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.
Again, like many posts previous, the burden is on you. so please release those experimental verification videos that confirm the peer papers you wipe with. The onus is on youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.You're like the 5th guy who says it yet cannot prove this.
Not necessary.
When you cant prove it you just deem it unnecessary. So you cant even tell how you come to that conclusion and you want me to what? Suspend logic and disbelief to go with your gut feeling?
You're like the 5th guy who says it yet cannot prove this.
Not necessary.
When you cant prove it you just deem it unnecessary. So you cant even tell how you come to that conclusion and you want me to what? Suspend logic and disbelief to go with your gut feeling?
The proof of what? What is it that you didn't understand from six people now. That tells me your missing something.
CC is attempting to deflect the thread in a direction he needs it to go because he has no valid rebuttal to counter the fact that the Earth's climate is cyclical and that the presence of Man cannot change those cycles.
Oh we can change the cycles, it just comes down to how much time, blood, and resource we are willing to devote to making changes.
There is science...and then there is climate pseudoscience.
No, just because you call it a dog doesnt mean its gonna fetch. You call is pseudo science but have no proof, evidence, etc.
Since both are theories and science uses the same methods to determine outcomes why do you believe what science says about earths climate millions of years ago and refuse to believe those same individuals just turn into fuck ups when it comes to determining possible future outcomes?
In real science, one failure of a hypothesis is just grounds to scrap it and go back to the drawing board....in climate pseudoscience, no number of failed predictions of the hypothesis are grounds to wonder if perhaps they got it wrong.
And that is why the peer reviewed papers were reviewed by others to ensure they have the most likely conclusion based on the information. Its fine if you say one guy is wrong but when you start talking about some mass conspiracy based on nothing more than your squawking where hundreds of scientists all agree on something because really they KNEW they would get govt funding (apparently they are psychic too) is like...too many people, too many moving parts all for a POSSIBLE outcome (funding) with an unknown price tag.
That makes no fucking sense
Hahahaha, lamo, where is that experimental verification of those peer reviewed papers you use to wipe with? You got squat.
Again, like many posts previous, the burden is on you. so please release those experimental verification videos that confirm the peer papers you wipe with. The onus is on youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.Not necessary.
When you cant prove it you just deem it unnecessary. So you cant even tell how you come to that conclusion and you want me to what? Suspend logic and disbelief to go with your gut feeling?
Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,No, just because you call it a dog doesnt mean its gonna fetch. You call is pseudo science but have no proof, evidence, etc.
Since both are theories and science uses the same methods to determine outcomes why do you believe what science says about earths climate millions of years ago and refuse to believe those same individuals just turn into fuck ups when it comes to determining possible future outcomes?
And that is why the peer reviewed papers were reviewed by others to ensure they have the most likely conclusion based on the information. Its fine if you say one guy is wrong but when you start talking about some mass conspiracy based on nothing more than your squawking where hundreds of scientists all agree on something because really they KNEW they would get govt funding (apparently they are psychic too) is like...too many people, too many moving parts all for a POSSIBLE outcome (funding) with an unknown price tag.
That makes no fucking sense
Hahahaha, lamo, where is that experimental verification of those peer reviewed papers you use to wipe with? You got squat.
Its in the research....Are you slow?
Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,Hahahaha, lamo, where is that experimental verification of those peer reviewed papers you use to wipe with? You got squat.
Its in the research....Are you slow?
The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point. Yet, there is no effort being made to go back to the models and understand why that happened. The IPCC AR5 report makes that point. Yet fail to do anything. so to continue to argue a point that is unproven is sort of pointless. But if you truly believe CO2 caused an increase in temperature, then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,Its in the research....Are you slow?
Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?
Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.
The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point.Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,
Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?
Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.
Yet, there is no effort being made to go back to the models and understand why that happened. The IPCC AR5 report makes that point. Yet fail to do anything. so to continue to argue a point that is unproven is sort of pointless.
But if you truly believe CO2 caused an increase in temperature,
then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.
What, you can't go pull open th AR5 report and read their conclussion? You need a link when I give you the report name? Wow.The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point.Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?
Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.
And when I ask you how this is when you say you dont need to explain it right?
Yet thats exactly what you are doing. Except your unproven points dont need to be proven for some reason and you are dismissing scientists and their research. For example: You keep saying this IPCC AR5 report says this and that yet you link to nothing? Why not? I just googled the report and wondering which portion are you referring too that shows the errors?
What you stated is false. Heres how they deal with errors: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf
But if you truly believe CO2 caused an increase in temperature,
Why do you keep saying this? Show me where I said that even ONE time! So stop
then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.
You put words in my mouth and expect me to defend it again and again. Quote me where I said that and I will defend it. You cant.
What, you can't go pull open th AR5 report and read their conclussion? You need a link when I give you the report name? Wow.The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point.
And when I ask you how this is when you say you dont need to explain it right?
Yet thats exactly what you are doing. Except your unproven points dont need to be proven for some reason and you are dismissing scientists and their research. For example: You keep saying this IPCC AR5 report says this and that yet you link to nothing? Why not? I just googled the report and wondering which portion are you referring too that shows the errors?
What you stated is false. Heres how they deal with errors: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf
Why do you keep saying this? Show me where I said that even ONE time! So stop
then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.
You put words in my mouth and expect me to defend it again and again. Quote me where I said that and I will defend it. You cant.
If you go to the summary report for policy makers you will see in sections B-1:
"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"
and from D-1:
"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012,
is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal
variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend
in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar
cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced
warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the
difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural
internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4,
Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}"
i knew a person like this.....i thought she was joking at first....but as it turned out she was serious......what ya gonna do?....they are out there....
If they do, why do leftists need to make this shit up?
Let me ask you, how does Landover Baptist Church - a site run by Atheist Bolsheviks, dedicated to libel and slander against Christians, differ from the Klan putting up a site claiming to be black people eating watermelon and looking for others to be shiftless and lazy?
Do you really think demagoguery is clever?
Your paranoia is unwarranted.CC is attempting to deflect the thread in a direction he needs it to go because he has no valid rebuttal to counter the fact that the Earth's climate is cyclical and that the presence of Man cannot change those cycles.
Oh we can change the cycles, it just comes down to how much time, blood, and resource we are willing to devote to making changes.
Ok for some reason you guys keep usign the word "control". Control the cycles, Control the climate and not one person is saying anyone of use can control it.
What I've said is we can do things to slow the destruction. For example. Are there was to fuck up the earth more? Everyone would agree yes.
Will fucking it up effect the environment? Everyone would agree yes.
If everyone on earth didnt recycle, littered without regard, shit in the streams, dump their oil down the gutter those actions would impact the environment. Maybe the fish will die, maybe water will be effected etc.
But all it takes is for someone to say Al Gore and suddenly everyone goes "WE DONT AND CANT EFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT!!"
Common sense really, really offends deniers.
Look at them all here, going amusingly off-the-rails and posting all their usual forged data and crazy myth deflections, simply because it was pointed out that rising sea levels make tidal flooding more common. Deniers just can't handle it when their religious beliefs are questioned.
Really?
The Miami News - Google News Archive Search
Common sense really, really offends deniers.
Look at them all here, going amusingly off-the-rails and posting all their usual forged data and crazy myth deflections, simply because it was pointed out that rising sea levels make tidal flooding more common. Deniers just can't handle it when their religious beliefs are questioned.
