Let's see the evidence

[Crick]

Billy Boy, I begin to worry that you're seriously delusional. You've fantasized that I claimed to be a scientist and seem immune to being informed otherwise. Worrisome, though it would go a long ways to explain all the rest of your behavior, now wouldn't it.

I readily accept that deniers won't read the IPCC's assessment reports. I suppose they don't want to take the risk that the load of evidence and reason might be too much for their prejudices to hold off.

 

[Crick]

Frank, between you and jc I'm just not certain who's the stupidest. But you keep working it like this and I bet you can take the cake.

Crick, can you explain the 800,000 year data set making a mockery of your insane "Theory"

What is your "Theory" anyway, can you put it into a sentence?

I've explained on MULTIPLE occasions why your argument is irrelevant nonsense. I see very little chance that another explanation would get through to you. Surely, though, you've read the explanation often enough that with some effort you might retrieve the core points. Didn't it involve the presence or absence of humans burning fossil fuels? Think hard Frank. You can do it.

And if you'd really like to see the theory I buy into, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and start reading. There are summary versions there that aren't as long nor as technical.

The single sentence version, that I've posted here dozens of times, is

THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF THE WARMING OBSERVED OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS ARE HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS AND DEFORESTATION.

I sure hope that also seems familiar to you Frank.

 

[jc456]

Frank, between you and jc I'm just not certain who's the stupidest. But you keep working it like this and I bet you can take the cake.

Crick, can you explain the 800,000 year data set making a mockery of your insane "Theory"

What is your "Theory" anyway, can you put it into a sentence?

I've explained on MULTIPLE occasions why your argument is irrelevant nonsense. I see very little chance that another explanation would get through to you. Surely, though, you've read the explanation often enough that with some effort you might retrieve the core points. Didn't it involve the presence or absence of humans burning fossil fuels? Think hard Frank. You can do it.

And if you'd really like to see the theory I buy into, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and start reading. There are summary versions there that aren't as long nor as technical.

The single sentence version, that I've posted here dozens of times, is

THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF THE WARMING OBSERVED OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS ARE HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS AND DEFORESTATION.

I sure hope that also seems familiar to you Frank.

hmmmmmmm, I don't see CO2 mentioned here as a driver. GHGs are many factors, the fact you have no positive influence from CO2, I think justifies Frank's, mine and every other skeptic on this forum that you have no idea what you're arguing.

 

[jc456]

hey jack monkey if you think it is something other than models, show the page numbers where you believe supports your position. Otherwise, the posts have been made, why is it you need to see the posts again?

These are empirical data.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

no, that is all altered data, not empirical in the least.

 

[Crick]

hmmmmmmm, I don't see CO2 mentioned here as a driver. GHGs are many factors, the fact you have no positive influence from CO2, I think justifies Frank's, mine and every other skeptic on this forum that you have no idea what you're arguing.

You could be pulling ahead here.

 

[Crick]

These are empirical data.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

no, that is all altered data, not empirical in the least.

You don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about. Why don't you go look up the word "empirical" and think about it for a while.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, between you and jc I'm just not certain who's the stupidest. But you keep working it like this and I bet you can take the cake.

Crick, can you explain the 800,000 year data set making a mockery of your insane "Theory"

What is your "Theory" anyway, can you put it into a sentence?

I've explained on MULTIPLE occasions why your argument is irrelevant nonsense. I see very little chance that another explanation would get through to you. Surely, though, you've read the explanation often enough that with some effort you might retrieve the core points. Didn't it involve the presence or absence of humans burning fossil fuels? Think hard Frank. You can do it.

And if you'd really like to see the theory I buy into, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and start reading. There are summary versions there that aren't as long nor as technical.

The single sentence version, that I've posted here dozens of times, is

THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF THE WARMING OBSERVED OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS ARE HUMAN GHG EMISSIONS AND DEFORESTATION.

I sure hope that also seems familiar to you Frank.

You explained? No, you did your pooh flinging monkey imitation. You never explained ANYTHING! Certainly you have no explanation as to why CO2 never drove climate once over an 800,000 year period. Your "explanation" that an 800,000 year data set was either a) exclusively local and never once reflected global condition or b) the data set is a denier!! makes you a fucking lying imbeclie

 

[Crick]

I think with this one, Frank, you've taken the crown. I was betting on jc, but that was just untoppable ignorance there Frank. You win. Plain as day. YOU are the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to have known. Congratulations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think with this one, Frank, you've taken the crown. I was betting on jc, but that was just untoppable ignorance there Frank. You win. Plain as day. YOU are the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to have known. Congratulations.

Note. No explanation

Wait for the charts without a temperature axis as further "Explanation"

 

[jc456]

I think with this one, Frank, you've taken the crown. I was betting on jc, but that was just untoppable ignorance there Frank. You win. Plain as day. YOU are the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to have known. Congratulations.

I think it is you with the belt!!!!

 

[jc456]

hmmmmmmm, I don't see CO2 mentioned here as a driver. GHGs are many factors, the fact you have no positive influence from CO2, I think justifies Frank's, mine and every other skeptic on this forum that you have no idea what you're arguing.

You could be pulling ahead here.

I see you can't explain why there is no direct mention of CO2 anywhere in that phrase. Standard jack monkey flinging pooh as Frank says.

 

[Crick]

Give it up jc, Frank has won.

 

[jc456]

and still no explanation jack monkey!!!

 

[jc456]

hey Frank, can you say crash and burn? That would add more CO2 into the oceans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick explains how the 800,000 year data set showing CO2 never forcing or driving climate but religiously following temperature on both increased and decrease is incorrect:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

hey Frank, can you say crash and burn? That would add more CO2 into the oceans.

If its 700M deep and meets those underwater CO2 molecules that are driving ocean acidification temperature increase

 

[Crick]

Crick explains how the 800,000 year data set showing CO2 never forcing or driving climate but religiously following temperature on both increased and decrease is incorrect:

Do you really understand all of this that poorly or are you simply trying to be antagonistic?

 

[Crick]

If its 700M deep and meets those underwater CO2 molecules that are driving ocean acidification temperature increase

Did you post this before or after I'd explained what the warm Pacific northwest graphic was meant to explain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick explains how the 800,000 year data set showing CO2 never forcing or driving climate but religiously following temperature on both increased and decrease is incorrect:

Do you really understand all of this that poorly or are you simply trying to be antagonistic?

Expect that my understanding of the subject dwarfs yours by several orders of magnitude, It's a twofer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick still not explaining away the 800,000 year data set