Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

"THE OPPOSITE OF SKEPTICAL IS GULLIBLE"

Another bollixed up thing SSDD has apparently absorbed without question:

skep·ti·cal
/ˈskeptək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
   "the public were deeply skeptical about some of the proposals"
   antonyms: certain, convinced, optimistic

gul·li·ble
/ˈɡələb(ə)l/
adjective

1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
   "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
   antonyms: cynical, suspicious

THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENTIFIC IS "UNSYSTEMATIC, RANDOM"

 

[jc456]

I asked for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Just one. Scientific consensus has to be based on something, if it isn’t evidence, then what is it?

Providing evidence to someone who uses terms like "so called greenhouse gasses" is an exercise in futility

Friggin Deniers...

So the answer is no

 

[jc456]

"THE OPPOSITE OF SKEPTICAL IS GULLIBLE"

Another bollixed up thing SSDD has apparently absorbed without question:

skep·ti·cal
/ˈskeptək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
   "the public were deeply skeptical about some of the proposals"
   antonyms: certain, convinced, optimistic

gul·li·ble
/ˈɡələb(ə)l/
adjective

1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
   "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
   antonyms: cynical, suspicious

THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENTIFIC IS "UNSYSTEMATIC, RANDOM"

And still no observed empirical data

 

[Grumblenuts]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Billy_Bob]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

No matter how many times you post this lie up it will not change the fact it is a lie..

Con-sens-us.... Coning the senses of us...

Its a con. Nothing more. Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception. Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON.. Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails. Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason those propping up the CON do not want you to discus it..

 

[Grumblenuts]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

No matter how many times you post this lie up it will not change the fact it is a lie..

Con-sens-us.... Coning the senses of us...

Its a con. Nothing more. Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception. Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON.. Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails. Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason those propping up the CON do not want you to discus it..

Oh c'mon, that was lazy. Really now, actually read that NASA link, then try to prove which of you is most in denial..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

No matter how many times you post this lie up it will not change the fact it is a lie..

Con-sens-us.... Coning the senses of us...

Its a con. Nothing more. Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception. Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON.. Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails. Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason those propping up the CON do not want you to discus it..

Oh c'mon, that was lazy. Really now, actually read that NASA link, then try to prove which of you is most in denial..

I have read that link... And they have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Their whole premise is based on a failed model... Get a Clue..

 

[westwall]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Clearly you have no clue of what the Scientific Method even means. I will give you a hint here. The "evidence" that you refer to is not evidence, but OPINION. Color me unsurprised that you are so ignorant of science that you conflate opinions with facts. Do you understand what a fact is?

There is another scientific axiom that you anti science loons also ignore, "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION"

The only real evidence that you clowns have ever had was correlational. Then, when even that began to fail you began changing the names.

But here's the most damning bit of logic for you religious fanatic, anti science deniers.. You demand that no discussion be engaged in. Why is that? Religious nutjobs, like you, demand you read the scriptures and only the scriptures. Scientists on the other hand engage in vigorous debate on the merits, or demerits of a theory.

In the words of a man far smarter than any of us will ever be.... 45 seconds in is where your anti science religious nuts fall apart.

 

[SSDD]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Typical of what you people post up as evidence that mankind is altering the global climate. Lets take a look at what passes for evidence in your mind shall we?

first off they make the claim that the warming we have seen over the past 150 years or so is 95% probably due to our activities...no actual evidence to support that claim, bit there it is...they don’t mention that the present climate is cooler than the climate of the past 20,000 years.

They talk about “heat trapping properties of CO2 and make reference to quaint 19th century science, but none mention any ,Odeon science or offer up any evidence derived by that quaint 19th century science.

Then thy go on to offer up specific “evidence” by heading.

1. Global temperature rise...they claim the change is driven largely by CO2, but offer no actual science to support the claim. They make reference to the 20th century warming but don’t mention that gold standard (according to climate science) temperature reconstructions show that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 20,000 years.

Arming oceans...the earth is warming out of the little ice age...warming should be expected...and since it is not yet as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age, there is no rational reason to expect that it won’t get at least as warm as it was prior to the onset of the little ice age. In any event, they offer no empirical evidence that we have anything to do with the warming oceans...

