question 1C of GHG warming creating 3.5C of additional warming though.

 

[ding]

He's not very bright.

I've kind of got him over a barrel right now. He wants to say I am crazy for saying they are saying 1C of GHG effect will produce an additional 3.5C of warming, but that would be admitting it is crazy to believe 1C of GHG warming will produce another 3.5C of additional warming. It would also prove he doesn't know what his beloved climate science community is claiming. He doesn't know what to do.

So... fish on!!!

 

[Lastamender]

And how have they not been caught? That temperature data come from thousands of thermometers. The process of getting data from satellites involves hundreds of people. Do you really think someone is willing to pay them all off and that they are ALL willing to BE paid off? Sorry, dude, but IT FAILS THE SANITY TEST.

So does Net Zero.

 

[Crick]

So does Net Zero.

You seem to attempting to change the subject. Let's stay where we were. Explain to us how all climate science for the last 40 years has been a hoax.

 

[progressive hunter]

You seem to attempting to change the subject. Let's stay where we were. Explain to us how all climate science for the last 40 years has been a hoax.

thats simple,,

every prediction made has failed to happen,,

 

[Crick]

thats simple,,

every prediction made has failed to happen,,

That is false and would not accomplish your claimed hoax in any case. Science is a great deal more than predictions.

Let's say I want to pretend that Chicago is 2C warmer than it actually is. That means the outskirts of Chicago have to be somewhere between 2C higher and the actual temperature of the outskirts. And that sort of adjustment has to take place everywhere. And the climate scientists are not the only ones with thermometers. People would notice if the official temperatures were consistently higher than temperatures they measured in the same location. What happens when you're talking about temperatures near freezing. Whether or not frost forms is a bit of a hard sign. How about dewpoints? Are you going to lie about the dewpoints or hope no one notices dew failing to form when your numbers say it should. And just like the thermometers, the climate scientists aren't the only ones with sling thermometers or digital weather stations.

God are you people STUPID ! ! !

 

[progressive hunter]

That is false and would not accomplish your claimed hoax in any case. Science is a great deal more than predictions.

Let's say I want to pretend that Chicago is 2C warmer than it actually is. That means the outskirts of Chicago have to be somewhere between 2C higher and the actual temperature of the outskirts. And that sort of adjustment has to take place everywhere. And the climate scientists are not the only ones with thermometers. People would notice if the official temperatures were consistently higher than temperatures they measured in the same location. What happens when you're talking about temperatures near freezing. Whether or not frost forms is a bit of a hard sign. How about dewpoints? Are you going to lie about the dewpoints or hope no one notices dew failing to form when your numbers say it should. And just like the thermometers, the climate scientists aren't the only ones with sling thermometers or digital weather stations.

God are you people STUPID ! ! !

I figured you would give an example of a prediction you guys got right,,,
OH WELL,,,

god you people are stupid,,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do climate scientists say it will?

If so then it will!

Will a butterfly's wing beats in Japan produce a hurricane in Florida?

If it's your misinterpretation or your religion or some other denialist dogma then it's N.A. Let me know.

they say what they're paid to say..."we have consensus!"

 

[Donald H]

they say what they're paid to say..."we have consensus!"

That's a new angle being promoted by the denialist side.

 

[Donald H]

You never said it was unreasonable to question 1C of GHG warming creating 3.5C of additional warming though.

I don't know if it's reasonable or not, it's a complicated science. But I have confidence that if it's considered true by mainstream climate science then I won't question it and I will tend to agree.

You've been assigned the job of producing the evidence that climate scientists are together on it.
Fwiw, until you produce real evidence, a 1 further 1 degree rise in the temperature of the earth could produce runaway climate change that could cook us all.

You see, it's more complicated than denialist's kneejerk conclusions.

 

[Donald H]

I've kind of got him over a barrel right now. He wants to say I am crazy for saying they are saying 1C of GHG effect will produce an additional 3.5C of warming, but that would be admitting it is crazy to believe 1C of GHG warming will produce another 3.5C of additional warming. It would also prove he doesn't know what his beloved climate science community is claiming. He doesn't know what to do.

So... fish on!!!

Big fish on, with a human passenger in its belly!

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't know if it's reasonable or not, it's a complicated science. But I have confidence that if it's considered true by mainstream climate science then I won't question it and I will tend to agree.

You've been assigned the job of producing the evidence that climate scientists are together on it.
Fwiw, until you produce real evidence, a 1 further 1 degree rise in the temperature of the earth could produce runaway climate change that could cook us all.

You see, it's more complicated than denialist's kneejerk conclusions.

its not really that complicated,,

you make shit up and we dont believe you,,

 

[Crick]

its not really that complicated,,

you make shit up and we dont believe you,,

You're not rejecting the opinions of internet posters. You're rejecting out of hand the very widely held conclusions of mainstream science. Never a good practice.

 

[Donald H]

its not really that complicated,,

you make shit up and we dont believe you,,

Do you think that ding wants to suffer you being on his side?