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

[Cosmos]

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

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

It might though.

 

[Frannie]

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

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Actually moron you could create that same graph but instead plug in the rise of cell phones or computers. You are too ignorant to see the corellations

 

[Cosmos]

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

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Actually moron you could create that same graph but instead plug in the rise of cell phones or computers. You are too ignorant to see the corellations

LOL. You really are dumb.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

It might though.

No It doesn't..

The last fifty years we have seen a input increase from the sun of 0.5w/m^2 globally.
The last fifty years clouds diminished by 0.6%. Allowing further energy to reach earths surface.

With just those two more likely scenarios your whole premise goes out the window. And now we see cloud cover increasing and solar output decreasing.. and the Cooling has already started..

 

[Frannie]

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

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room. By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Actually moron you could create that same graph but instead plug in the rise of cell phones or computers. You are too ignorant to see the corellations

LOL. You really are dumb.

So that is why Apple pays me taxable dividends

Thanks

 

[Cosmos]

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

It might though.

No It doesn't..

The last fifty years we have seen a input increase from the sun of 0.5w/m^2 globally.
The last fifty years clouds diminished by 0.6%. Allowing further energy to reach earths surface.

With just those two more likely scenarios your whole premise goes out the window. And now we see cloud cover increasing and solar output decreasing.. and the Cooling has already started..

Try that again without contradicting yourself in the same post.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

It might though.

No It doesn't..

The last fifty years we have seen a input increase from the sun of 0.5w/m^2 globally.
The last fifty years clouds diminished by 0.6%. Allowing further energy to reach earths surface.

With just those two more likely scenarios your whole premise goes out the window. And now we see cloud cover increasing and solar output decreasing.. and the Cooling has already started..

Try that again without contradicting yourself in the same post.

The point went right over your head...



Both of those events correlate with the warming and both can be provably linked with the warming of the earth. Your point is pure conjecture with out a basis or link..

 

[otto105]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

 

[Wry Catcher]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

You're nuts. However I reserved in my comments that fools like you would post what you did.

 

[Frannie]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

 

[Billy_Bob]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

You're nuts. However I reserved in my comments that fools like you would post what you did.

Provide the evidence. As of today nothing approaching evidence exists, it is all modeling that has no predictive powers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

 

[Billy_Bob]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

LOL

I have provided pages of evidence and others have provided paper after paper with links to evidence and to date you have provided......... Nothing but propaganda.

 

[Frannie]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

 

[Wry Catcher]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.

She asked you a legitimate question. Is 60 Min CREDIBLE as a source? Are their sources Credible?


And by the way ... Didn't the dutch build windmills to pump out water in the 1700's? This problem has been ongoing even before evil oil...

 

[Frannie]

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.

You believe everything on TV and this makes me stupid in your mind.

PS who pays you dividends

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.

You believe everything on TV and this makes me stupid in your mind.

PS who pays you dividends

No, I don't believe everything on TV, and you have proved to be too stupid to even write a proper Straw Man.

 

[Frannie]

There is no evidence of agw

Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural events disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.

Do you believe 60 minutes is real

YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.

You believe everything on TV and this makes me stupid in your mind.

PS who pays you dividends

No, I don't believe everything on TV, and you have proved to be too stupid to even write a proper Straw Man.

It's amazing how intellectually proficient the big red font makes you seem......

Yawn

 

[Wry Catcher]

we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.

A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.

You're nuts. However I reserved in my comments that fools like you would post what you did.

Provide the evidence. As of today nothing approaching evidence exists, it is all modeling that has no predictive powers.

You're as stupid as Frannie, and neither one of you read my post, and if you did you didn't comprehend the message.