Shrinking ice sheets...the ice sheets have been shrinking for 14,000 years now..They make no reference to any actual evidence that we are somehow responsible now... They make some claims about ice losses in the Antarctic, but don’t mention that those losses are due to underwater volcanic activity in the western Antarctic region.

Glacial retreat...again, they make some claims, but offer no empirical evidence that we are in any way responsible...nor do they mention the fact that glaciers have been retreating since the end of the little ice age...bottom line...no evidence to support the claims. See a trend forming here?

Decreased snow cover...again..exiting out of the little ice age and it still isn’t as warm as it was at the onset of the little ice age...Recent years have shown an increase in snow cover and they don’t mention that either... bottom line, no evidence to support the suggestion that we have anything to do with snow cover whatsoever.

Sea level rise.....sea level has been increasing for 20,000 years...the rate is about the same as it has been for the past few hundred years...and once again, no empirical evidence that we have anything at all to do with sea level rise...they say we do, but don’t offer up anything like actual evidence.

Declining arctic sea ice...the fact is that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the offer nothing like actual evidence that we have anything to do with changes in arctic sea ice...lots of claims, but no evidence to support them. Does this sort of thing really pass for evidence in your mind?

Here is a sea ice cover reconstruction from a peer reviewed, published paper...one of many showing clearly that for most of the past 10,000 years, there has been less ice than there is at present. In case you aren’t good at reading graphs, the present is on the right side of the graph at the zero... The only time there has been more ice up there was during the little ice age which the earth is still warming out of .

The graph below is actual science...Feel free to look up the peer reviewed published paper Stein, et al, 2017...This is what actual empirical evidence looks like as opposed to mere opinions which make claims but don’t support them.

Extreme events...even climate science is no longer attempting to blame bad weather on climate change...all the evidence says otherwise, but if you would like to see multiple published, peer reviewed papers stating this, I would be happy to provide some.

Ocean acidification...again, a non issue. Climate science has dropped any claims of ocean acidification...the empirical evidence leads to the opposite...but just for fun, how acid do you think the oceans were before the onset of the present ice age when the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 1000ppm as opposed to the 400 of today? The empirical evidence tells us that 400ppm represents no threats to the oceans...especially since practically every creature in it evolved to its present form with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm.

Once again...do mere claims, not supported by any actual empirical evidence rise to the level of “evidence” in your mind? Accepting claims that aren’t supported by any actual evidence is by definition gullible...you seem to typify the gullible of the world.

The challenge to provide a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is still sitting on the table...and there it will sit, because there isn’t a single shred of evidence in existence to challenge it.

 

[SSDD]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

No matter how many times you post this lie up it will not change the fact it is a lie..

Con-sens-us.... Coning the senses of us...

Its a con. Nothing more. Opinion of a group of people who base their opinion on a failed hypothesis and modeling that fails without exception. Only political whores use this term as a balk at stopping the discussion and outing of the CON.. Real scientists do not ever use consensus, they are skeptical and always testing the hypothesis of the day to see where it fails. Failing to do so stops any ability to learn. This is also the reason those propping up the CON do not want you to discus it..

Oh c'mon, that was lazy. Really now, actually read that NASA link, then try to prove which of you is most in denial..

Can you point to any actual observed, measured evidence to support any of the claims being made there? Or do you generally accept claims without any actual evidence to support them?

 

[Billy_Bob]

And still no observed empirical data

Snore...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Typical of what you people post up as evidence that mankind is altering the global climate. Lets take a look at what passes for evidence in your mind shall we?

first off they make the claim that the warming we have seen over the past 150 years or so is 95% probably due to our activities...no actual evidence to support that claim, bit there it is...they don’t mention that the present climate is cooler than the climate of the past 20,000 years.

They talk about “heat trapping properties of CO2 and make reference to quaint 19th century science, but none mention any ,Odeon science or offer up any evidence derived by that quaint 19th century science.

Then thy go on to offer up specific “evidence” by heading.

1. Global temperature rise...they claim the change is driven largely by CO2, but offer no actual science to support the claim. They make reference to the 20th century warming but don’t mention that gold standard (according to climate science) temperature reconstructions show that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 20,000 years.

