seven stats on climate change

[SSDD]

How would you explain this?

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

the explanation: NASA has an agenda, they are part of the AGW religion that is trying to tell us all how to live our lives. fuck em!

he explanation: NASA has an agenda, they are part of the AGW religion that is trying to tell us all how to live our lives. fuck em!

Do you agree with this?

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history.

"Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization.

"Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives."

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

Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit? Of course not. We are just beginning to scratch the surface regarding what drives the climate. Climate science “attiributed” past changes in the climate entirely to ordinal changes because that supported the narrative...not because they had any evidence to support the attribution...that is what climate science at present does...

 

[SSDD]

What's misleading and/or dishonest about the following?

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

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

What is misleading / and or dishonest about it? Are you kidding? How about the fact that no part of it is supported by empirical scientific evidence? It is based on nothing.

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

To date, there has not been a single peer reviewed, published scientific paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our greenhouse gasses.

Now, your statement says that it is greater than 95% probable that we are causing the bit of warming that has been observed over the past 100 years, and yet, there isn't a bit of actual empirical evidence to support the claim...there hasn't even been a paper published in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been measured and quantified...how does one decide that there is a 95% probability that we are causing the warming when there is no actual evidence to support the claim?

"This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

Can you name a period in the history of the earth when the climate wasn't changing? So satellites verify that the climate changes...so what? It has always been changing and the bit of change we have seen is very small compared to past changes. What do you think evidence that the climate changes proves?...other than that the climate changes?

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2

Actually that was proposed in the 19th century...and the experiments that supposedly supported the proposition were done at the high school hobbiest level and were terribly flawed...they didn't show what they claimed, and there have been no modern experiments published which support the claims of that quaint science... I repeat, to dated, there is not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere..CO2 has no heat trapping nature...nor any heat trapping ability...but feel free to provide some actual experimental evidence that proves my statement wrong.

"Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA.

Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

There is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it. If such evidence existed, then you would not be able to get away from it...it would be everywhere...billboards, TV, Radio...heck it would be on tubes of toothpaste...such evidence would eliminate skepticism...so lets see it..

I predict that you won't be able to provide a single shred of observed, measured evidence to contradict any of the 3 statements I made above regarding evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, or peer reviewed published materials measuring and quantifying the warming we are supposed to be causing and claiming it on our greenhouse gas production.

Now how can anyone claim to be more than 95% sure of anything when the basic scientific evidence required to support such a claim is missing?

 

[SSDD]

Do you have a link explaining why you believe there would be wild swings in annual atmospheric CO2 levels over thousands of years?

Of course...you might start with the fact that science has claimed that volcanic activity produces little of the CO2 in the atmosphere...what the don't mention is that historically they have only counted the emissions from 6 or 8 known active volcanoes on the surface of the earth. Science has recently become aware that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of active volcanic vents scattered across the floor of the ocean...each and every one spewing CO2...we don't have any idea of the actual number, or how much CO2 they produce...so we have absolutely no idea how much CO2 is being emitted from the sea floor...or how variable it is.

We don't have a good handle on the earth's own CO2 making machinery...Climate science says that about 48% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean / atmosphere exchanges, but that will change significantly as we begin to get a handle on how much CO2 is being emitted from volcanic vents on the sea bed...they claim that a bit more than 28% comes from animal / plant respiration...but that is a gross estimate at best....termites alone, produce more CO2 than human beings produce...a spike in termite populations alone could result in a great increase in CO2, in addition, as the earth warms, the amount of CO2 the oceans hold is reduced since warm water is able to hold less CO2 than cool water.....the also say that something more than 28% comes from soil respiration and decomposition of organic materials...but we have no idea how that number might change with warming temperatures...we know that decomposition is far more effective in warmer environments than it is in cooler environments so as the earth warms, decomposition becomes far more efficient and more CO2 is manufactures...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 that human beings produce isn't even enough to upset the changes from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

 

[georgephillip]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

Your link:

"Globally, the past five years, from 2014 through 2018, all had record-breaking temperatures, with reports from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing the hottest year ever as 2016, followed by 2017, 2015, 2018 and 2014."

"Some firefighters report flames 150 metres high...."

"Higher than a 40 story building.

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"This is Australia’s new summer normal.

"Towering flames and terrified humans, huddling on the beach in the dark night or the orange glow of day.

"Shambolic, panicked, thousands forced to flee.

"Cities and towns shrouded for days and weeks and now months in a smoke haze that ranges from irritating, to toxic, to deadly.

"An area burnt that reportedly dwarfs the land affected by both the Amazon and California fires."

Climate NOT weather.

 

[Redfish]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

Your link:

"Globally, the past five years, from 2014 through 2018, all had record-breaking temperatures, with reports from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing the hottest year ever as 2016, followed by 2017, 2015, 2018 and 2014."

