Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Billy_Bob]

You and Trump sound just like the idiots on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. YOUR Masters.

Have you watched the movie about Fox News and Roger Ailes? They are lying to you dude. They invented that media to brainwash right wing fucktards in our society. They give you your talking points.

Considering Trumps IQ is 182 and he is creating millions of jobs and cutting the red tape of Marxism you all are trying to employ, I will wear that as a badge of honor...

Yes his IQ is 182 and he is 6'3 and 220 lbs. LOL

Your IQ is <0 And your a dupe, useful Idiot... Nothing more..

You still haven't explained the Hypothesis nor have you explained why all modeling fails... Why is that?

Sealy writes a boo boo,

Sorry but since we lack empirical evidence I'm basing my belief on pure logic

He is doing a great job proving he is dumb as hell, his claim that he uses PURE LOGIC is what guides him when evidence is lacking. Lets see what a Dictionary says about it:

…Pure Logic, a phrase often used, but to which no distinct conception can be attached. [—] Perhaps we may say that pure logic is a logic deduced from hypotheses (which some will look upon as axioms) without any inquiry into the observational warrant for those hypotheses.

Pure Logic is for people who don't have empirical evidence up their sleeves.

Here is what you Republicans are doing on this and every other issue

"Alternative facts" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

You put this up WITHOUT A SHRED OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR LIE... Chuck Todd is an imbecile who, just like you, haven't a fact to rest their case on.... Now that's funny.... No cognitive thought from any of you idiots...

Your post proves any lie will do when trying to promote the AGW lie..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Which part of that do you think amounts to physical evidence that supports the contention that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

I asked a simple question...what's the matter, can't provide some simple physical evidence? What is science without physical evidence?

All of it is evidence. I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things. Human caused climate change is changing our planet. All the scientists agree. The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters. Wake up.

Physical? I don't know. What physical evidence is there for evolution? Do you doubt evolution? What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man? Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.

Once again YOU FAILED to present EMPIRICAL evidence, far into the future Modeling scenarios are NOT empirical, it is unverified pseudoscience.

It is clear you don't know what the NULL hypothesis is and that the concept of The Scientific Method is foreign to you.

Why is SSDD's Question so difficult for you to answer?

Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution. But you deny both right?

Everything you say is right wing spin. Every argument you make, a scientist has explained the flaw in your thinking, but you keep thinking the same things. Fuck the facts right?

If it was your love one who was murdered and they didn't have any empirical evidence you'd want the jury to convict if there were 1000 pieces of unempirical evidence right?

You are soooo dumb because you make clear you have no idea what EMPIRICAL means to science research, from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of empirical

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws
4 : of or relating to empiricism

You can't offer anything scientific without real evidence, which is what UNVERIFIED long into the future Modeling scenarios lacks. Far into the future climate models lacks verification because there is no evidence or data available...., surely that was obvious....?

Again you have IGNORED the two scientific Concepts, The NULL hypothesis and The Scientific Method.

You used the words non empirical, lets see what the dictionary says about it:

nonempirical

1. "Not based on any empirical evidence; faith-driven
   a nonempirical belief system
2. (sciences) Not relying directly on data; theory-driven"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You have NOTHING of substance to offer, which is why people are laughing at you.

By the way you still haven't answered SSDD question/request for EMPIRICAL research.....

There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified. So is it empirical?

Models are mathematical constructs which must be empirically verified. All of your links are to these and every one of them has failed empirical verification. So nothing you are basing your belief's on is empirically observed.

 

[sealybobo]

All of it is evidence. I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things. Human caused climate change is changing our planet. All the scientists agree. The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters. Wake up.

Physical? I don't know. What physical evidence is there for evolution? Do you doubt evolution? What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man? Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.

Once again YOU FAILED to present EMPIRICAL evidence, far into the future Modeling scenarios are NOT empirical, it is unverified pseudoscience.

