So were you lying when you said you didn't care or are you lying here?To counter people like you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So were you lying when you said you didn't care or are you lying here?To counter people like you.
Then why do you post here?
To counter people like you.
Am I?Then why are you laughing so much? ...
Neither. You believe catastrophic warming will occur because of CO2 emission. I believe the data overwhelmingly shows natural variability and that's all this is. What's to care about? It will be what it will be.So were you lying when you said you didn't care or are you lying here?
And it doesn't bother you that so many PhDs, who study this topic for a living would disagree with you completely? Do you think they are stupid or liars?I believe the data overwhelmingly shows natural variability and that's all this is. What's to care about? It will be what it will be.
Neither. I think they are mistaken. How many times do I need to tell you that?And it doesn't bother you that so many PhDs, who study this topic for a living would disagree with you completely? Do you think they are stupid or liars?
You don't even understand what you're saying. Or you're lying. You think you are smarter than all of them. That is the belief of an insane person. And an idiot.Neither. I think they are mistaken.
Of course I understand what I am saying. They have made a mistake by falsely correlating a natural climate variation to increased atmospheric CO2 due to increased emissions. Their models incorrectly predict a net warming due to increased water vapor instead of a net cooling from increased water vapor.You don't even understand what you're saying. Or you're lying. You think you are smarter than all of them. That is the belief of an insane person. And an idiot.
So, over and over and over again you claim to be smarter than thousands of PhDs all actively researching the topic for decades when your experience consists of reading right wing internet blogs and a 9th grade science class.Of course I understand what I am saying. They have made a mistake by falsely correlating a natural climate variation to increased atmospheric CO2 due to increased emissions. Their models incorrectly predict a net warming due to increased water vapor instead of a net cooling from increased water vapor.
What nuclear waste?Another horrible side effect of the Co2 fraud= the return of nuclear, the most expensive when waste issues are included.
Co2 does nothing.
Go back to burning hydrocarbons. No nuclear waste...
well it bothers you that there is dissenting opinion by other PhDs that don't agree with you and your list of whomever. You shit it on their efforts like they don't matter. Let's start there.And it doesn't bother you that so many PhDs, who study this topic for a living would disagree with you completely? Do you think they are stupid or liars?
and they all ignore dissenting opinions by qualified PhDs.Neither. I think they are mistaken. How many times do I need to tell you that?
They rely upon flawed computer models which don't match empirical climate data and ignore what the empirical climate data is telling them. Increased water vapor leads to a net cooling, not a net warming. If that were not true the planet would have never cooled for 50 million years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm.
No. My claim is that they are mistaken. The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. No one disputes this and this proves that water vapor is not a net positive feedback.So, over and over and over again you claim to be smarter than thousands of PhDs all actively researching the topic for decades when your experience consists of reading right wing internet blogs and a 9th grade science class.
What caused the "natural climate variation" warming the planet at rates not seen in millions of years over the last century and a half? These things do no happen by themselves. WHAT IS CAUSING IT?
Your claim is that they are mistaken and you are not.No. My claim is that they are mistaken.
No, it doesn't.The planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. No one disputes this and this proves that water vapor is not a net positive feedback.
Yes, that's usually how it works when there are different opinions. The difference is I am basing my beliefs on empirical climate data. They are basing their on flawed computer models.Your claim is that they are mistaken and you are not.
No, it doesn't.
from his data source....Yes, that's usually how it works when there are different opinions. The difference is I am basing my beliefs on empirical climate data. They are basing their on flawed computer models.