Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.
And?
Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.
Your kidding, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.
And?
Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.
Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.
And?
Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.
Your kidding, right?
Yes. And the planet warmed and cooled long before man showed up, too.
And?
Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.
Every single "solution" to AGW ultimately boils down to advocating world socialism.Obviously, global socialism is the only thing that will save us!It was 1.8 mm per year not that long ago. And nature tends to do things in spurts, not the nice even lines you see on graphs. A 2 meter rise, which is likely by 2100 would critically damage many of the present ports.
Who, beyond the strawman above, is proposing such?
And?
Presumably you have a reason for stating the obvious and well evidenced.
Your kidding, right?
Not at all.
Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.
Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.
Your kidding, right?
Not at all.
Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.
Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.
No. It thinks it does.
I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.Not at all.
Science knows, has compelling evidence of, and has a pretty solid understanding of the causes of nearly all the previous geologic periods of warming and cooling on our planet.
Just as it has a very good understanding of the current warming and the causes of that warming.
No. It thinks it does.
With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.
If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.
I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.No. It thinks it does.
With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.
If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
I'm not a scientist,No. It thinks it does.
With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.
If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.
We believe you.
and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.
Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.
But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?
No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,
Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.
and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
I'm not a scientist,With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.
If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.
We believe you.
and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.
Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.
But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?
No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,
Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.
and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?
Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.
So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?
It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.
The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.
If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.
There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist. Stop pretending you're interested in debate. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.I'm not a scientist,With scientifically compelling evidentiary support.
If you know of scientifically compelling evidence that refutes or overturns that support, please link or cite that verifiable evidence.
We believe you.
and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.
Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.
But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?
No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,
Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.
and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?
Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.
So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?
It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.
I'm not a scientist,
We believe you.
and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.
Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.
But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?
No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,
Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.
and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?
Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.
So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?
It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.
Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda drive science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.
The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.I'm not a scientist, and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question. No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents, and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.
There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist. Stop pretending you're interested in debate. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.I'm not a scientist,
We believe you.
and, unlike some people here, I don't play one on the internet.
Nor do I, that is why I post my sources, who are, indeed, scientists.
What I've seen calls the whole premise into question.
But there is some rule against you posting what you have seen?
No small part of that is the words and actions of the proponents,
Come now, all yap-yap, no specifics.
and the cultlike behavior of their supporters.
Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?
Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.
So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?
It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.
Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?
Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.
So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?
It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.
Roxie, your a silly ass, all of this has been hashed out before. You will never admit that there was agenda drive science going on by the IPCC. Get over it ol' boy.
Evidence for which is?
As are all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities. In fact, as is just about any thinking person. Of course, that excludes you.
According to AGW scientists, climate change has dire consequences for humanity.The people are responsible for the science. And their actions are irresponsible.For the most part, I could care less about the people, the politics or "the movement," my primary interest and focus is on the science. Knowing and understanding much of the science involved allows me to distinguish and seperate those who are accurately portraying it and those who are not. As long as they are remaining fairly accurate and in accord with the science, I'm really uninterested in any other aspect of their political or social spin or manuevering with regards to the science.
The evidence for which is?
I have posted information from scientific sources. You don't even read the damn articles. Coward.There is nothing I could show you that would sway you, Old Cultist. Stop pretending you're interested in debate. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist's.Cult like? In what way and manner? Is posting sources from Scientific Societies, posting lectures from the meeting of those societies, cult like? How about the postings from our National Academy of Science? Do you consider the scientists that belong to that as cultists? On what basis?
Daveboy, once again you avoid real discussion and settle for cheap insults and meaningless talking points.
So, specifically, are you stating that AGW does not exist? On what basis? The evidence of which is? And who observed that evidence where and when?
It is a scientific subject, bring some science to the table, boy.
Since you have yet to show anything from a scientific source, how would you know that?