It is clear you don't know what the NULL hypothesis is and that the concept of The Scientific Method is foreign to you.

Why is SSDD's Question so difficult for you to answer?

Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution. But you deny both right?

Everything you say is right wing spin. Every argument you make, a scientist has explained the flaw in your thinking, but you keep thinking the same things. Fuck the facts right?

If it was your love one who was murdered and they didn't have any empirical evidence you'd want the jury to convict if there were 1000 pieces of unempirical evidence right?

You are soooo dumb because you make clear you have no idea what EMPIRICAL means to science research, from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of empirical

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws
4 : of or relating to empiricism

You can't offer anything scientific without real evidence, which is what UNVERIFIED long into the future Modeling scenarios lacks. Far into the future climate models lacks verification because there is no evidence or data available...., surely that was obvious....?

Again you have IGNORED the two scientific Concepts, The NULL hypothesis and The Scientific Method.

You used the words non empirical, lets see what the dictionary says about it:

nonempirical

1. "Not based on any empirical evidence; faith-driven
   a nonempirical belief system
2. (sciences) Not relying directly on data; theory-driven"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You have NOTHING of substance to offer, which is why people are laughing at you.

By the way you still haven't answered SSDD question/request for EMPIRICAL research.....

There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified. So is it empirical?

Models are mathematical constructs which must be empirically verified. All of your links are to these and every one of them has failed empirical verification. So nothing you are basing your belief's on is empirically observed.

Don't waste your time. I read 4 words then stopped because I've heard the right wing noise before. Not even going to acknowledge the stupidity. I seriously stopped reading after 3 words. You wasted your time loser.

 

[Dekster]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You know the irony here is that "We need MORE coal!!!!" was the environmental movements response to nuclear. They are the reason this happened to begin with. Nuclear has the same carbon footprint as wind.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Once again YOU FAILED to present EMPIRICAL evidence, far into the future Modeling scenarios are NOT empirical, it is unverified pseudoscience.

It is clear you don't know what the NULL hypothesis is and that the concept of The Scientific Method is foreign to you.

Why is SSDD's Question so difficult for you to answer?

Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution. But you deny both right?

Everything you say is right wing spin. Every argument you make, a scientist has explained the flaw in your thinking, but you keep thinking the same things. Fuck the facts right?

If it was your love one who was murdered and they didn't have any empirical evidence you'd want the jury to convict if there were 1000 pieces of unempirical evidence right?

You are soooo dumb because you make clear you have no idea what EMPIRICAL means to science research, from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of empirical

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws
4 : of or relating to empiricism

You can't offer anything scientific without real evidence, which is what UNVERIFIED long into the future Modeling scenarios lacks. Far into the future climate models lacks verification because there is no evidence or data available...., surely that was obvious....?

Again you have IGNORED the two scientific Concepts, The NULL hypothesis and The Scientific Method.

You used the words non empirical, lets see what the dictionary says about it:

nonempirical

1. "Not based on any empirical evidence; faith-driven
   a nonempirical belief system
2. (sciences) Not relying directly on data; theory-driven"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You have NOTHING of substance to offer, which is why people are laughing at you.

By the way you still haven't answered SSDD question/request for EMPIRICAL research.....

There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified. So is it empirical?

Models are mathematical constructs which must be empirically verified. All of your links are to these and every one of them has failed empirical verification. So nothing you are basing your belief's on is empirically observed.

Don't waste your time. I read 4 words then stopped because I've heard the right wing noise before. Not even going to acknowledge the stupidity. I seriously stopped reading after 3 words. You wasted your time loser.

No functioning brain cell identified... Carry on.... Watch out for that last step, its a doozy...



Your answer to providing empirical evidence and understanding is ...... WHAAAAAAAAAAA... To Damn Funny!

 

[SSDD]

All of it is evidence. I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things. Human caused climate change is changing our planet. All the scientists agree. The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters. Wake up.