Arming oceans...the earth is warming out of the little ice age...warming should be expected...and since it is not yet as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age, there is no rational reason to expect that it won’t get at least as warm as it was prior to the onset of the little ice age. In any event, they offer no empirical evidence that we have anything to do with the warming oceans...

Shrinking ice sheets...the ice sheets have been shrinking for 14,000 years now..They make no reference to any actual evidence that we are somehow responsible now... They make some claims about ice losses in the Antarctic, but don’t mention that those losses are due to underwater volcanic activity in the western Antarctic region.

Glacial retreat...again, they make some claims, but offer no empirical evidence that we are in any way responsible...nor do they mention the fact that glaciers have been retreating since the end of the little ice age...bottom line...no evidence to support the claims. See a trend forming here?

Decreased snow cover...again..exiting out of the little ice age and it still isn’t as warm as it was at the onset of the little ice age...Recent years have shown an increase in snow cover and they don’t mention that either... bottom line, no evidence to support the suggestion that we have anything to do with snow cover whatsoever.

Sea level rise.....sea level has been increasing for 20,000 years...the rate is about the same as it has been for the past few hundred years...and once again, no empirical evidence that we have anything at all to do with sea level rise...they say we do, but don’t offer up anything like actual evidence.

Declining arctic sea ice...the fact is that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the offer nothing like actual evidence that we have anything to do with changes in arctic sea ice...lots of claims, but no evidence to support them. Does this sort of thing really pass for evidence in your mind?

Here is a sea ice cover reconstruction from a peer reviewed, published paper...one of many showing clearly that for most of the past 10,000 years, there has been less ice than there is at present. In case you aren’t good at reading graphs, the present is on the right side of the graph at the zero... The only time there has been more ice up there was during the little ice age which the earth is still warming out of .

The graph below is actual science...Feel free to look up the peer reviewed published paper Stein, et al, 2017...This is what actual empirical evidence looks like as opposed to mere opinions which make claims but don’t support them.

View attachment 264431

Extreme events...even climate science is no longer attempting to blame bad weather on climate change...all the evidence says otherwise, but if you would like to see multiple published, peer reviewed papers stating this, I would be happy to provide some.

Ocean acidification...again, a non issue. Climate science has dropped any claims of ocean acidification...the empirical evidence leads to the opposite...but just for fun, how acid do you think the oceans were before the onset of the present ice age when the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 1000ppm as opposed to the 400 of today? The empirical evidence tells us that 400ppm represents no threats to the oceans...especially since practically every creature in it evolved to its present form with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 1000ppm.

Once again...do mere claims, not supported by any actual empirical evidence rise to the level of “evidence” in your mind? Accepting claims that aren’t supported by any actual evidence is by definition gullible...you seem to typify the gullible of the world.

The challenge to provide a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is still sitting on the table...and there it will sit, because there isn’t a single shred of evidence in existence to challenge it.

BUT...... Their failed models say that everything you posted is wrong.... **snicker**

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!

cyn·i·cal
/ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
   "her cynical attitude"
2. 2.
   concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.
   "a cynical manipulation of public opinion"

de·ni·er1
/dəˈnīər/
noun

1. a person who denies something.
   "a prominent denier of global warming"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!

cyn·i·cal
/ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
   "her cynical attitude"
2. 2.
   concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.
   "a cynical manipulation of public opinion"

de·ni·er1
/dəˈnīər/
noun

1. a person who denies something.
   "a prominent denier of global warming"

And again you resort to Logical Fallacy....

"What is a Logical Fallacy, Exactly?
The word "fallacy" comes from the Latin "fallacia" which means "deception, deceit, trick, artifice," however, a more specific meaning in logic (a logical fallacy) that dates back to the 1550s means "false syllogism, invalid argumentation."

An Error in Reasoning
One of the earliest academic discussions of logical fallacies comes from the book Elementary Lessons in Logic : Deductive and Inductive, published by MacMillian and Co. in 1872 where the modern definition of logical fallacies is used: "the modes in which, by neglecting the rules of logic, we often fall into erroneous reasoning." Today, this basic definition is still used, and often abbreviated to just "an error in reasoning." It is not a factual error.

