More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounds like you believe it is possible they made major errors.

Because you don't know what you are talking about. Not because you outsmarted the scientists.

I promise.

 

[ding]

Repeating the lie won't make it true.

It's not a lie. It is literally simple physics that everyone in the climate community accepts. Where you are getting confused is taking their climate sensitivity and applying it to the radiative forcing of CO2. But the reality is the associated temperature of CO2 - without any feedback - is 1C per doubling of CO2. That this is concerning to you means that if you believed it you would question AGW and you should.

 

[Robert W]

Your hyperbolic whining won't help you or your lie.

The only violence I see is your embarrassingly stupid and false posts killing brain cells.

Boy, you sure are a shitty teacher. I see the basis of your mistreatment of school children now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Boy, you sure are a shitty teacher. I see the basis of your mistreatment of school children now.

Nobody wants to hear a grown man whine.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's review:

99.9%

 

[ding]

Your hyperbolic whining won't help you or your lie.

The only violence I see is your embarrassingly stupid and false posts killing brain cells.

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. Which is why every time you double CO2 you only get a 1C increase in temperature.

300 to 600 = 1C
600 to 1200 = 1C
1200 to 2400 = 1C
2400 to 4800 = 1C

 

[Robert W]

Because you don't know what you are talking about. Not because you outsmarted the scientists.

I promise.

You were praising an article. I verify them before I adopt them at face value. Like a good scientist is supposed to do.

 

[ding]

Let's review:

99.9%

Which is the number who agree that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is a logarithmic relationship.

 

[Robert W]

Nobody wants to hear a grown man whine.

Then stop whining.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. Which is why every time you double CO2 you only get a 1C increase in temperature.

300 to 600 = 1C
600 to 1200 = 1C
1200 to 2400 = 1C
2400 to 4800 = 1C

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which is the number who agree that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is a logarithmic relationship.

*but do not agree with the 1degC lie

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You were praising an article. I verify them before I adopt them at face value. Like a good scientist is supposed to do.

You didn't read it and you didn't watch that video.

 

[Robert W]

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. Which is why every time you double CO2 you only get a 1C increase in temperature.

300 to 600 = 1C
600 to 1200 = 1C
1200 to 2400 = 1C
2400 to 4800 = 1C

And he needs to stop abusing children in his class room so he has time to study this topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The attack poodles are getting feisty...

 

[ding]

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

You are literally arguing with the science, not me.

It's amazing you don't know this already.

Absent feedback, doubling CO2 will cause a 1C increase in temperature.

What do you believe doubling CO2 will do?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are literally arguing with the science, not me.

No, I simply called your false claim, "false".

I don't think you understand what an argument is.

 

[Robert W]

You didn't read it and you didn't watch that video.

True on that video but I have also made use of some of Dr. Patrick Moore's excellent works.

That you did not read nor did you watch this or other videos.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True on that video but I have also made use of some of Dr. Patrick Moore's excellent works.

That you did not read nor did you watch this or other videos.

Why would or should I? Oh yeah, better ask someone who has actually read him.

 

[ding]

And he needs to stop abusing children in his class room so he has time to study this topic.

It's clear to me he doesn't know any of the science at all.

 

[ding]

No, I simply called your false claim, "false".

I don't think you understand what an argument is.

How much of a temperature increase do you believe doubling CO2 will cause?

Because you can't say I am wrong unless you can tell me what it is you believe is right.