Houston's chemical pollution and Trump's firing half the EPA will revive that debate after Harvey.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Get the fuck over yourself who said anything I was smarter "


You are smarter than them all, or they are all lying, or a mix of the two.. Pick your poison. Any of them are absurd.

Listen you little cock sucker are you going to debate or just deflect?

Am I going to debate accepted scientific theories with a bunch of blog-educated deniers? Negative, ghost rider.


No, that's an exercise for a freshman college course. Hint: it always ends the same way.

I am way more interested in the other stuff you need to account for, especially this grand conspiracy or grand incompetence, whichever the case may be. I'm all ears, like your avatar.

Once again needle dick, still won't post the research of the acedmey of Athens did on man made climate change..of course you won't you will be like the original poster and just parrot 200 science organization"s like a good propaganda tool that you are.

"still won't post the research of the acedmey of Athens did on man made climate change."

What a ridiculous idea... as if every scientific society or researcher who is a member (like, the US Geological Society, which also endorses the consensus) has to repeat the work of all the others. Nobody even implied such a claim, and to imply, much less directly expect them to have done this is just really stupid. The point was the consensus of the major scientific organizations around the globe.

Now, back to the question: All incompetent, all liars, or a mix of both?

Of course you and the original poster did, so know you telling us they agree just to get grant money?



Yup that's part of it.

.

so, they are lying for grant money. Fascinating. what percentage of them? 100%? 50%? then there is still 50% to account for. Now, remember, they are all in general agreement. So, they are all liars, or are the rest just incompetent?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Now tell me Einstein, why has the IPCC reduced the climate sensitivity of CO2 from 6.0 deg C Per doubling to just 0.5 deg C per doubling?"

Go to their website and find out. i'm not your mommy.

SO you do not know and you are spouting Bull Shit Talking Points... Noted..

Now you little millennial piece of shit.. Get our of mommy's basement, get a job, and quit sucking off of your mommy..

You can get as mad at me as you like and call me anything you like. It doesn't have any bearing on the idea that you goobers think you have outsmarted the global scientific community, or you are claiming they are liars. It seems like a mix of both. As we already know, you say it's both.

It is right to point out how ridiculous and bizarre these claims are. You get to own them. And you should reap the rewards of ownership.

All projection on your point needle dick, the only one who says it's a grand conspiracy is your side....we just don't have all the data to come to a conclusion.

".we just don't have all the data to come to a conclusion."

What conclusion is that? "a conclusion"... there's only one, eh? Uhhh....

Scientists have come to some conclusions, and you are saying they are false. Own it. Incompetent, liars, or a mix of both?

Post the conclusion"s of the 200 science organization's..that you want to parrot ..what did all 200 agree on?


Once again you sheep that's why I started to click on the fucking links...don't give me names, any moron can post names, give me what their research was.

"Post the conclusion"s of the 200 science organization's..that you want to parrot ..what did all 200 agree on? "

You can look that up yourself. i am not your mommy. I'll bet you can guess it, though. But look it up anyway.

 

[SSDD]

Dude I have 34 years of temperature reading equipment knowledge, I am a fucking expert...

Being an expert, I would be interested in you take on a question I have been asking for quite some time but to date haven't received a rational, scientifically sound answer.

Of what benefit exactly is altering temperature records from 30, 40, 50, even over 100 years ago?

 

[SSDD]

Neither you nor anyone else has shown any significant amount fraud or lies that affect the theories. None. That's because there isn't any, because it is an absurd idea to claim this vast conspiracy. You suffer from delusions of grandeur, and clearly cannot even see how embarrassingly bizarre your own behavior is.

What there isn't any of is observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...but do feel free to prove me wrong...I am not asking for decades of data...I am not asking for mountains of evidence...I am asking for just one piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and to date...after at least 3 decades of asking, I have yet to see even one piece of real data that supports man made climate change over natural variability.

You also will not be able to provide any such evidence because it simply does not exist...that should, if you are possess any critical thinking skills at all should alter your belief on the hypotheses...Hell, how about one real world measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming int the atmosphere.