The Difference Between Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases
In the early 1970s, two behavioral researchers, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky pioneered the field of behavioral economics through their work with cognitive biases and heuristics, which like logical fallacies, deal with errors in reasoning. The main difference, however, is that logical fallacies require an argument whereas cognitive biases and heuristics (mental shortcuts) refer to our default pattern of thinking. Sometimes there is crossover. Logical fallacies can be the result of a cognitive bias, but having biases (which we all do) does not mean that we have to commit logical fallacies. Consider the bandwagon effect, a cognitive bias that demonstrates the tendency to believe things because many other people believe them. This cognitive bias can be found in the logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.

The cognitive bias is the main reason we commit this fallacy. However, if we just started working at a soup kitchen because all of our friends were working there, this wouldn't be a logical fallacy, although the bandwagon effect would be behind our behavior. The appeal to popularity is a fallacy because it applies to an argument.

I would say that more often than not, cognitive biases do not lead to logical fallacies. This is because cognitive biases are largely unconscious processes that bypass reason, and the mere exercise of consciously evaluating an argument often causes us to counteract the bias.

Factual Errors are Not Logical Fallacies
To illustrate this point, let's consider the availability heuristic, a cognitive bias that describes the tendency for one to overestimate the likelihood of more salient events, usually the result of how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be. This bias can be demonstrated in believing that you are more likely to die in a plane crash than an automobile accident because of all the plane crashes you see in the news. As a result of this bias, one might argue:

Plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents. Therefore, it is safer to drive in a car than fly in a plane.

This is not fallacious; it's factually incorrect. If it were true that plane crashes kill more people than automobile accidents, the conclusion would be reasonable. The argument itself does not contain flawed reasoning; it contains incorrect information. While we can say the reasoning behind the argument was fallacious, there is no logical fallacy present in the argument. Similarly, if I told you that the sun was about 30 miles from the earth and the size of a football stadium, I would not be committing a fallacy—but I would be a moron. Factual errors are not fallacies.

Logical Fallacies Can Be Committed by the Arguer or Audience
In this book, I will be using the term "fallacious" in the following ways, all of which support the primary purpose of this book—to promote better reasoning.

Fallacious Arguments. Arguments that are fallacious contain one or more non-factual errors in their form.

Just as a woman has the right to get a tattoo, she has the right to get an abortion. (Weak analogy)


Fallacious Reasoning. When an individual is using erroneous thinking (including bypassing reason) in evaluating or creating an argument, claim, proposition, or belief. This is where cognitive biases frequently play a role.

I was pro-abortion before, but now that this speaker made me cry by showing me a photo of an aborted fetus, I am against abortion. (Appeal to emotion)

Fallacious Tactics. Deliberately trying to get your opponent or audience to use fallacious reasoning in accepting the truth claims of your argument.

Look at this photo of an aborted fetus. How can you tell me that you still are pro-choice? (Appeal to emotion)

Note that fallacious tactics are not a deficiency in reasoning (morality, perhaps) on the part of the arguer, although people who fall victim to these tactics do demonstrate fallacious reasoning. These tactics are still labeled logical fallacies, but the arguer would not be held responsible for committing a logical fallacy. When charities run ads, they don't bombard us with data and moral arguments; they show us a photo of a suffering child who needs our help. These charities know what they are doing. They are not lacking in reason; quite the opposite, in fact. They are using effective persuasion techniques.

Logical Fallacies are Deceptive
Another characteristic of logical fallacies is that they are not always easy to spot, especially to the untrained mind. Yet they often elude our critical faculties, making them persuasive for all the wrong reasons—sort of like optical illusions for the mind. Some, however, are as clearly wrong as a pig roast at a bar mitzvah (yet still fool too many people). For example,

“Don’t grow a mustache, because Hitler had a mustache. Therefore, you will be like Hitler!”

After reading this book, you can probably match about a dozen fallacies with the above argument. The error in reasoning should be apparent—sharing a physical characteristic with a fascist dictator will not make you a fascist dictator.

Logical Fallacies are Common and Worthy of Identifying by Name
Over the years, I have received questions from perhaps hundreds of students of logical fallacies who have presented what met all the other criteria of logical fallacies but was unique, very specific, or already fit nicely under a more general category of logical fallacy. For example, the appeal to emotion fallacy is a general category of fallacies, and there are many in that category such as appeal to anger, appeal to pity, appeal to fear, and many more. These are all common enough to be worthy of their own fallacy. But what about "appeal to indignation"? This certainly could be fallacious, but so rare that it's just not worth naming since it fits under the appeal to emotion fallacy. If there is a general category under which the rare fallacy fits, it is less likely to be named.

