52 Different Explanations For Gw Pause

[SSDD]

The amount of hard evidence that supports AGW is mountainous. Thousands of peer reviewed studies. Thousands of pages of the IPCC assessment reports. I don't know what you're talking about with "can't see or feel or smell or taste". The 52 reasons for the pause is an exercise in poor humor - poor 6th grade huumor. If you'd like to actually discuss possible causes for the hiatus, I'd be glad to oblige you. But the 52 reasons aren't the least bit serious and if that's what you've got, you've got nothing.

The amount of hard evidence that supports AGW is virtually zero...those thousands of pal reviewed studies you point to are all stating the results predicted by failing models...the ilcc is a political joke. There is no hard evidence which is why the debate continues...you believe...we require something more substantial than your belief to convince us....what is happening in the climate today that is outside the limits of natural variability?....what evidence do you have that proves that man is responsible for the climate of the earth remaining within the limits of natural variability?

 

[jc456]

The amount of hard evidence that supports AGW is mountainous. Thousands of peer reviewed studies. Thousands of pages of the IPCC assessment reports. I don't know what you're talking about with "can't see or feel or smell or taste". The 52 reasons for the pause is an exercise in poor humor - poor 6th grade huumor. If you'd like to actually discuss possible causes for the hiatus, I'd be glad to oblige you. But the 52 reasons aren't the least bit serious and if that's what you've got, you've got nothing.

There is zip, zero evidence. When I see these, I wll post against your lies. Liar, Liar pants on fire. You have no evidence, never did and never will because you are not involved in anything. Your side will not provide the evidence because the lack of the evidence can only suggest one thing, they AIN'T got any. LoSiNg

 

[jc456]

I see you lack the most fundamental understanding of science.

If you ever want anyone to ever take you seriously on a science topic, NEVER use the meme "theories aren't facts". The ONLY thing accomplished is to mark yourself as scientifically illiterate.

Dude, it isn't about the science, get over it.

 

[jc456]

I see you lack the most fundamental understanding of science.

If you ever want anyone to ever take you seriously on a science topic, NEVER use the meme "theories aren't facts". The ONLY thing accomplished is to mark yourself as scientifically illiterate.

Dude, it isn't about the science, get over it.

BTW, theories are presented based on facts, evidence of a huypothesis, and to date, you have zip! badda boom!

 

[jc456]

Hard to believe we've come to the point where folks will openly criticize the practice of peer review; where they will accuse mainstream science of being book burners. This is the rise of ignorance and bigotry. Is that who you want to follow?

The only peer I care about are the ones on my docks. So take your peer review and leave it in the closet. badda boom!

 

[Crick]

You have piers on your docks? Do you have ships on your boats?

I take it from this attempted diversion that you're properly embarrassed to have attacked peer review. Good for you.

 

[jc456]

You have piers on your docks? Do you have ships on your boats?

I take it from this attempted diversion that you're properly embarrassed to have attacked peer review. Good for you.

Naw, you got the drift, and that was the purpose. See I don't have to beat on it any longer, your peer review is garbage. Pointless, doesn't mean anything it's like going to the good ole boy club where women aren't allowed right? It's either their way or no way. such simple humans. I find the whole peer thing bullying. Period! So, have you got the reason for the pause yet from all of those peer folks? Nope, didn't think so. WiNNing

 

[Rambunctious]

I see you lack the most fundamental understanding of science.

If you ever want anyone to ever take you seriously on a science topic, NEVER use the meme "theories aren't facts". The ONLY thing accomplished is to mark yourself as scientifically illiterate.

So you are saying that yet to be proven scientific theory is indeed factual?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g.Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

It is a scientific fact that mammals need Oxygen to live. A scientific theory is an attempt to explain a scientific phenomenon. The Big Bang theory for example. You would never say The Big Bang Fact would you? It cannot be proven...at least not yet. Carbon based global warming has also not been proven and so it falls under the category of scientific theory. If it is ever proven you let me know. Until then I will remain skeptical and use my ears, eyes , and common sense.

 

[SSDD]

I see you lack the most fundamental understanding of science.

If you ever want anyone to ever take you seriously on a science topic, NEVER use the meme "theories aren't facts". The ONLY thing accomplished is to mark yourself as scientifically illiterate.

Dude, it isn't about the science, get over it.

BTW, theories are presented based on facts, evidence of a huypothesis, and to date, you have zip! badda boom!

In real science, when predictions are made based on a hypothesis...and the predictions fail to happen, the scientists junk the hypothesis and go back to basic research to see where they went wrong. In climate science, when the predictions fail, rather than act like scientists and go back to the basics to see where they got off track..they act like politicians and start making excuses....climate science for the past 4 decades has done little but make excuses and haven't made the first real change in the original hypothesis.....that in itself is enough to put climate science in the category of pseudosciecne.

 

[SSDD]

You have piers on your docks? Do you have ships on your boats?

I take it from this attempted diversion that you're properly embarrassed to have attacked peer review. Good for you.

As usual...you don't have a clue. In construction, a pier is a pillar. It is piers that support the structure of a dock...According to the Oxford English Dictionary...a pier is a solid support designed to sustain vertical pressure.

I can see why you fell so hard for the hoax...you don't know anything about anything.

 

[Crick]

Fucking idiot

 

[jc456]

Fucking idiot

That sir you are!!!!!

 

[Crick]

Ask your Remedial English teacher to bone you up on how conversations in text work. I don't come here to talk to myself.

WHAT a fucking idiot.

 

[jc456]

Ask your Remedial English teacher to bone you up on how conversations in text work. I don't come here to talk to myself.

WHAT a fucking idiot.

I know you are, you don't need to keep telling us that. Perhaps you have something worth posting other than your present state.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps you have a better rejoinder than one I could get from any 8 year old.