"Some firefighters report flames 150 metres high...."

"Higher than a 40 story building.

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"This is Australia’s new summer normal.

"Towering flames and terrified humans, huddling on the beach in the dark night or the orange glow of day.

"Shambolic, panicked, thousands forced to flee.

"Cities and towns shrouded for days and weeks and now months in a smoke haze that ranges from irritating, to toxic, to deadly.

"An area burnt that reportedly dwarfs the land affected by both the Amazon and California fires."

Climate NOT weather.

Interesting, so there have never been fires in Australia before? How about California? never in the past? South america, first time ever?

what horseshit, there have been seasonal fires since the beginning of time.

But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.

your religion is a fraud. Wake the fuck up.

 

[georgephillip]

If that chart went back to the period prior to the onset of the present ice age, you would see atmospheric CO2 levels at the time that the earth started cooling into the ice age of about 1000ppm...more than twice the present level

"Prior to the onset of the present ice" age means before the existence of human beings?

History of the world - Wikipedia

And what difference do you think that makes. CO2 was naturally hihjer without us than it is with us...what do you think that means or proves?

And what difference do you think that makes. CO2 was naturally hihjer without us than it is with us...what do you think that means or proves?

It could prove that human beings are incapable of existing at those historically higher CO2 levels, right?

 

[RealDave]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

Your link:

"Globally, the past five years, from 2014 through 2018, all had record-breaking temperatures, with reports from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing the hottest year ever as 2016, followed by 2017, 2015, 2018 and 2014."

"Some firefighters report flames 150 metres high...."

"Higher than a 40 story building.

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"This is Australia’s new summer normal.

"Towering flames and terrified humans, huddling on the beach in the dark night or the orange glow of day.

"Shambolic, panicked, thousands forced to flee.

"Cities and towns shrouded for days and weeks and now months in a smoke haze that ranges from irritating, to toxic, to deadly.

"An area burnt that reportedly dwarfs the land affected by both the Amazon and California fires."

Climate NOT weather.

Interesting, so there have never been fires in Australia before? How about California? never in the past? South america, first time ever?

what horseshit, there have been seasonal fires since the beginning of time.

But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.

your religion is a fraud. Wake the fuck up.

You deniers have no logic. "Oh it flooded before." "Oh there were fires before."
Blah Blah Blah.

It is the idea that these events happen more often and with more severity.

Climate Change is fucking science.

You mist haste your children and grandchildren. Then can be no other explanation. No one can be so stupid ass ignore it.

 

[RealDave]

Do you have a link explaining why you believe there would be wild swings in annual atmospheric CO2 levels over thousands of years?

Of course...you might start with the fact that science has claimed that volcanic activity produces little of the CO2 in the atmosphere...what the don't mention is that historically they have only counted the emissions from 6 or 8 known active volcanoes on the surface of the earth. Science has recently become aware that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of active volcanic vents scattered across the floor of the ocean...each and every one spewing CO2...we don't have any idea of the actual number, or how much CO2 they produce...so we have absolutely no idea how much CO2 is being emitted from the sea floor...or how variable it is.

We don't have a good handle on the earth's own CO2 making machinery...Climate science says that about 48% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean / atmosphere exchanges, but that will change significantly as we begin to get a handle on how much CO2 is being emitted from volcanic vents on the sea bed...they claim that a bit more than 28% comes from animal / plant respiration...but that is a gross estimate at best....termites alone, produce more CO2 than human beings produce...a spike in termite populations alone could result in a great increase in CO2, in addition, as the earth warms, the amount of CO2 the oceans hold is reduced since warm water is able to hold less CO2 than cool water.....the also say that something more than 28% comes from soil respiration and decomposition of organic materials...but we have no idea how that number might change with warming temperatures...we know that decomposition is far more effective in warmer environments than it is in cooler environments so as the earth warms, decomposition becomes far more efficient and more CO2 is manufactures...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 that human beings produce isn't even enough to upset the changes from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

Yet another fucking idiot denier. No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.

Human emissions pushes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than te Earth removes it. Man's emissions upset the balance.

That is a God damn fact. Man is the primary case of the increase levels of CO2. That is a God damn fact.

You are not a scientist. Quit listening to Trump & Limbaugh & give a shit about future generations.

 

[RealDave]

How would you explain this?

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

the explanation: NASA has an agenda, they are part of the AGW religion that is trying to tell us all how to live our lives. fuck em!

That must be it. The scientists are against us & only the fucking moronic deniers can save us.

 

[georgephillip]

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Do you have any evidence in support of that claim?

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

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2

"Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA.

"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

 

[RealDave]

Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:

1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.

2) My cousin Freddy died of lung cancer at 48 && he never smoked.

