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.
I take winning arguments as victory that I’m too smart for you. The volcanoes were either snow covered or they had absolutely nothing to do with recovery. And know also that as the planet warmed by the sun, as snow melted, CO2 was released! There’s no other option. Since you think there was shows your stupid!so you're saying the ice covered the volcanoes too?
No, I didn't say anything like that.
jc, the problem with talking to you is that you're just a profoundly stupid human being. You fail completely at basic English and basic logic. Talking to you is like talking to a chimp. You're too stupid to be wasting the time of the grownups, and you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.
All you are doing is reinforcing that CO2 follows temperature.
No, you just made an idiot story up. It's all you ever do.
You can't be saying that CO2 melted the snow are you?
Anyone who isn't a piss-chugging retard says that, as it's what the hard data says. You can keep denying the hard data, but it only makes you look dumber.
CO2 produces warming through an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
No, there's no evidence saying that. That theory makes no sense. How could warming cause the oceans to release CO2 when the oceans were frozen?
The CO2, which came from volcanoes over millions of years, led the warming 500 million years ago.
And you haven't answered. How does your "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" theory explain why earth came out of the snowball earth phase? You pseudoscience has no explanation for that, hence it's wrong.
You pseudoscience has no explanation for that, hence it's wrong.
Can you show us denier here who doesn't embrace right wing politics?
Empirical evidence that added CO2 causes increased global warming
And for someone using the term "retard". can I ask if you've gotten through that tough final in third grade yet?
Antarctic Ice core data shows exactly that, the CO2 lags by as much as 800 years. And the "snowball Earth theory" has hardly been proved.
No one is saying CO2 isn't a GHG..
This all comes down to the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging fro 10 C to .7 C for a doubling of CO2. Currently I believe the IPCC folks are leaning toward 3.2 C, or somewhere in that range. Get back to me when someone has proof of their numbers. As yet no one has anything but estimates.
Pseudoscience? What pseudoscience would that be?
Demanding proof, solid evidence? You have abandoned the scientific method.
There is nothing that infuriates me more than people claiming to KNOW things that they don't.
Define right wing politics. Anyone to the right of chairman Mao? Look around, Ben Shapiro is cast as a neonazi.
The give away is the yamaka, you know the Jewish skull cap worn by nazis. Ben Carson, a successful black neurosurgeon is a white supremacist. Yeesh. You really need to come up with a new political schtick. This one ain't working.
I win consistently daily in here. so far you haven't posted one piece of observed data. Not one!!! dude, I win everyday you fail that one task. and you must certainly enjoy failing.How long have you been waiting to win an argument JC?
Have you ever considered moving to the side that actually wins arguments? The one with all the data and all the scientists behind it? Eh?
The topic was the snowball earth era, not the recent past. There is no evidence of what you claim in the snowball earth era. And, as I keep telling you, CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. You even agree with me about that later, when you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
You need to read this forum more, as the loudest deniers say exactly that, over and over.
The low estimates are obviously wrong. Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C warming. That puts TCS around 2.0C. ECS has to be significantly bigger than TCS. The 3.0C estimates look pretty good, based on the past performance of earth's climate.
Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.
Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.
Evidence that we've provided, and which you haven't. We use the scientific method, while you declare you're above all that. Science accepts the best theory that explains all the observed evidence. That's AGW theory. If you want that changed, you'll need to to present a better theory. If you won't, nobody will pay attention to you. Needless to say, "You can't be sure of your theory!" is not a better alternate theory.
Such as you "knowing" the science must be wrong, without having
any evidence to back up that belief.
So you're not denying it, but you are trying to deflect.
Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.
Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.
- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.baileyn45 said:Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.
I'm terribly sorry to break your bubble, but you've never won a single argument here that I've ever seen. You've annoyed people sufficiently that stopped talking to you or even left the forum altogether, but that's not the same thing as winning an argument.
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia
Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.[1]
1) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Archived from the original on 29 May 2006. Retrieved 2 August 2007.
The LIA is considered to have ended @1850. We are not "coming out" of it. TSI says the globe should be cooling but it is warming instead.
Evidence DOES exist as to the climate 550 million years ago. Current theories are the best available - that's how actual science works.
This says GHGs are the number one thing we should be worried about:
- this indicates you're understanding of basic science is extraordinarily flawed.baileyn45 said:Science couldn't care less about theory, prove it or shut up.
You accuse Mamooth of having a political motivation then burst into a rant about black lives matter, black-on-black violence, black-on-Hispanic-violence, black-on-asian violence, Nazis, Russian bots, black fascism, internalized white supremacy, strong women, internalized misogyny, gender dynamics.