Dr. Bo's Three Criteria for a Logical Fallacy
In this book, we are using what is referred to as the argument conception of fallacies (Hanson, 2015). That is, what we are identifying as a "logical fallacy" goes beyond the standard conception of "fallacy" where the error in reasoning must apply to argumentation. More specifically,

1. It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
2. It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
3. It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation."

Source What is a Logical Fallacy, Exactly?

 

[Grumblenuts]

And again you resort to Logical Fallacy....

Lol. Again, predictably, you resort to strawman fantasies based upon the simple posting of a couple dictionary definitions. Must've struck home!
The whole world continues laughing.. With me.. At you delusional boneheads!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look, real scientists getting their hands dirty! Imagine learning new things by doing! Expanding our knowledge base!:
NASA to More Accurately Measure Ozone Discovered by “Accident"
So much fun! Sorry, no time to waste entertaining your Debbie Downer gibberish. Too busy creating and testing the equipment necessary to generate all that data fools like you rely upon to stupidly misinterpret while somehow denying it even exists.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

H-o-l-y s-h-i-t. You have got to be batshit crazy! That is not peer reviewed science, son. That's called a business prof playing Hey, let's pretend CO2 levels are analogous to stocks!

Jamal Munshi
Sonoma State University | SSU · Department of Business Administration
20.07
· PhD

Hwell,.. with those climate science bonafides,.. look out!
Man, I'm tempted to try whatever TF you're smokin'

 

[SSDD]

Well, that's exciting. Each having been declared "Winner" by another at least once it appears we have a tie. Congratulations, you're all clearly very wet. A most predictable effect of soaking long in denial!

cyn·i·cal
/ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
   "her cynical attitude"
2. 2.
   concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them.
   "a cynical manipulation of public opinion"

de·ni·er1
/dəˈnīər/
noun

1. a person who denies something.
   "a prominent denier of global warming"

So you have sarcasm, and some low grade humor. What you don’t have is a single shred of observed measured evidence Thad supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. I always enjoy watching the various ways you guys avoid that embarrassing fact.

 

[SSDD]

And again you resort to Logical Fallacy....

Lol. Again, predictably, you resort to strawman fantasies based upon the simple posting of a couple dictionary definitions. Must've struck home!
The whole world continues laughing.. With me.. At you delusional boneheads!

And even more predictably, you aren’t offering up any observed measured evidence to support your beliefs. That is the most predictable behavior among warmers.

 

[SSDD]

Look, real scientists getting their hands dirty! Imagine learning new things by doing! Expanding our knowledge base!:
NASA to More Accurately Measure Ozone Discovered by “Accident"
So much fun! Sorry, no time to waste entertaining your Debbie Downer gibberish. Too busy creating and testing the equipment necessary to generate all that data fools like you rely upon to stupidly misinterpret while somehow denying it even exists.

By accident/. Does that fall under the heading of blind squirrels finding a nut? And if they are producing all this data to put us skeptics in our place, why is it that you don’t seem to be able to produce any observed measured data to support your claims?

 

[SSDD]

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

H-o-l-y s-h-i-t. You have got to be batshit crazy! That is not peer reviewed science, son. That's called a business prof playing Hey, let's pretend CO2 levels are analogous to stocks!

Jamal Munshi
Sonoma State University | SSU · Department of Business Administration
20.07
· PhD

Hwell,.. with those climate science bonafides,.. look out!
Man, I'm tempted to try whatever TF you're smokin'

Do you have any complaint or correction to make regarding the paper or is a logical fallacy concerning the author the best you can do? The paper was peer reviewed and published..i am sure the reviewers would be interest in any glaring errors they made in their assessment of the paper’s content.

And i can’t help but notice that you failed to mention the other 6 peer reviewed papers that found very similar results.

Cherry picking and ignoring valid data which calls your beliefs into question...and i can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide any published, peer reviewed science that called any of the 7 papers... might that be because there are none..or would you just have no idea do where to look for actual research...your sources clearly don’t deal in that sort of information.