Evidence of what?....that you apparently would't know what physical evidence looked like if it bit you on the ass? I asked what physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970 and that is the best you can do? And you really think you posted something that means anything?

Physical? I don't know. What physical evidence is there for evolution? Do you doubt evolution? What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?

There is ample evidence that species evolve...actual physical evidence.. You think that because I can spot climate science as nothing more than politically driven pseudoscience that I don't believe in any science? Where do you get idiotic opinions like that? I say opinions, because clearly no rational thought went in into it...you are spewing political slogans...nothing more.

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man? Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.

Don't put this on me....I am not asking for you to change the way you live...I am not asking for economy crippling regulations....I am not asking for trillions of dollars...I am asking what physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970 and you can't provide a single piece...don't worry though...no one can. And the political wing climate science hasn't explained anything thus far...all they have done is make claims, and littered the scientific landscape of the past 40 years with their failed predictions...Go out there and try to find a single piece of physical evidence that supports the claim that the CO2 from our use of petroleum products is the principle...hell, even a secondary cause of warming since the 1970's....good luck in finding what doesn't exist.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

Seems like you are the one spinning....can't even manage a single piece of physical evidence to support your beliefs...What's the matter? Surely it is out there...if there were any, it would not be possible to avoid it...it would be everywhere....so lets see it...a single piece of physical evidence...

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

Which part of that do you think amounts to physical evidence that supports the contention that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

I asked a simple question...what's the matter, can't provide some simple physical evidence? What is science without physical evidence?

All of it is evidence. I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things. Human caused climate change is changing our planet. All the scientists agree. The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters. Wake up.

Physical? I don't know. What physical evidence is there for evolution? Do you doubt evolution? What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man? Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.

Once again YOU FAILED to present EMPIRICAL evidence, far into the future Modeling scenarios are NOT empirical, it is unverified pseudoscience.

It is clear you don't know what the NULL hypothesis is and that the concept of The Scientific Method is foreign to you.

Why is SSDD's Question so difficult for you to answer?

I doubt that he even knows what empirical evidence might look like...that seems to be a sticking point for most believers...they don't have any idea what the word means and apparently accept all manner of bullshit and believe it when they are told it is evidence...Some of the things they provide when you put them on the spot for evidence would be roll on the floor hilarious if it weren't so tragic that they had been fooled so easily...or willingly...

 

[SSDD]

Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution. But you deny both right?

Not possible? What the hell do you mean not possible? The atmosphere and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable....and when it is observed, and measured, what you see doesn't jibe with the AGW hypothesis... Now you are making excuses for the pseudoscience which can't produce a single piece of empirical evidence to support the claims regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and how energy moves through it?

You should be raging at climate science for not providing you with a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the claim so that you could shove it down my throat and shut me the f*ck up....

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

That is all you are doing... You cant even tell me what the base line hypothesis is and how its supposed to be accomplished. Thus you dont have a fucking clue other than what your masters tell you to spout...

Yes, base line hypothesis This is the kind of shit a stupid Republican says that is typically an argument made in order to confuse and distract from all the real evidence.

base line hypothesis? What is your base line hypotheis based on empirical evidence?

And guess what? The scientists on this planet say you are wrong. Your reply back to that is that there is a vast scientific conspiracy among the scientific community. You're a fucking loon.

Are you serious? You think discussing the baseline hypothesis is political gobbledy goop? Are you really that ignorant of the topic? Admit it..you simply chose your position based on your political leanings and have no informed opinion of your own. You simply spew the opinion you were given by someone with a political agenda and when the discussion goes beyond the couple of talking points you have memorized, you can do little more than call names and make fallacious appeals to authority.

 

[MAGAman]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

The models are checked by backing the time up 50 years and plugging in the past 50 years if data to see if it attains the current climate.

They don't report the findings... For some unknown reason.

 

[SSDD]

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

That is all you are doing... You cant even tell me what the base line hypothesis is and how its supposed to be accomplished. Thus you dont have a fucking clue other than what your masters tell you to spout...

