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.
I just want to see your evidence. Post that or provide a link. And Paris is over and the entire world did not go, 196 out of 7 billion people went. How the hell do you get the globe out of those numbers? Please, you can't make this shit up I swear.The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.Link ?Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.
It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.
Edit: 54% of Australians don't
54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova
We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.
Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?
Scientific consensus.
Why don't you Google it
We show data.
Yes, you show data, but none of the data is related to your claims. You give us red herrings instead of data.
You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.
I keep pointing out that the directly observed data proves global warming theory, no models required. If you're that ignorant of the basic science, you're not qualified to be in the discussion.
The stratosphere is cooling.
Backradiation is increasing.
OLR in the GHG bands is decreasing.
Those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases.
Now, what data can you present to back up your theory, whatever that may be?
uh, no, sorry. widely accepted is a human persons opinion not fact or evidence. F A I LAgain, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?
CON-FUCKING-SENSUS
From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"
The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.
Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.
pollution or climate change?Bullshit they have the biggest problem with it.The world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.Link ?Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.
It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.
Edit: 54% of Australians don't
54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova
We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.
Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?
Scientific consensus.
Why don't you Google it
Oh look Chinese don't
Climate change concern among Chinese citizens plummets, research finds
I can't say it any better than Frank:I don't care you halfwit.
Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.
Flat earthers were the accepted "consensus" once upon a time as well.
That was before the era of the scientific method (the era deniers still live in), hence it's not a valid critique of the scientific method.
The number of scientists who have been proven wrong with the their consensus viewpoints would fill an encyclopedia. Whenever those scientists derive monetary benefit from their agreement with the "consensus" they lose all credibility. The fact that you ignore that merely shows the world that YOU are a political propagandist.
And after that rant, the actual data still contradicts your claims. You can scream and rage all you want, and all the data will still contradict you. Therefore, the world will keep ignoring you. If you want the world to stop ignoring you, your side will have to do some actual science for the first time ever. Make extra sure your science successly explains all of this data:
1. The directly observed fast increase in temperatures
2. The directly observed stratospheric cooling
3. The directly observed increase in backradiation
4. The directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave radiation
5. The directly observed decrease in solar output
6. Orbital forcings that are trying to cool the earth.
(Notice how none of that involves a model.)
Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully accounts for all of the observed data. That's why it's the accepted theory. Your side, you wave your hands around, scream "Natural cycles!", and declare victory, having invoked your religious magic. And then you wonder why nobody else believes it.
they know what? ask them for an experiment to support their claim and you'll get crickets, so again....F A I LThe governments and scientists all knowThe world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.Link ?Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.The only argument you folks have any more is the grand conspiracy. Let me offer some enlightenment: the grand conspiracy isn't a viable argument. It's not even sane. Open your eyes and look where you're going.
It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.
Edit: 54% of Australians don't
54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova
We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.
Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?
Scientific consensus.
Why don't you Google it
Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.
Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult
66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult
69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult
51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult
46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult
41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult
62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult
62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult
53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult
61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult
71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult
82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult
52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult
51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult
so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.
The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.
So, just show the better data.
the thread proved you F A I L E DA few hardcore deniers certainly have worked hard to prove the thread premise to be correct beyond any doubt. To them, everything is part of the conspiracy. Serious paranoia.
Hence, this thread is a wrap.
This December, world leaders are gathering in Paris to complete a new global climate agreement – an extraordinary opportunity for the international community to meet the threat of climate change. To achieve a world where everyone lives with dignity and opportunity – a vision leaders embraced in the global goals for sustainable development – we must take strong action on climate change. Everyone has a role to play. As governments convene for the conference, civil society groups, businesses, scientists, innovators and citizens will also gather to share climate solutions and to let leaders know that every sector, every community, and every person must play an active role in addressing climate change. - See more at: Earth To ParisThe governments and scientists all knowThe world is meeting in Paris talking about going green.Link ?Everyone in the world except American Republicans know man made climate change/global warming is real.
It'll be interesting to see if the Republican nominee denies it while debating hillary.
Edit: 54% of Australians don't
54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it « JoNova
We didn't send any Republicans and fox and rush aren't talking about it. It's why you need to ask for a link.
Do you need a link if I say evolution or the big bang are real?
Scientific consensus.
Why don't you Google it
Ok since you are to lazy to get facts and just spout opinions from your butt.
Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
70% of the folks in Afghanistan don't believe in the AGW cult
66% of the folks in Cambodia don't believe in the AGW cult
69% of the folks in Chad don't believe in the AGW cult
51% of the folks in Denmark don't believe in the AGW cult
46% of the folks in Egypt don't believe in the AGW cult
41% of the folks in Germany don't believe in the AGW cult
62% of the folks in Iceland don't believe in the AGW cult
62% of the folks in Iraq don't believe in the AGW cult
53% of the folks in Norway don't believe in the AGW cult
61% of the folks in Saudi Arabia don't believe in the AGW cult
71% of the folks in South Africa don't believe in the AGW cult
82% of the folks in Tanzania don't believe in the AGW cult
52% of the folks in the United Kingdom don't believe in the AGW cult
51% of the folks in Vietnam don't believe in the AGW cult
So you went from only republicans deny man made climate change to you believing the government of North Korea on scientific matters?
What faith you have comrade .
Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.
^ Still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.
The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.
So, just show the better data.
We show data.
Yes, you show data, but none of the data is related to your claims. You give us red herrings instead of data.
You show computer derived fiction. See the difference? Nope. Didn't think you would.
I keep pointing out that the directly observed data proves global warming theory, no models required. If you're that ignorant of the basic science, you're not qualified to be in the discussion.
The stratosphere is cooling.
Backradiation is increasing.
OLR in the GHG bands is decreasing.
Those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases.
Now, what data can you present to back up your theory, whatever that may be?
No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.
The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.
So, just show the better data.
No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.
The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.
So, just show the better data.
Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?
the new method is to throw out the old scientific method and listen to Mantooth. duhOkay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.
"Modern" Scientific Method? What the hell is that? The old scientific method went something like this: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.
Yes doubt. I doubt anyone in climate science knows anything about human influence. Anyone!!! and in case you thought I studdered, ANYONE! Otherwise there would actually be evidence of such a thing and there isn't any. ANY.No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse.so show us the evidence. If it showed up, then that means it must exist, so post it up here.Prior to 1960 the "consensus" was that the Earth was contracting and that's how mountains were built. Then plate tectonics came along and blew that shit right out of the water. The scientific method has been around for centuries so you are just as ignorant of the history of science as you are its methodology and ethics.
So better evidence arrived, and the consensus changed.
The lesson we learn is that if you can show the better evidence, the consensus will change fairly quickly. That's how it was with global warming theory, or plate tectonics, or the bacterial cause of ulcers.
So, just show the better data.
Does Population Growth Impact Climate Change?
Okay, you're officially on record as rejecting the modern scientific method. Good of you to stop pretending.
"Modern" Scientific Method? What the hell is that? The old scientific method went something like this: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generallyy involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena ,experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Climate science certainly isn't following the old scientific method...describe this "modern" scientific method.
