Glacier National Park.....climate scientists wrong AGAIN!!

[forkup]

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

What needs to be done to save those millions of lives you pretend to care about? Do tell us.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

12,000 years ago the Great Lakes did not exist.

You moonbats would be declaring an environmental disaster if they formed today.

 

[forkup]

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?

Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?

Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?

Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy. Having said that I see no reason to not try to go full blast for renewable energy and phase it out as quickly as is practical.

 

[TNHarley]

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

 

[forkup]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

So NASA and basically 90 to 97 percent of the scientific community depending on how you rate consensus are just making stuff up? And for once I'd like you to answer a direct question."So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children?"

 

[MisterBeale]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

IOW, the establishment says we need a global world wide communist police state, and you swallow it, hook line and sinker.

Nice.

 

[skookerasbil]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

I concur.........so if its "never completely settled.....that's how it works" we really don't know dick about tomorrow..........or 50 years from now. So this idea of "we must address climate change now" is a bunch of bullshit. To accomplish what exactly? Moreover, can we actually accomplish anything? Anybody who says yes to that is short some cards in the deck.

Bottom line is...........the climate change industry still hasn't made its case. If it had, we might actually have a presidential debate that brings the subject up.......lol.......its still yet to be addressed. Because........in 2017, nobody is caring about climate change. Might be big in internet forums and in academia and the media........but nobody else is sitting home worrying about climate change. Ten years of zero climate change legislation from congress is all you need to know. People are much more concerned about real stuff right in front of them............

 

[TNHarley]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

So NASA and basically 90 to 97 percent of the scientific community depending on how you rate consensus are just making stuff up? And for once I'd like you to answer a direct question."So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children?"

Humans fill in questions and chaos. Most humans cant accept we cant know everything.
I DID answer it. I said "there is nothing but doubt"
Show me evidence humans are causing the climate to change.

 

[TNHarley]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

IOW, the establishment says we need a global world wide communist police state, and you swallow it, hook line and sinker.

Nice.

Weird how the "solutions" make it to where only the rich can afford meat, transportation and children.
They dont have any solutions to NATURAL earth evolution.
What a bunch of hucksters..

 

[forkup]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

Sure I'll give you evidence
There is a sharp increase in CO2 levels.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat

The planet is heating up

Cause and effect clear as day.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

Sure I'll give you evidence
There is a sharp increase in CO2 levels.
View attachment 148822
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat
View attachment 148823
The planet is heating up
View attachment 148824
Cause and effect clear as day.

I wouldn't link to such bullshit either.

 

[TNHarley]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

Sure I'll give you evidence
There is a sharp increase in CO2 levels.
View attachment 148822
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat
View attachment 148823
The planet is heating up
View attachment 148824
Cause and effect clear as day.

So, CO2 increases, along with temp, are a new thing?
What about our ice age? Does that not have anything to do with it?
Do you understand how long Earths history is? Of course not. We cant fathom that shit. But we can certainly fill in holes with assumption, cant we?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

So NASA and basically 90 to 97 percent of the scientific community depending on how you rate consensus are just making stuff up? And for once I'd like you to answer a direct question."So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children?"

Moron uses the 97% of all scientists myth!

 

[MisterBeale]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

So NASA and basically 90 to 97 percent of the scientific community depending on how you rate consensus are just making stuff up? And for once I'd like you to answer a direct question."So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children?"

You are like the medicine man, the tribal elder, and the chief of the tribe, saying to the people of the tribe, we need more of your produce and grain, b/c look, the gods tell us it is necessary by predicting the eclipse, after said eclipse happens. (All the while, the medicine man is the only one that knew the true cause of the eclipse because it was handed down from holy man to holy man.)

Why should the people of the tribe believe those in a position of authority? Just b/c they are in positions of authority?

I've tried to explain to you what causes the initiation of the Carbon forcing from the oceans and perma-frost, yet you will not listen.

So either you know, or you are at this point being willfully ignorant.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Media Hype Davos Climate Change Focus as 1,700 Private Jets Fly In

Media Hype Davos Climate Change Focus as 1,700 Private Jets Fly In

 

[Weatherman2020]

"The 40,000 diplomats, politicians, activists, and journalists expected to attend the UN climate summit in Paris will be spending two weeks at an airport. And not just any airport. Dedicated exclusively to private jets, Paris Le Bourget is the busiest private jet hub in Europe."

Private Jet Airport Hosts Paris Climate Summit

 

[Weatherman2020]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not Enough Parking for Private Jets Going to UN Climate Conference

Not Enough Parking for Private Jets Going to UN Climate Conference

 

[Weatherman2020]

Leonardo DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles on private jet to accept environmental award

Carbon footprint lunacy: Leonardo DiCaprio flies 8,000 miles on private jet to accept environmental award