You and Trump sound just like the idiots on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. YOUR Masters.

Have you watched the movie about Fox News and Roger Ailes? They are lying to you dude. They invented that media to brainwash right wing fucktards in our society. They give you your talking points.

Considering Trumps IQ is 182 and he is creating millions of jobs and cutting the red tape of Marxism you all are trying to employ, I will wear that as a badge of honor...

Yes his IQ is 182 and he is 6'3 and 220 lbs. LOL

I though he was 6'2" what's your point? You think that is evidence that our CO2 is changing the climate?

 

[SSDD]

Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution.

You are hilarious... There is ample empirically observed evidence that AGW is not happening. As all of your predictive models fail empirical review, you have no proof of anything and yet you want us to "believe"...

A religion based on feelings... Nice... No thank You!

Sorry but since we lack empirical evidence I'm basing my belief on pure logic{/quote]

Alas, I doubt that you have ever had a logical, well reasoned thought in your life.

You don't have a theory or logic. You certainly don't have a scientific theory.

Guess whoever gave you your opinion never mentioned the null hypothesis...which is what us skeptics tend to go with since all the empirical evidence points to the null hypothesis..

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

OK...so what physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970? You think that just because someone said it that it must be true? In order to be 95% sure, there must be a pretty big pile of empirical evidence out there that supports the claim...lets see a single piece of it that supports the AGW hypothesis over the null hypothesis...

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

Who is arguing that the climate doesn't change except for you wackos? The climate has always and will always be changing. The discussion is about the lack of empirical evidence that demonstrates that we are the cause for the change..

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.

Guess you are unaware that those quaint 18th century high school experiments that supposedly showed that CO2 could trap heat were disproven in very short order. And the pseudoscience of climate is still based on those failed 18th century experiments...no new experiments because they know damned well that if they did them with modern equipment, the AGW hoax would be finished...

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

Sorry guy, that isn't what ice cores show at all...Every ice core ever done shows that CO2 responds to changes in temperature....More CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause...

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

You keep saying that. I keep asking what physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming and you keep not providing any evidence...you do understand, don't you, that simply saying it doesn't make it true?

I could go on and on. This is all from NASA you schmuck. Flat earth mother fuckers.

So why don't you and NASA seem to be able to provide even a single piece of physical evidence to support the claim? It isn't as if I were asking for a mountain of evidence, or proof, or even a preponderance of the evidence...I am asking for just a single piece of physical evidence to support the claim and you and NASA, and the rest of climate science don't even seem to be able to do that.

 

[SSDD]

I'm waiting for you to present facts that prove man made global warming isn't real. So is the scientific community.

This is just like the evolution argument. We've presented all our evidence, and where is your evidence on the bible?

Here is a good place to start. You brought up ice core samples and the temperature reconstructions derived from them so it seems that you have no problem with them...This is a temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core taken from Greenland. It is recognized by climate science as the gold standard of temperature reconstructions...

As you can see, the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. If you look at the chart closely, you will see that in just the past 10,000 years there have been multiple times when the temperature rose much further than any change we have seen, it a much shorter period of time than we have seen. It has happened over and over..and by the same token, temperatures have dropped further and faster than anything we have seen. As you can see, we haven't even warmed up to the point where the climate was before the onset of the little ice age which the earth is still warming its way out of.

Look at this graph, which even climate science recognized as the gold standard of temperature reconstructions and tell me which part of it you believe supports your belief regarding CO2 and its warming power.. This is what real science looks like and it just doesn't support what you believe..

 

[SSDD]

Which part of that do you think amounts to physical evidence that supports the contention that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

I asked a simple question...what's the matter, can't provide some simple physical evidence? What is science without physical evidence?

All of it is evidence. I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things. Human caused climate change is changing our planet. All the scientists agree. The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters. Wake up.

Physical? I don't know. What physical evidence is there for evolution? Do you doubt evolution? What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man? Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.

