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.
There are no "proofs" in science, dumbo. There is only a preponderance of evidence supporting one explanation for any phenomenon over all the others.It seems you're clueless about the meaning of "irony" too, you poor bewildered nutjob.Your reply amounts to just more insane drivel from a clueless retard, and is the equivalent of a member of the Flat Earth Society telling NASA that he is the real scientists and they are in a cult. BTW, you wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you, you poor demented cretin.More proof that religious dogma trumps real science.
Why does the AGW cult hate real science?
The irony of this post from the AGW cult..
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Claiming that the scientists of the world base their conclusions about AGW on "ignorance" is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You really are severely retarded.
Do you actually think that out of the thousands of PhD scientists and the thousands of peer reviewed studies, that no one ever considered whether or not there was more to these things than simple coincidence?
You're thinking of scientists as if they were 7th graders writing science papers on their frog dissections.
You really are an idiot. NOBODY assumed that CO2 was causing the Earth to warm JUST BECAUSE there was an obvious correlation between the increasing temperatures and the increasing CO2 levels. In the scientific laws of atmospheric physics, carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas - that's well established science. Increasing the atmospheric levels of CO2 by 43%, as mankind has done, MUST INEVITABLY cause a temperature increase. This has been confirmed by both observation evidence and experimental data.There are no "proofs" in science, dumbo. There is only a preponderance of evidence supporting one explanation for any phenomenon over all the others.It seems you're clueless about the meaning of "irony" too, you poor bewildered nutjob.Your reply amounts to just more insane drivel from a clueless retard, and is the equivalent of a member of the Flat Earth Society telling NASA that he is the real scientists and they are in a cult. BTW, you wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you, you poor demented cretin.
The irony of this post from the AGW cult..
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Claiming that the scientists of the world base their conclusions about AGW on "ignorance" is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You really are severely retarded.
Cum Hoc Fallacy
Explanation
The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. This fallacy is closely related to the post hoc fallacy.
The AGW does not care about real science as all the post here prove..
Do you actually think that out of the thousands of PhD scientists and the thousands of peer reviewed studies, that no one ever considered whether or not there was more to these things than simple coincidence?
You're thinking of scientists as if they were 7th graders writing science papers on their frog dissections.
The AGW church (as you have demonstrated) has made things this way. Do our bidding or get no grant money and we will ridicule and try and intimidate and force you out of science.
Then again when one can command ten of thousands of dollars for speaking by AGW, why give up your new found love of a religion that gets you Bentley?
You really are an idiot. NOBODY assumed that CO2 was causing the Earth to warm JUST BECAUSE there was an obvious correlation between the increasing temperatures and the increasing CO2 levels. In the scientific laws of atmospheric physics, carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas - that's well established science. Increasing the atmospheric levels of CO2 by 43%, as mankind has done, MUST INEVITABLY cause a temperature increase. This has been confirmed by both observation evidence and experimental data.There are no "proofs" in science, dumbo. There is only a preponderance of evidence supporting one explanation for any phenomenon over all the others.It seems you're clueless about the meaning of "irony" too, you poor bewildered nutjob.The irony of this post from the AGW cult..
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Claiming that the scientists of the world base their conclusions about AGW on "ignorance" is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You really are severely retarded.
Cum Hoc Fallacy
Explanation
The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. This fallacy is closely related to the post hoc fallacy.
The AGW does not care about real science as all the post here prove..
The only fallacy here involves your pitiful excuse for a brain.
Do you actually think that out of the thousands of PhD scientists and the thousands of peer reviewed studies, that no one ever considered whether or not there was more to these things than simple coincidence?
You're thinking of scientists as if they were 7th graders writing science papers on their frog dissections.
The AGW church (as you have demonstrated) has made things this way. Do our bidding or get no grant money and we will ridicule and try and intimidate and force you out of science.
Then again when one can command ten of thousands of dollars for speaking by AGW, why give up your new found love of a religion that gets you Bentley?
How is it that climate scientists are, in your view, all willing to lie to make money (though as has been explained here before, the grant process does not put money into researcher's pockets) but those in the fossil fuel industry, who have been making money hand over fist for over a century, wouldn't harm a hair on our collective heads in order to keep that money coming in? Can you explain why you believe climate scientists to have such more malleable or poorly founded ethics than those who own and work in the oil and coal industries?
And the AGW cult still has not posted one peace of actual real science to back up their religion.
Do you actually think that out of the thousands of PhD scientists and the thousands of peer reviewed studies, that no one ever considered whether or not there was more to these things than simple coincidence?
You're thinking of scientists as if they were 7th graders writing science papers on their frog dissections.
The AGW church (as you have demonstrated) has made things this way. Do our bidding or get no grant money and we will ridicule and try and intimidate and force you out of science.
Then again when one can command ten of thousands of dollars for speaking by AGW, why give up your new found love of a religion that gets you Bentley?
How is it that climate scientists are, in your view, all willing to lie to make money (though as has been explained here before, the grant process does not put money into researcher's pockets) but those in the fossil fuel industry, who have been making money hand over fist for over a century, wouldn't harm a hair on our collective heads in order to keep that money coming in? Can you explain why you believe climate scientists to have such more malleable or poorly founded ethics than those who own and work in the oil and coal industries?
All about the money!
Do what you are told and conform to the AGW religion or have your livelihood ruined..
