What is the RIGHT amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? (middle east, conspiracy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And it would help if people knew dialogue vs smugness.
Actually, you tried to discredit a nasa and an noaa link I posted a month back because it was in contradiction to your contention. Additionally, you then tried to 'educate' me on feedbacks, etc... Not knowing my background. I find it omicsl. I understand why others take offense and dig in.
2. Only because there are no other compelling explanations for trends observed.
3. There is plenty of investigation occurring-- ALL of it confirms AGW over and over.
4. Lies.
5. No.
6. ?????
7. WRONG.
8. There are other explanations for this.
9. You just keep saying this over and over. Other factors balanced things out at that time.
10. No it doesn't. A theory can't ignore things. The theory doesn't require that ALL warming be due to human activity!!!! I don't know how you could possibly not understand this after so many have tried so hard to drill that into your head.
11. Not ignored.
You're amazingly ignorant.
It would really help your case if you actually tried to understand how all of this works. I'm not claiming that I have any above-average degree of insight into all of this, but at the very least I have a basic grasp of the theory and every time you post it is very clear that you do not even have a superficial understanding of it.
And it would help if people knew dialogue vs smugness.
How's that going for you? How is just smugly stating you find every thread 'comical', dialogue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
Actually, you tried to discredit a nasa and an noaa link I posted a month back because it was in contradiction to your contention.
No, he didn't. And no, the NASA link wasn't a contradiction. It was your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge (or perhaps deliberate dishonest misrepresentation?) that appeared to be the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
Additionally, you then tried to 'educate' me on feedbacks, etc... Not knowing my background. I find it omicsl. I understand why others take offense and dig in.
Perhaps it was because your statements showed such obvious ignorance on the subject? Yes, I'm sure other fake 'skeptics' like yourself and 'Hawkesy' who smugly believe 'you know better than everyone', (including all the real experts in many different fields), take 'offence' when your evidence-free assertions are shown to be wrong.
Just curious, is anybody here in Florida's Atlantic coast? Would love to hear their opinions on the topic. They probably know almost as much about the threat of melting arctic sea ice as anybody.
2. Only because there are no other compelling explanations for trends observed.
3. There is plenty of investigation occurring-- ALL of it confirms AGW over and over.
4. Lies.
5. No.
6. ?????
7. WRONG.
8. There are other explanations for this.
9. You just keep saying this over and over. Other factors balanced things out at that time.
10. No it doesn't. A theory can't ignore things. The theory doesn't require that ALL warming be due to human activity!!!! I don't know how you could possibly not understand this after so many have tried so hard to drill that into your head.
11. Not ignored.
You're amazingly ignorant.
It would really help your case if you actually tried to understand how all of this works. I'm not claiming that I have any above-average degree of insight into all of this, but at the very least I have a basic grasp of the theory and every time you post it is very clear that you do not even have a superficial understanding of it.
You guys are so priceless. If nothing else it is good for a laugh.
#1 was so laughable I don't even need to refute your other absurd retorts. Obviously you know nothing about science or what actually constitutes "refuting the null hypothesis", which is the cornerstone of science.
This is from your "source". You and Ceist have no idea what constitutes a good study vs internet trash.
"In a paper enticingly titled “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming,” Shaun Lovejoy can’t prove a negative – that humans aren’t ruining our planet."
................... that was from your crappy source, which refutes your absurd notion anyway.
How's that going for you? How is just smugly stating you find every thread 'comical', dialogue?
No, he didn't. And no, the NASA link wasn't a contradiction. It was your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge (or perhaps deliberate dishonest misrepresentation?) that appeared to be the issue.
Perhaps it was because your statements showed such obvious ignorance on the subject? Yes, I'm sure other fake 'skeptics' like yourself and 'Hawkesy' who smugly believe 'you know better than everyone', (including all the real experts in many different fields), take 'offence' when your evidence-free assertions are shown to be wrong.
You're replies are priceless. I need say more.
Please keep them coming. And again, your credentials? Lacking
How's that going for you? How is just smugly stating you find every thread 'comical', dialogue?
No, he didn't. And no, the NASA link wasn't a contradiction. It was your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge (or perhaps deliberate dishonest misrepresentation?) that appeared to be the issue.
Perhaps it was because your statements showed such obvious ignorance on the subject? Yes, I'm sure other fake 'skeptics' like yourself and 'Hawkesy' who smugly believe 'you know better than everyone', (including all the real experts in many different fields), take 'offence' when your evidence-free assertions are shown to be wrong.
Btw... Evidence free assertions? Find what I have claimed besides this simple statement: climate changes. We have very little clue as to why. We don't know enough or have enough credible evidence to support any substantiated conclusion. Therefore, no legislation should be enacted...
So, non expert and very poor sophist, what is not ideologogicalolitical, motive wise in what I state vs you? Flipping know nothing since you are an all seer. Hit a nerve? Good.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change and led by Delphine Deryng, an environmental scientist at the University of Chicago’s Computation Institute, Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, finds that higher atmospheric CO2 will increase the water productivity of staple crops, including wheat, maize, rice and soybean. Modeling data found that in 2080 the elevated CO2 would improve agricultural water efficiency and increase crop yield—but not enough to completely offset the expected decline from climate change.
I live in the country where this is happening, you complete genius. It's on the news here, it's in the public consciousness, and the people who live there say they've never experienced anything like it. We see the evidence of it quite plainly. I know it's hard when you live in a country full of stupid, but what can I do? Believe what you want because it is happening.
What's happening? The public consciousness? Most people are worried about not getting stuff. Not about a nebulous theory.
What evidence? You go into arm waving hysteria shrieking about something you can't change just to feel better about yourself.
Climate change will happen and no amount of doomsday predictions, hand wringing whining will change one iota of human behaviour.
But those that shriek the loudest should do their part so start walking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.