Climate Change Over the Millennia

[jc456]

What an ignorant statement. Science doesn’t even ”talk“ that way.

post something in a scientific language then.

 

[Dagosa]

post something in a scientific language then.

Already did in my reply. You chose not to read it all. Just quoting out of context and playing dumb isn’t working.

 

[Dagosa]

why did he need to quote?

Cause he made a stupid response after only quoting out of context, like all you MAGAs do.

 

[Dagosa]

certainly they are if they don't allow opponent debates.

Obvious denial then. That makes you crazy.

 

[Dagosa]

certainly they are if they don't allow opponent debates.

All of the accredited research facilities allow and encouraged legitimate opposition. You just can’t be a dumb fk with no studies or evidence. Just opinions don’t mean shit dumb ass.

 

[ding]

All of the accredited research facilities allow and encouraged legitimate opposition. You just can’t be a dumb fk with no studies or evidence. Just opinions don’t mean shit dumb ass.

Models aren't evidence.

 

[ding]

All of the accredited research facilities allow and encouraged legitimate opposition. You just can’t be a dumb fk with no studies or evidence. Just opinions don’t mean shit dumb ass.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[jc456]

Obvious denial then. That makes you crazy.

so you think there are no scientists that opposed the AGW hoax? seriously?

 

[Dagosa]

so you think there are no scientists that opposed the AGW hoax? seriously?

That’s ignorant. There are no accredited science institutions that think it’s a hoax. So you found some individual deviates that are as stooopid as you. BFD. Somehow, you think these institutions make up shit about AGW, yet, you go to them for cancer treatments. The military has them drvelope all their weaponry, including the fission reactors that you want to use for power. Hilarious. The ones you claim make up this hoax, does all your medical science…..

I doubt if you have ever gone to college except to piss in the men’s room.

 

[Dagosa]

you must be a fat fker with all that knowledge!!!

So you think you have to be fat to be smart…..cool.

 

[Dagosa]

invoking trump in another thread. TDS much? I'd say you're the trump humper.

The orange man is still in your brain.

 

[jc456]

So you think you have to be fat to be smart…..cool.

did I say that? you have a really bad habit of putting things out that people never said. fat and a fkwad.

 

[jc456]

The orange man is still in your brain.

he's in yours for sure. whether or not you have visibility into my mind is suspect, but you said it fat fk, Trump rented space in your head. Come on now, post another trumpism for us

 

[jc456]

There are no accredited science institutions that think it’s a hoax.

what does that mean? By my standards many are. even IPCC doesn't post anything about catastrophes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All of the accredited research facilities allow and encouraged legitimate opposition. You just can’t be a dumb fk with no studies or evidence. Just opinions don’t mean shit dumb ass.

Exactly!
That's why the climategate emails included discussions about preventing skeptics from getting published. That's the first thing you do when the science is on your side. The second thing is changing historical data.

 

[Dagosa]

Exactly!
That's why the climategate emails included discussions about preventing skeptics from getting published. That's the first thing you do when the science is on your side. The second thing is changing historical data.

If the skeptic represents the scientific method sure, he gets published if he gets consensus from all the relevant institutions. There are no “ individual opinions” in science..It stupid to pretend otherwise.

Anyone is a science illiterate if they think so. .
61 times election election fraud “ opinion” was given to 61 courts which rejected all of them for lack of evidence. If they like all the AGW deniers lack evidence they are rejected too.

 

[jc456]

scientific method sure,

what is that?

 

[Dagosa]

what does that mean? By my standards many are. even IPCC doesn't post anything about catastrophes.

If you have to ask, you’re science illiterate.

 

[Dagosa]

what is that?

You like to just make up shit cause you can’t quote an entire post, you just have to pick and choose little phrases…

 

[jc456]

If you have to ask, you’re science illiterate.

Since you can’t you are