Once again YOU FAILED to present EMPIRICAL evidence, far into the future Modeling scenarios are NOT empirical, it is unverified pseudoscience.

It is clear you don't know what the NULL hypothesis is and that the concept of The Scientific Method is foreign to you.

Why is SSDD's Question so difficult for you to answer?

Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution. But you deny both right?

Everything you say is right wing spin. Every argument you make, a scientist has explained the flaw in your thinking, but you keep thinking the same things. Fuck the facts right?

If it was your love one who was murdered and they didn't have any empirical evidence you'd want the jury to convict if there were 1000 pieces of unempirical evidence right?

You are soooo dumb because you make clear you have no idea what EMPIRICAL means to science research, from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of empirical

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws
4 : of or relating to empiricism

You can't offer anything scientific without real evidence, which is what UNVERIFIED long into the future Modeling scenarios lacks. Far into the future climate models lacks verification because there is no evidence or data available...., surely that was obvious....?

Again you have IGNORED the two scientific Concepts, The NULL hypothesis and The Scientific Method.

You used the words non empirical, lets see what the dictionary says about it:

nonempirical

1. "Not based on any empirical evidence; faith-driven
   a nonempirical belief system
2. (sciences) Not relying directly on data; theory-driven"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You have NOTHING of substance to offer, which is why people are laughing at you.

By the way you still haven't answered SSDD question/request for EMPIRICAL research.....

There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified. So is it empirical?

there is empirical evidence that the climate changes...there is absolutely no empirical evidence that we are causing any change in the global climate whatsoever..

 

[SSDD]

Don't waste your time. I read 4 words then stopped .

Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a dupe. We skeptics read everything you post because we don't want to do a half assed job of tearing it completely down with actual empirical science...you cultists on the other hand can't even bear to look at anything that disagrees with your beliefs....probably because you know that you aren't going to be able to provide any actual science to counter it...it must be frustrating to engage in a scientific discussion regarding an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere and the way energy moves through it and not be able to provide any empirical evidence at all to support your beliefs.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You know the irony here is that "We need MORE coal!!!!" was the environmental movements response to nuclear. They are the reason this happened to begin with. Nuclear has the same carbon footprint as wind.

Yeah....but nuclear probably would't kill anywhere near as many of those pesky raptors like eagles, vultures, hawks, etc, bats, and migratory birds as those wind mills do.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

The models are checked by backing the time up 50 years and plugging in the past 50 years if data to see if it attains the current climate.

They don't report the findings... For some unknown reason.

It would't be good for their employment prospects if they actually reported how closely the models track reality...not much call for climate scientists if there were no crisis...

 

[sealybobo]

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

That is all you are doing... You cant even tell me what the base line hypothesis is and how its supposed to be accomplished. Thus you dont have a fucking clue other than what your masters tell you to spout...

Yes, base line hypothesis This is the kind of shit a stupid Republican says that is typically an argument made in order to confuse and distract from all the real evidence.

base line hypothesis? What is your base line hypotheis based on empirical evidence?

And guess what? The scientists on this planet say you are wrong. Your reply back to that is that there is a vast scientific conspiracy among the scientific community. You're a fucking loon.

Are you serious? You think discussing the baseline hypothesis is political gobbledy goop? Are you really that ignorant of the topic? Admit it..you simply chose your position based on your political leanings and have no informed opinion of your own. You simply spew the opinion you were given by someone with a political agenda and when the discussion goes beyond the couple of talking points you have memorized, you can do little more than call names and make fallacious appeals to authority.

I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists. Piss off russia!

 

[Wry Catcher]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

I don't have one; I've read and listened to arguments on both sides, and I side with the scientists. Climate Change is real, and mankind has had some influence - likely a great deal - on it.

Deniers of climate change have been influenced by the fossil fuel agency, which is conflicted, their interests are profit, not necessarily clean and environmentally safe operations.