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.
Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus.
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent (and growing) evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")
`
I always check facts.
You're making the same failed argument over and over again. You appeal to those you think are authorities but never learn what it is they are spewing. You NEVER fact check them because it is a narrative you approve of. Any first-year scientist in the hard sciences can tell you Consensus is MOB Rule and is not based in science.
You don't even know the basics about the hypothesis. I have given you these basics several times and you ignore it. SO here it is once again. A very good article on the BASICS OF THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS:I always check facts.
Unlike you who posted an OP Article that 'Solar panels are Useless over 85°.'
YOU F****** IDIOT!
Just took their word because you liked it/Politics.
Who could have believed that, especially someone in the debate every day.
That is UNIMAGINABLY STUPID!
and same on many other issues I've gutted you on
IAC:
New One?
Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.yourlogicalfallacyis.com
"appeal to authority"
"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."
""It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.""
`
That’s nice. It’s 2C cooler with 26ft shallower seas with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than in the past. That’s what the science shows.Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus. (consensus a reflection of scientist opinion on Evidence)
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent and growing evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")
`
Yes, it been both warmer and colder with different sea levels..That’s nice. It’s 2C cooler with 26ft shallower seas with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than in the past. That’s what the science shows.
Actually, it does, you just chose not to see it. We have had CO2 levels as high or higher than today through much of earth's history and we have NEVER seen a runaway atmosphere. Water vapor will not allow it.Yes, it been both warmer and colder with different sea levels..
which sheds NO LIGHT on the the current AGW debate.
SWAT!
`
Actually it does. It shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.Yes, it been both warmer and colder with different sea levels..
which sheds NO LIGHT on the the current AGW debate.
SWAT!
`
I love it.... They can't answer the questions... OR they refuse too. As Oddball put it:Actually it does. It shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Correlation does not imply CAUSATION. Every scientist knows this. But you spout it as fact. Why?No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.
And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`
No it does notActually it does. It shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Poor Abu... You're running yourself in circles while you ignore the evidence presented. That is why we all laugh at you. You are given the evidence, but you refuse to use cognitive thinking skills.No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.
And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`
What "evidence?"Poor Abu... You're running yourself in circles while you ignore the evidence presented. That is why we all laugh at you. You are given the evidence, but you refuse to use cognitive thinking skills.
Since you brough that up, multiple times, in an attempt to discredit me, do you disagree with heat degrading the panels output? Please provide proof of this. You failed to do it there, can you do it here? The degradation, of the output of these panels, above 85 degrees F is now settled and documented science.What "evidence?"
How many times have i kicked the shlt out of you in the last few pages alone "Solar-Panels-are-useless-over-85" BOY??
`
So which radiative forcing component was responsible for it being 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?No it does not
It would depend on Other Conditions at the time, (why) and you cited NO time.. nothing.
You are a one-line TROLL/@SSHOLE.
And the additional claim that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperaurs is riDICKulous.
`
`
Actually this is wrong too.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math can really/absolutely do that. (2+2 is 4)
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time BY continuing consistent measurement and observation of the evidence.
So in fact, science IS Consensus. (consensus a reflection of scientist opinion on Evidence)
ie, Evolution is ALSO true by consensus of the consistent and growing evidence.
The more and longer the merrier.
And there is overwhelming consensus on AGW, and it has Grown over the last few decades, to where now it is over 90%, and of more/most experienced specialists, nearing 100%. (continue reading OP link under excerpt quoted '"surveys.")
`
A Thread Is Not a TightropeOFF Topic to the AGW Consensus.
The GND is another topic/policy what, if anything, to do about it.
`
Leeches Lashing OutYou just can't figure it out... No surprise...
And you did not answer my question. I provided the actual LOG of CO2. IN that graph it shows that we should have seen nearly 2 deg C since 1850. According to empirical evidence we have seen just 0.6 deg C in total in that time frame.
CO2 is not driving anything by empirical experiment and evidence.
You keep saying that it is me who is lying but the facts say different.
You are an idiot. You keep posting up failed modeling from Godard and NOAA. Modeling that fails empirical verification 100% of the time. The physics is very simple, yet you miss the forest because you cant see through the trees..
The "Balance of Nature" Is Not in Man's Favor and Never Has Been"""Before the industrial re
volution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
`