 

[Billo_Really]

Boy I feel so embarrassed for you the first science organization in your link

1. Academy of Athens
2. Academy of Science of Mozambique

I clicked said file not found...



Some fucking idiot just putting names together in a link doesn't mean a damn thing.btw who do you think these organizations get their info from? ...the IPCC, NOAA , NASA..


2. So you think 13 years of ocean temperature records are significant?



Ocean temperture records

So what's your point?

 

[Billo_Really]

Looks like the Idiot bar is set pretty low...

So you believe the 77 papers that Cook kept and ignore the other 16,944 papers that say you all are full of shit...

I am embarrassed that you call your self a scientist when it is glaringly obvious that you are not, and both of you spout left wing talking points even when those lies have been shown fraud over and over again..

Pathetic ignoramus is what I would label you ... That bar is pretty much ground level..

You haven't shown anything to be a fraud and I never said I was a scientist. The consensus on global warming is almost 100% that it is real and it is man-made. The only people who don't believe this, are fossil fuel bitches such as yourself.

 

[Billo_Really]

Dude I have 34 years of temperature reading equipment knowledge, I am a fucking expert...

2. And now your totally embarrassing yourself, like numb nuts did, where in your link does they say man is causing climate change?

Right here, dumbass!

Facts and Metrics
Climate change poses an immediate and growing threat to California’s economy, environment, and to public health. California’s groundbreaking efforts are helping reduce greenhouse gases emissions, which are warming the planet. The state is also taking action to prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change, including the increased likelihood of both flooding and drought.

While California is taking action, some of those who oppose the move to renewable energy and cleaner transportation have mis-characterized the science of climate change in an effort to create artificial uncertainty about the existence and causes of climate change.

The fact is that on the key issues, the science is clear: climate change is real and happening now; human-made greenhouse gas emissions are affecting our planet; and we need to take action. Just as we reached a point where we stopped debating whether cigarette smoke causes cancer, we need to end the climate change debate and focus on how to solve the problem.
​

Questions or comments?

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes you are a child, people like me have been arguing this waaayyyy before the internet.



.

So what do you want? A cookie?

 

[Billo_Really]

There it is.. the Appeal to authority even when your authorities are being shown frauds and liars..

Please provide the empirically observed evidence to prove that man is solely responsible for all warming post 1900.. I'll wait..

There's that right wing talking point again. We should just call you fuckers.........."the repeaters".

While you're chewing on that, here's some "peer reviewed empirical stuff" for you to digest. I suggest you take it rectally.

Past and recent drivers of climate change
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era driven largely by economic and population growth. From 2000 to 2010 emissions were the highest in history. Historical emissions have driven atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to levels that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system.​

 

[Billo_Really]

So as a solution to plane crashes you plan on abolishing the law of gravity?
How you going to prove that man made gravity causes more plane crashes than natural gravity?

Like Donald Trump? Every time I see him, he drags me down.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There it is.. the Appeal to authority even when your authorities are being shown frauds and liars..

Please provide the empirically observed evidence to prove that man is solely responsible for all warming post 1900.. I'll wait..

There's that right wing talking point again. We should just call you fuckers.........."the repeaters".

While you're chewing on that, here's some "peer reviewed empirical stuff" for you to digest. I suggest you take it rectally.

Past and recent drivers of climate change
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era driven largely by economic and population growth. From 2000 to 2010 emissions were the highest in history. Historical emissions have driven atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to levels that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system.​

Same old circular logic fail... Your not worth wasting my time on because your to stupid to teach.. You have no critical thinking skills. You have no physical evidence, observations, or quantifiable process that proves CO2 is doing anything.. And your holy grail of modeling has failed empirical review..

Like I said, the idiot bar is set at ground level..

 

[Billo_Really]

Same old circular logic fail... Your not worth wasting my time on because your to stupid to teach.. You have no critical thinking skills. You have no physical evidence, observations, or quantifiable process that proves CO2 is doing anything.. And your holy grail of modeling has failed empirical review..

Like I said, the idiot bar is set at ground level..

I didn't write that, the IPCC did. Are you saying you are more well versed on this subject than they are? What are your credentials? What studies have you done?