The climate change denier argument in a nutshell.

 

[ReinyDays]

Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.
2) My cousin Freddy died of lung cancer at 48 && he never smoked.
The climate change denier argument in a nutshell.

Pick a point anywhere on the Earth's surface ... tell me what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... are all three the same? ... then climate isn't changing there ... do this for a million different points on the Earth's surface ... see, doesn't look like climate is changing anywhere ...

Yes, I'm relying on your complete and utter lack of knowledge in the basic science here that you're clueless as to which points to pick ... and even if you do by random chance find a point, you'll note the change is trivial ... arid climates becoming semi-arid, continental climates becoming sub-tropical ... and what changes there are will be beneficial to humans and their livestock ...

Go ahead and drive a couple hours south, average temperatures will be 2ºC higher ... that's the sum total of global warming over the next 100 years ... unless you live north of Alabama, there's no crisis to be seen ... now is there? ...

 

[SSDD]

It could prove that human beings are incapable of existing at those historically higher CO2 levels, right?

Great...let’s see the actual evidence that supports that claim..

we know that most life on earth had evolved pretty close to its present form by the time the ice age started...let’s see some evidence suggesting that we are some how excluded.

 

[SSDD]

Yet another fucking idiot denier. No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.

I never said such a thing. Try reading for comprehension...or maybe get a literate adult to help you read if there is one with your circle of acquaintances.

Human emissions pushes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than te Earth removes it. Man's emissions upset the balance.

Here are several peer reviewed, published papers which say that claim is not true...Can you provide even one peer reviewed paper which even says that it is true...much less provides empirical evidence to support the claim?

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

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

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

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

That is a God damn fact. Man is the primary case of the increase levels of CO2. That is a God damn fact.

So you say...but that isn't what the peer reviewed, published science says. But by all means, if you have some actual science, supported by actual empirical evidence that says that your claims are true, then lets see it.

You are not a scientist. Quit listening to Trump & Limbaugh & give a shit about future generations.

And yet, I am providing actual peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...thus far, all you have done is blow smoke, call names, and pretend that profanity will make false claims true....typical of those who have been fooled by the pseudoscience. Lets see the actual evidence to support your claims.

 

[SSDD]

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Do you have any evidence in support of that claim?

Of course...the fact that neither you, nor all of climate science can produce anything that contradicts my claim is, in and of itself, evidence. If such evidence existed, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...it would be the only argument that you believers would have to make....anytime a skeptic put up an argument, all you would have to do would be provide the empirical evidence that they are wrong and that would be the end of it.

You can't though. You are reduced to making claims that aren't true...you blow smoke, call names, curse a lot, and employ several other methods...what you don't do is the obvious answer if such evidence existed...you don't provide it...and you don't because you can't...because no such evidence exists.

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2

Sorry..but they weren't...but feel free to provide the evidence if you like. The scientists proved that water vapor could hold heat...but that is as far as they ever got..and as far as they ever could get because CO2 can not hold heat. There is about a million hours of design, testing, development, and observation done by the residential and commercial infrared heating industry which shows pretty conclusively that far infrared radiation, which is what the earth emits, does not, and can not warm the air.

"Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA.

Great...lets see the evidence. Do you believe anything you hear without evidence just because it agrees with your politics?

"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

Great...lets see the evidence. Lets see a single piece of empirical evidence that supports that claim. I predict no such piece of evidence will be forthcoming because no such piece of evidence exists...

 

[SSDD]

Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:

1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.

2) My cousin Freddy died of lung cancer at 48 && he never smoked.

The climate change denier argument in a nutshell.

So far, I have provided peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...you have yet to provide the first piece of peer reviewed science to support yours...which of us is more credible?

 

[ReinyDays]

So far, I have provided peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...you have yet to provide the first piece of peer reviewed science to support yours...which of us is more credible?

Have you seen the movie Jurassic Park? ... in the beginning of that movie, they present a very accurate explanation of the peer-reviewed scientific paper that the movie is based on ... unfortunately, no one has been able to duplicate that experiment and get the same results ... one group extracted modern tuna DNA from Cretaceous amber, turns out one of the lab technicians has tuna for lunch and contaminated the sample ...

The paper has been withdrawn ...

"Peer-review" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means ...

 

[SSDD]

I know what peer review means.

Which of the papers above was retracted?

I also know what it means that global warming believers can’t provide any empirical evidence to support their claims.

 

[ReinyDays]

I know what peer review means.

Which of the papers above was retracted?

I also know what it means that global warming believers can’t provide any empirical evidence to support their claims.

Wait ... what? ... you believe Jurassic Park is possible? ... say it ain't so ...

 

[SSDD]

I think jurassic park is irrelavent...a non sequiter.