Man made Climate Change

[SSDD]

The only "amazing feat" they pulled off was fooling so many people.

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


Step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. My bet is that it isn't going to happen.

Cross posting again.

Still asking for a single piece of data or a paper that would satisfy any of the three...any thread concerning climate science should have those 3 statements posted.

 

[SSDD]

Lets put aside that there are legitimate and serious questions that man is causing any kind of fluctuation in climate change.

And there is no observed, measured data to support the claim that we are altering the global climate...only idiots, and people who are easily fooled believe otherwise.

 

[SSDD]

And how much wildlife was killed by the pollution produced by the fossil fuel plants they replaced?

What percentage of the global raptor, bat, and migratory bird population has to die before you admit that wind is a losing proposition? Or are you willing to see them all go rather than admit that you were wrong? Then maybe pretend they were never here in the first place.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.

What does that have to we with us getting all the science right for the past 40 years?

So, science supports hacking off a dick makes a fine woman? Surprise.

 

[Wuwei]

The only "amazing feat" they pulled off was fooling so many people.

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


Step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. My bet is that it isn't going to happen.

Cross posting again.

Still asking for a single piece of data or a paper that would satisfy any of the three...any thread concerning climate science should have those 3 statements posted.

Cross posting again.
I'm not going to cross post my answers again. Your # 2 was proven wrong many times. Look at the complete rebuttal where it was originally your OP. Your main retort was that you don't believe in the science. Yes, we know that already.

 

[polarbear]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

And what does a "climatologist" know about how to land a spacecraft on Mars?
Did that 97% consensus of "scientists" the much quoted cartoonist from Australia fabricated include any scientists who design and build the hardware that can land on Mars? Of course not. None of them would even waste their time to read the crap these so called scientists publish at a rate exceeding that of gossip columnists.
It takes an incredibly stupid person to be ignorant of the fact that the entire technology and science it takes to land a probe on Mars has been developed by the very same people the likes of you have been demonstrating against ever since ballistic missiles were the weapon of choice to make America great...greater than its enemies.
If anything with a president like Trump who made that a priority, this technology is going to boom as opposed to be stifled by some idiot like Obama who wanted to make "climate change" and "affirmative action" a NASA priority.

 

[saveliberty]

Wow the Faithers have done it. France is rioting over a global warming tax.

Actually, a fuel tax

Your ability to not see the big picture is epically continued.

 

[mamooth]

So, science supports hacking off a dick makes a fine woman? Surprise.

I'm sorry to hear about your problem. However, it has nothing do with your failure-cult's 40 years of total failure, so I don't see how it's relevant.

 

[mamooth]

That's true. The junk-science hoax of "man-made global warming" was only cooked up to be used as a political and economic tool for the propagation of globalism and socialism.

It's conspiracy turtles all the way down.

Mainstream climate science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because that's how real science works.

Denialism is exclusively restricted to the crank-right-wing-extremist political fringe cult, because that's how propaganda works.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh dear God, not another one.

Free yourself from the illusion...

They refuse to. They could freeze to death in Ecuador and believe their stupid shit.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So, science supports hacking off a dick makes a fine woman? Surprise.

I'm sorry to hear about your problem. However, it has nothing do with your failure-cult's 40 years of total failure, so I don't see how it's relevant.

I have no problem. Merely chuckling at your claim of "getting all the science right".

 

[Pete7469]

Mainstream climate science crosses all political boundaries all around the world, because that's how real science works.

Complete horseshit "climate science" crosses the boundary of criminal fraud.

Denialism is exclusively restricted to the crank-right-wing-extremist political fringe cult, because that's how propaganda works.

Says a zealot of the moonbat messiah.

.

 

[Crick]

Mamooth's observations match my observations and that of almost everyone else. Don't be embarrassed. It's not as if no one knew where you stood on these things. If you're going to choose to argue against ten thousand PhDs, you probably need to expect to lose.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, science supports hacking off a dick makes a fine woman? Surprise.

I'm sorry to hear about your problem. However, it has nothing do with your failure-cult's 40 years of total failure, so I don't see how it's relevant.

And that's why Kyoto passed with how many votes in the US Senate?

 

[Crick]

I guess we can thank another Republican president for that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess we can thank another Republican president for that.

Which one?

 

[Crick]

That good looking one with the white hair who could play the saxophone...

 

[Crepitus]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

What do you know about science?

More than any bloody tRumpkin I guarantee that.