The impression you clearly give is that no one on this forum was the first to tell you you're a racist bigot.
The world is getting warmer. Mountains of evidence have convinced virtually all climate scientists that the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That warming represents a real threat to human well being. Effects are being seen now and we are rapidly approaching (or may have already passed) the point at which it is even possible to do anything about it. Given human reluctance to ever act as dramatically as the situation actually requires likely makes all this discussion moot, but that's another debate.
and not one of your posts with observed empirical data.Empirical evidence that added CO2 causes increased global warming
And for someone using the term "retard". can I ask if you've gotten through that tough final in third grade yet?
Billy Bob. You said "Common ******... Post up empirical evidence of this "enhancement" I dare you! (we've been asking for years now)".
Anyone who's been here for years could tell you that the above data or any number of graphics with the same information have been posted numerous times on this forum. So have data like:
which show that CO2 absorbs some of the IR spectrum that the Earth radiates and, I believe, was posted on this forum by YOU within the last couple of weeks.
So, how did you come to conclude that no one had ever posted evidence of CO2 causing warming? Did you assume just about every scientist on the planet had accepted greenhouse warming and AGW without evidence that CO2 was, in fact, a greenhouse gas?
well you just post up all that observed empirical data and then we'll talk. until then, that was as good as a poopy diaper in a trash can.Antarctic Ice core data shows exactly that, the CO2 lags by as much as 800 years. And the "snowball Earth theory" has hardly been proved.
The topic was the snowball earth era, not the recent past. There is no evidence of what you claim in the snowball earth era. And, as I keep telling you, CO2 is a forcing and a feedback. You even agree with me about that later, when you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one is saying CO2 isn't a GHG..
You need to read this forum more, as the loudest deniers say exactly that, over and over.
This all comes down to the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Over the years I've seen estimates ranging fro 10 C to .7 C for a doubling of CO2. Currently I believe the IPCC folks are leaning toward 3.2 C, or somewhere in that range. Get back to me when someone has proof of their numbers. As yet no one has anything but estimates.
The low estimates are obviously wrong. Half a doubling of CO2 has caused 1.0C warming. That puts TCS around 2.0C. ECS has to be significantly bigger than TCS. The 3.0C estimates look pretty good, based on the past performance of earth's climate.
Pseudoscience? What pseudoscience would that be?
As you won't tell what your science is, I was being kind by calling it pseudoscience.
Demanding proof, solid evidence? You have abandoned the scientific method.
Evidence that we've provided, and which you haven't. We use the scientific method, while you declare you're above all that. Science accepts the best theory that explains all the observed evidence. That's AGW theory. If you want that changed, you'll need to to present a better theory. If you won't, nobody will pay attention to you. Needless to say, "You can't be sure of your theory!" is not a better alternate theory.
There is nothing that infuriates me more than people claiming to KNOW things that they don't.
Such as you "knowing" the science must be wrong, without having any evidence to back up that belief.
Define right wing politics. Anyone to the right of chairman Mao? Look around, Ben Shapiro is cast as a neonazi.
So you're not denying it, but you are trying to deflect.
The give away is the yamaka, you know the Jewish skull cap worn by nazis. Ben Carson, a successful black neurosurgeon is a white supremacist. Yeesh. You really need to come up with a new political schtick. This one ain't working.
Our side focuses on issues, because we can. Significant majorities agree with us on all the issues.
Your side can't discuss issues, being your policies are so unpopular. That's why you choose to deflect with faked stories about being called racists and Nazis. You rely primarily on tossing race cards (like Carson and Shapiro), using identity politics and throwing victimhood tantrums. I won't say you should change that if you want to stop losing, because that's not correct. You'll keep losing if you don't change, but you'll lose even bigger if you do change and start being honest about your policies. I will say you should change your policies, being they're so incompetent and immoral.
well until you post that observed empirical data that shows AGW. I win. as do each of the other skeptics in here. WinningI'm terribly sorry to break your bubble, but you've never won a single argument here that I've ever seen. You've annoyed people sufficiently that stopped talking to you or even left the forum altogether, but that's not the same thing as winning an argument.
and yet, still no observed measured empirical data to prove AGW. And I wanted to thank you for colorful graphs that show me you haven't a clue of what you are doing. just saying. don't take it too hard.I'm terribly sorry to break your bubble, but you've never won a single argument here that I've ever seen. You've annoyed people sufficiently that stopped talking to you or even left the forum altogether, but that's not the same thing as winning an argument.
Hmmm.....why then are you perpetually so pissed off in here when you post stuff while I am always laughing? We see daily head explosions from you in here! Does that happen with people who are winning?
You have won no arguments here. You're generally given the same consideration one would give the town drunk.
